/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6854789
>you are purposefully misreading his work. it is about interpretation of the content, not the artistic status of a piece. it's about the author's interpretation of his own work not having more weight than a third person's.
i know what it is about. i'm just using it to explain my own stance on art. and it's not like art isn't something you take in and interpret. my stance is just that it does not matter what the creator did. if it resonates, it resonates.

>enjoyed being laughed at then.
enjoy then.
i mean what do you expect will happen? i will just tell you my interpretation of art and you will yours. and then you will say "i'm right!" like a retarded toddler (like you're already doing right now) and that will be the entirety of the discussion. there can be no truth, no end. it's just my theory versus yours. because art is too vague and undefined.
it is really not that hard to understand: it WILL come down to your interpretation of art versus mine. and it will never move forward from that point.
so again. pointless discussion.

this is not like the other arguments i'm having itt where points can be made. logic can be used. this is just a highly subjective masturbation about what you consider art or not.

>yes, I have provided an example, in those videos there's almost no artistic interpretation to add and the software still fucks that up. unless you create a sentient Ai that understands how the physical world works,
ah i see now.
you're mostly just delusional.

you know that >>6852010 is not rotoscoped on any footage, right? same with pic related.
so it already is capable of PULLING 16 FRAMES completely OUT OF ITS ASS based on one single input.
and you're saying the AI won't be capable of interpolating less frames between existing frames?