/lit/ - Literature

>>22574605
AI poster kys now

we seriously need an /ai/ containment board, even multiple ones at this point

>>22574608
>>22574609
>noooo you must stop having fun with technology!
>because I said so that's why
kys obsolete luddite retards

>>22574609
They will probably just make /lit/ the AI board just like they dumped /qa/ on us and made us worksafe /pol/ and really just dumped everything understandable about 4chan onto /lit/ because books for this feel? The only thing we have going for us are half a dozen worthwhile posters and pony content still gets deleted.

>>22574605
>>22574627
id be interested in where these originate from

I agree with you OP, I find myself constantly generating images every time I hit a description or scene I like, it's so fun

>>22574627
Literally tranny logic. I said
>get a room, go have your fun somewhere else, I'm not here to see this shit
you somehow understood
>stop doing what I don't like

>>22574664
why do u dislike ai images being posted?

>>22574605
Have your fun, but remember that the accessibility of this technology is replacing what should be your drive to learn to creat things yourself. All along you could have achieved the same effect if you took the time to learn how to draw in stead of shit posting on anonymous message boards.

Anyone know an AI tool where I can transform my own uploaded image? Like a photo from my phone and transform it to anime style?

>>22574664
AI shit is dangerous, it's ahrimanic.

This is a good book, also pic related.
https://wn.rudolfsteinerelib.org/RelArtic/BlackDavid/DB1981/CmpAhr_index.html

>>22574650
Mine is just a variation of Babylon. Here's another comfy one. I love having the AI paint suggestive scenes for fantasy worlds etc.

>>22574664
gonna get used to it gramps

>>22574676
>AI shit is dangerous, it's ahrimanic.
"ai shit is dangerous because its a mystical term i didnt even bother to explain bc i have my head shoved deeply up my own ass"

>>22574684
AI makes great illustrations, I always hated how some of the fantasy novels I liked didn't have good illustrations because the publishers were cheap fucks, now I can experiment with AI and get better results

It's already annoying, it's the pornography of art. Dumbdumbs have to constantly vomit it in everyone's faces.

>>22574605
I just, imagine it. Must suck to not have a soul though :(

>>22574706
I like seeing my imagination manifested into a real image.

>>22574702
>>22574706
idk what u guys means bc if these pics were posted w/o context u wouldnt even be able to tell they were ai

>>22574702
Has anyone managed to combine art and pornography? It seems somehow impossible. I once caused serious butthurt here by describing Ulysses as pornographic, though I didn't mean it as an insult. The last chapter of the book just feel slightly like porn at two or three moments. Lolita also feels this way during the Carmen scene a bit

>>22574712
Your reading comprehension sucks

>>22574627
>>22574712
>a boat with legs
lol

>>22574605
I kinda want to just start using ai for reading books, to see how it interprets every scene by author's words and then compare it to mine imagination. Kinda seems like enriching experience, though ai thing as a whole seems like another milestone that's gonna change our lives and we won't even have a second to think about if it will be ultimately for good or not

>>22574702
What's the problem, you can always go to exhibitions with wonderful stuff like pic related, real soulful-like.

>>22574605
What AI do you use for these kinds of incredible images?

>>22574719
Visual arts, but Jeff Koons had a series of really explicit works with his porn star ex wife.

>>22574733
>Art can only be this or that
Do you ever get tired of being dishonest?

>>22574733
To be perfectly honest almost anything abstract looks cool when it's on a giant canvas like that.

>>22574605
I guess it's supposed to be from BM, but where are all the lizards and vinegaroons and shit?

>>22574737
This is what I mean, this just looks like porn instead of art. Idk if this guy is normally good but I find this kind of comical

>>22574672
>replacing what should be your drive to learn to creat things yourself.
Nah, it's just showing what's worth creating. A lot of culture surrounding artists are a con job. Others will alway need a man's touch. Cooking, for example. Maybe architecture.

>>22574737
>Jeff Kooms

>>22574745
I never even implied that AI images are "art", in your romantically regressive understanding of it (assuming you're the guy who called it the pornography of art); it's a personal illustrator that fulfills one's whims and fancies.
And let's not pretend the gallery image I posted is some out-of-the-way curiosity. Anyone who argues for the special ineffable qualities of human-made art has to do some mental acrobatics to explain away the flood of shit that is contemporary art. Maybe humans have out-arted themselves and need some fresh impulses in the form of new tools...?

>>22574823
I'm indeed not the guy, just calling out a faggot pajeet who has to use a specific example to make a dishonest point.
Kys and may your family suffer gruesomely.

>>22574823
While you don't even know who you're arguing against (because fuck this board), I agree with you anon.

>>22574855
>because fuck this board
consider leaving

>>22574823
>I never even implied that AI images are "art", in your romantically regressive understanding of it (assuming you're the guy who called it the pornography of art); it's a personal illustrator that fulfills one's whims and fancies.
In your view what do you distinguish as art or nature? Where's the fine line? Does it lead to reductio, like suggesting that moving a single grain of sand to consciously reorder nature as sufficiently definably art?

>>22574609
This so much.
Literally every board is infested.

>>22574634
I thought /tv/ was work safe /pol/

>>22574605
BUMP AI THREADS
RESPECT AI THREADS
MAKE FUN OF THOSE THREATENED BY AI

>>22574733
vgggggggggggggggggggh this is real art, AI has no soul and cannot create anything as profound as this

>>22574930
No that's /his/.

>>22574765
wow, this may be the worst thing i've ever seen
the word poshlost was invented to describe this image

>>22574823
I am that poster. Obviously the fact that humans can create gay nonsense says nothing about the possibilities of non-gay-nonsense they can create. I just always imagine some grinning faggot typing his little prompt before jerking off when I see AI products.

I think the best way going forward is to not engage any AI poster. They're clearly shilling their swill and only want engagement, even if they have to bump their own threads with bullshit convos.

>>22574885
I did not mean that any conscious ordering is art, "romantically regressive" refers more to the idea that human creative work is something pure and sacred that is defiled by contact with the machine.
>what do you distinguish as art or nature?
There are no clear lines and perfectly fixed categories in questions like that. But let's say a necessary condition for art is the meeting of two conscious minds, one sending the other receiving, but both co-creating. And that it's whatever can be arranged such that it signifies more than it states outright.
But one can argue endlessly what the sufficient conditions for art are, and one can probably easily come to a place where words start losing their meaning with such discussions.

>>22574765
Yeah, I posted that hesitating to call it porn or art… I got dragged to an exhibition of his years ago and they had that stuff tucked away into a separate room with a big warning sign. And some of those paintings are mural sized. But the MJ statue was alright.

I think the best way going forward is to always engage any AI poster. They're clearly making this board better by letting Anon's imagination freely manifest itself, creating new opportunities for expression which can be then channeled into creative writing.

>>22575054
not just any. ai art commissioners that actually have a strong sense of beauty and curation for what they want depicted. alot of these ai creations are dogshit. maybe only 1/200 of the ai users know what theyre doing.

>>22574930
Literally, every board besides the normie ones are /pol/. That's why I only stay on /lit/ (middle of the road /pol/ , but solid amount of other peoples antagonizing /pol/ beliefs) and /mu/ (barely /pol/, maybe a few n words but not much else)

>>22574733
Someone has clearly never seen a Rothko, Popova, or a Pollock

>>22575061
Post "good" AI art

>>22575513
I'm a shameless normie. How did that ever become an insult in the first place? Sad.

>>22574605
Hi I'm new to the internet. How do you make this picture?

>>22575571
Because you guys aren't really sapient. You're like a computer algorithm that spits out the most socially advantageous it can think of in my given scenario. You don't really have beliefs

>>22575612
You need to get out more. You can have one step in normieville and not be an NPC. This is the best way to be. It's not an either/or.

>>22575624
I learned how to normie-whisper when I was literally six years old, don't lecture me about the art. But 4chan isnt for doing the little normie bee dance, it is to say whatever you want without worry about the normie social calculus. You can actually for once just say something if you think it is true and it literally does not matter how it makes you look or how taboo it is or anything. Normies who trespass here need to be swiftly hounded out by offending their meme sensibilities regarding morality and decorum and most importantly social status. Maximum autism and taboo WILL prevail, this place will be NEVER be cool

>>22575649

Yeah, the point of being here is the ability to say anything without limit. Lose this ability, and 4chan as a concept becomes obsolete.

>>22575513
You actually can’t say the n word on /mu/

I've been making book covers for my short stories since last year.
>>22574605
No one thought this was from Blood Meridian?

AI is gonna be great for creativity in my view. Though I still like writing prose myself as that is the funnest part. I can create concept art of my main characters in under a minute.

>>22575649
says the frog-poster pffttt

>>22575684
I literally just saw it. Look at the thread with Illmatic

>>22575760
Pepe the frog is literally what a normie sees you as if you transgress a social rule in front of them. Like they have overturned a rock and revealed a small wet slimy creature except it is conscious and staring at them.

>>22575656
If you don’t think this website is censored a ton you have not gone far enough

>>22574605
Can't you just do that in your head

>>22574627
>>22574605
The Bible

>>22574605
Blood meridian.

>>22574605
Must be fun having zero imagination, that you need to rely on a machine to tell you what a scene looks like lol

>>22574684
>>22574627
Anyone complaining about AI art on 4chan (the content platform equivalent of a septic tank) is obviously so creatively vacant they honestly can’t see a use for a magic make anything you imagine sci-fi tool. Like a monkey angrily Ooing and ahhing at a easel and canvas because its disturbing its precious shit flinging time.

>>22576228
>content platform
i thought it was an imageboard? why the overly generalising corporate jargon?

>>22574676
Oh no!

>>22576228
At least you admit AI belong in the shitter

>>22576228
Indeed. Actually it reminds one a bit of the primitives that would think being photographed will "steal their soul"

>>22574605
>I can instantly manifest any scene from a book I'm reading.
If that's the only use you can think of i pheel sorrie for you

[creates erotic nudes of co-workers]

>>22576228
I think the real argument is obvious; artists - painting, drawing, designing - are now more fully out of work than they were before.

I like the AI art because it's always got some flaws to that show that a human in the real world wouldn't have designed it; look at this one: >>22574684 the row boat stands on its oars lol it's good because of the flaws, I mean, like surrealism.

QUSTION SHULD B: why is that style not purchasable? oh we like it, anon, we would produce it, says the painter, but ANSWER IS: the market says no! Well fuck the market. I can have as much of this as I want in a few keystrokes now.

>>22574676
>ahrimanic
>doppels
that's entirely unrelated to the subject

AI has nothing to do with the crude voodoo doll that the megacorps have built out of your interactions

>> look at this one: 22574684 the row boat stands on its oars
oops, wrong link, i meant this one >>22574627

>>22574672
>that the accessibility of this technology is replacing what should be your drive to learn to creat things yourself.
snot really accessible, it could be snot. I mean IN THEORY you could have an AI doing liveaction cartoons but you probably won't, vested interests will keep most applications of this unrealized like with most technologies

it's been invented however so it's there for the future to pick up and do something with,
shout out to the APE of tomorrow

>>22576739
>vested interests will keep most applications of this unrealized like with most technologies
vested interests didnt want us to have smartphones but it happened. even third worlders have them. bet your ass the code will be leaked at some point.

>>22576792
why would anybody be opposed to citizens carrying around GPS and audio tracking devices and paying for them themselves?

looks like shit

>>22576817
except those features can be disabled at the hardware level and become extremely potent tools against the regime. what you saids as stupid as saying the gubmint lets people have guns so they can stage mass shootings to take away gun rights

>>22576881
lawl "the regime". what you said as stupid as saying the gubmint lets people have guns so they can stage mass shootings to take away gun rights

>except those features can be disabled at the hardware level
everyone obviously doesn't have the ability to do this; the tracker remains active for 99% which is all that matters as a law enforcement tool.


muh regime

>>22576881
btw, when you're arranging ilegal activity, always make a record of it using internet tools! BRO you can just use VPN and they'll neeeeeever be able to find it!

funny thing is that the drug cartels, epstein, corrupt politicians, terrorists - lots of them actually believe this lol

>>22576894
no it isnt retarded faggot. roughly a quarter of people are security conscious enough to do this, as a quarter of people use adblockers.

>>22576911
some drug cartels use vpns and other proxies theyre able to finance. jews dont control all options yet, and not everyone has to use controlled tools owned by jews

>>22576727
>I like the AI art because it's always got some flaws to that show that a human in the real world wouldn't have designed it; look at this one: >>22574684 the row boat stands on its oars lol it's good because of the flaws, I mean, like surrealism.
>why is that style not purchasable?
You can buy surrealist art. And anyway, surrealism is done with intent. My mean issue with this AI art is that all looks awful. Bottom of the barrel digital painting slop. If that's all you want in life, then more power to you I guess

>>22574712
It's okay, not everyone is retarded as you.

>>22576201
>projecting this hard

>>22576948
post a contemporary piece that you consider great art

>>22576941
whatever you say, hunter biden

>>22577055
Why, so you can flatly deny that it's good without giving it any thought or even really looking at it? Art, to you people, is so meaningless that you can look at some generic AI-generated picture of a castle or something and be profoundly moved by it, when in reality it looks like a power metal album cover that has been drained of any personality.

>SO YOU CAN'T NAME A SINGLE GREAT PIECE OF CONTEMPORARY ART??!?
I could, but why would I bother? It's like recommending literature to someone who still reads Artemis Fowl.

>>22577031
>n-no u!
amazing rhetoric

>>22577151
Why would you care if people deny it? It costs you literally nothing to just post an example. You care enough to write posts debating the subject but not to just post an example?

>>22577214
Mentioning contemporary art doesn't contribute to the conversation no matter how hard you try. It just shifts the focus of scrutiny. AI fucking sucks balls.
Funny how you specifically must ask for "contemporary" art though, almost as if you know you need to compare AI to the shittiest fucking type of art imaginable otherwise your points don't hold any water.

>>22574672
drawing is the poor man's substitute for eloquence

>>22577227
I don't like AI art, I just don't get why people who like contemporary art are literally afraid to post it. Same thing with poetry

>>22577237
You do not ask it for those reasons let's be real.

>>22577243
What are you afraid of, that people will mock your taste? It's fucking 4chan, you can post Shakespeare and someone will say it sucks

>>22577247
That's exactly your intent aka it would contribute nothing to the convo.

>>22577254
>Conversation about art
>Posting an example of good contemporary art to contrast with bad AI art would not contribute anything
You seriously rustle my jimmies

>>22577151
>y'all too stupid to be engaged with
ok bye edgyboi

>>22574605
>I can instantly manifest any scene from a book I'm reading.
Lmao, an NPC proud of being able to finally visualize something imaginary. Crazy world.

>>22577178
It was an oddly specific remark out of nowhere.

>>22577697
What does this even mean? How are you supposed to even read without imagination?

>>22574733
plebs always bring up twombly as an example of "the nadir of degenerate 'modern' (actually contemporary) art" without realizing that his work is heavily rooted in classicism

>>22577892
It means there are some people in the world literally. No I mean it, Literally without souls.

>>22577916
They bring it up because it looks like scribbles

>>22577916
powerful

>>22577916

It doesn't matter if the artist studied aesthetics, started with the Greeks, has a firm grounding in composition, preparation of materials, etc, when they produce crap. You are pretending that the historically documented, formal training of an artist justifies their literal scribbles. It does not. This is a canard that defenders of modern art routinely like to trot out, and it's easily batted away. The curtains were fucking blue. The emperor has no clothes. Cy Twombly drew/painted fucking scribbles.

Rothko and Motherwell (Motherwell especially) were also steeped in classical subject matter, poetry, philosophy. They still ended up producing crap as well. Unlike the aforementioned three, Picasso actually had talent for visual art, but he grew bored with producing good work and chose to throw his talent away. Stupidly, the world rewarded his poor choice. Stupid commie.

Happily, lots of modernist works are slowly falling apart because the artists were so focused on living in the moment that many of them didn't deeply understand classical techniques for preparing a long-lasting artwork, preparing the canvas, using the right pigments, etc. Rothko famously used Lithol Red in one series which broke down after sunlight exposure, although the sun exposure can't be blamed on him when you read about that particular case.

>>22577997
Rothkos paintings are at least pleasing to the eye though. A lot of Tombly is just genuinely ugly. That famous one with the red circles isn't that bad though

>>22577997
>>22578003
these paintings are just a bunch of money laundering schemes in reality

>>22577935
I refuse to believe this. Memory literally cannot work without imagination.

>>22577951
>it looks like scribbles
that's the point
>>22577997
>Cy Twombly drew/painted fucking scribbles.
that's the point

the problem is that you are viewing them as detached, pure visual pieces when his is first and foremost a discursive art. visually, they are indeed scribbles, but presented in a way which is engaging with the entire western practice of sign-making, from the graffiti at Pompeii to naive outsider and children drawings. to denigrate the work on the basis of its visual ugliness is missing the point entirely

expected better from a literary board desu

>>22574664
Press the hide button dumbass

>>22578079
>presented in a way which is engaging with the entire western practice of sign-making, from the graffiti at Pompeii to naive outsider and children drawings. to
Prioritizing this over accessible beauty is precisely why people dont like this stuff

>>22574666
Nta but the whole AI sperg crusade is lame. There are at least 2 threads a day on it. Get a life

>>22578094
>muh beauty
>muh accessibility
i take it you're a fan of thomas kinkade

>>22578101
I wouldn't consider his paintings particularly beautiful. The general public likes impressionism and even some Picasso level stuff so it's not like it has to be Vermeer or nothing. When the painting is just unironically ugly is when it loses them, which is an entirely reasonable reaction

>>22578079
Except it's just an empty reference to a discourse, not the artistic statement of a concept that couldn't have been stated any other way.
There's nothing added by a guy scribbling in order indicate that the tradition of sign-making starts with scribbling. You could just as well do a historical graffiti exhibition and pretend its curator is the original artist behind it. And I guess that would be true on a level where art is anything and everything, ie the modern scamfest of art producers/auctioneers/critics jerking each other off.

>>22574605
What was your prompt?

>>22574605

>>22577886
still well-deserved in the context.

>There's nothing added by a guy scribbling in order indicate that the tradition of sign-making starts with scribbling

wrong, the whole point is the enactment of a historical practice and recontextualization within the space of 20th century abstract painting, which is inherently medium-specific. after all that, you may still find the work unsatisfactory, and that is fine, but at least take it on its own terms.

>>22574609

/v has multiple AI containment threads at all times now. Ironically /p bans even saying the word AI despite it being able to used to make photos and tons of overlap with photography.

AI fits well with /lit but it should proably be contained to its own thread on lit.

>>22574627
I don't have a problem if you like the robots funny pictures but you don't need to post about it every single fucking day with the same shitty fucking threads. Yeah it's mildly cool that you can get a base level, shallow as a puddle but pretty picture of the scene you're reading. But it's not THAT cool to bring it up every fucking thread. AI shart is the new age v-tuber, which itself is just mlp posting.

>>22579534
>a base level, shallow as a puddle but pretty picture of the scene
What does that mean? How 'deep' can the illustration of a scene possibly be, beyond the depiction of the things that are described? What additional demands on literary ilustration do you have that right now cannot be satisfied by AI, no matter the precision of the prompt?

>>22574605
Blood Meridian

>>22579713
Woah, really?

>>22576228
If you can't see the logical end point of where this all leads then it is you who is mentally vacant.

>>22577916
my dick is heavily rooted in your mom but that doesn't mean that one resembles the other

>>22579534
They aren't even pretty. 90% of it looks like something you'd see in a late 00s DnD rulebook

>>22574733
The problem with you idiots, and I say idiots because you're stupider than I am, but naturally, smarter than most, is that you don't recognize the facts behind the representation.

Why do post-modernist artworks all look uncomfortably schizophrenic and meaningless? Because God is dead and we have killed him. Artists, if they're truly skilled, and truly artistic, and oriented towards the truth, then they're going to act as conduits between the unconscious and consciousness. The art is schizophrenic and meaningless because that's how people are now.

>>22577232
>Recreating or constructing with the formal aspect we directly experience in the world is somehow lesser than recreating or constructing with the made up squiggles we created to represent those formal objects.
Boy you really need a win huh?

>>22576739
Vested interests did a great job doing that with streaming advertisements and social media culture. Im sure they will have equal success with AI art.

>>22574771
Can't help but notice that both the things you claim to be more worth while are arts that focus on the aesthetic aspect of what are essentially survival needs (food and shelter). In your opinion, is AI showing us the methods of creation that have no direct survival utility and thats good? Or was this just coincidence?

>>22578101

>someone hates abstract modernist painting therefore they must like [overly literal stupid mall outlet grandma* crap],

VERY bad faith strawman. A large portion of the general public correctly discerns the distinct reasons why both modernist painting and Kinkade are both crap, and you know perfectly well what the reasons are in both cases. Kinkade is maudlin kitsch mall crap, abstract art is usually some combination of ugly and/or boring (Jules Olitski is an especially bad example). Both insult the intelligence in different ways.

*Even my own grandmother once expressed her disdain for Kinkade. She used a wonderful analogy, describing his commodities as "elevator music".

>>22578122

This guy gets it, although personally I don't have a high opinion of Picasso either. The public are happy with certain "naive" forms of representational expressionism because they're human. You can tell some human made that image and, just like it says, they were trying to express something a little more interesting than a scribble. This is also what I hate about current AI images, btw. They don't "look" (like a) human (made them), at least not yet. The stuff from two-ish years ago was going out of its way to look like demonic abominations, the current stuff is legible but still feels "off". I'm sure it'll reach a point soon where it really convinces, but it's not quite there yet.

>>22574719
Greg Lansky, except unironically.

>>22578079
>first and foremost a discursive art
This is the whole problem.
>>22578215
>empty reference to a discourse
A lot of contemporary works, in other mediums too, are just filled with empty references for the sake of references, as if references have any merit on their own, when the only purpose they really serve is as a vulgar pleasure of jerking off the consumer’s own sense of bourgeois vanity and being ‘in the know.’

>>22581530
The thing about Picasso is that even though a lot of his stuff is arguably a bit ugly, in the most famous examples like his Guernica there is an immediately apparent sense of structure and harmony to it. You don't need any training in art criticism to see that there is something going on with the balance of space and lines and dark and light in that painting, there is a language there. You might still not like the painting but there is still *something* in it which speaks to conventional beauty.

I would say this is even true of Rothko and Pollock though they annoy people more than Picasso since they're outright abstract. Some of eg Kandinskys paintings though I think literally are just unambiguously ugly. The only way you can like those is on a conceptual level. I refuse to believe anyone really likes how they look

>>22581530
>Jules Olitski
His spray paint stuff is nice

>>22581584
And I accept that, I just politely disagree. In the case of Guernica there's clearly a composition with legible elements which convey a mood (which gets the basic point across), and this happens to line up with a real historical event which gives the work greater importance. At least the good guys won that war.

It's funny that you single out Kandinsky because he was one of the ones that came to mind when I tried to think of abstract work that I like.

>>22579446

You don't have to take a work "on its own terms". You are free to reject a work, its method, its motivation, altogether, and you can even do so honestly (this is the point which you would like to deny), knowing what the artist was going for. You can still say "Nope, don't care, sucks, next." That is how art works, and it's a good thing. If you want me to like your thing then give me something worth liking.

>>22581604
Paintings like this actively offend me. It's not a matter of disliking abstract non-representational stuff, I genuinely hate the color combinations and shapes in this thing

>>22574634
/lit/ is the catch-all baby sitter board or for those who think they are above certain boards

>>22581621
That's because that's how people are now.

>>22574605
Exodus?

>>22574605
Do you not have an imagination? No ones cares about your "art"
Why are ai tards everywhere?

>>22582414
Why can so many supposedly /lit/erate people itt still not grasp the difference between art and illustration?

>>22574605
Finally, because of AI I will know what an apple looks like

Why do people forget, contemporary artists are also used in the AI database

>>22582479
I love AI.

>>22582479
>>22583362
other than fucked up birds, my little brain cannot distinguish between this ai art and real art. I think it is amazing. It looks good as hell. But which makes sense since it is litterally using real peoples' real art, so it should still have that "soul" in it

Anyway, artists will still have a purpose since they will still be needed to make truly unique pieces, not just touchups for ai or something. And ai is still bad at making dynamic movements