Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

turnip_burrito t1_j9smktx wrote

Reply to comment by zero0n3 in US Copyright Office: You Can't Copyright Images Generated Using AI by vadhavaniyafaijan

Of course art was scarce. Now certain kinds of art are not, and some still are. All art requires time, energy, or mediums to produce and access. And new art of higher quality requires more time, energy, or materials. For some forms of art, these resources are plentiful, and for others these resources are still lacking.

Now the cost of all these things has fallen for various kinds of art. More paints, more paper, more instruments, more photographs, more people hours, more computing power, more broadcasting, more storage, etc. But if you want to see somebody perform (dance/sing for example) or paint in person, that is an example of art that scarce. Original physical art works are also scarce. As well as digital art made more to spec.

2

zero0n3 t1_j9sn6we wrote

No it doesn’t. You don’t get it.

Art was never scarce. Anyone and everyone makes art. Your 7 yr old telling you about his dream - art.

Art boils down to creative expression. The medium is what made it scarce in the past. No paper for that kid to draw on. No pen for the person wanting to write a story.

The only difference is there is now a medium that allows near instant transmission of that expression.

Definition btw:

> the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination.

Hell, the person who designed your house created art.

2

turnip_burrito t1_j9snfcm wrote

>The medium is what made it scarce in the past.
>
>Art was never scarce.

Which is it?

And if I want to see someone perform in person, the access to see this is limited. The person only performs one time, and there are only so many seats. So this is an example of scarcity in art.

When I say art was or is scarce, I mean that there are forms of art that show scarcity. If you want to define all expression as art, then yeah there's no scarcity. But that's obviously not what most people mean by art.

3

zero0n3 t1_j9snlvx wrote

What don’t you get?

“Art” was always being created - we just don’t have a record of it. It was never scarce in the moment. It’s all around you.

What’s scarce is the medium people use to RECORD art.

It’s like my point keeps going right over your head.

0

turnip_burrito t1_j9so09d wrote

Your point is ridiculous. Okay, fine. Whatever. Art as a concept (*waves arms*) was never scarce. We'll go with your broad definition.

However, certain forms of art are absolutely scarce, have always been scarce, and now we're seeing the transition of the type of superficially impressive digital artwork from high scarcity to low scarcity.

Other kinds of art are still scarce: Handmade pots have a certain scarcity, performances, etc.

2

zero0n3 t1_j9so8ni wrote

Don’t argue with me argue with the dictionary.

Art is a fucking concept. Literally impossible without other concepts like “emotion” and “free will”.

Art isn’t just the painting storing a snapshot. It’s the moment itself. Experiencing it.

1

turnip_burrito t1_j9sohr2 wrote

I see now that you aren't addressing my point on scarcity and are just repeating that "all expression is art". Are you going to add anything new?

1

duboispourlhiver t1_j9sov5i wrote

You are talking about two different things, I think you are both right.

2

turnip_burrito t1_j9sp64j wrote

It's because the word "art" has several definitions used by different groups of people. It's not a word with one definition in reality.

2

MrSickRanchezz t1_j9uz5sb wrote

At no point in history has art ever been scarce on a global scale. The only societies art has EVER even been suppressed in, were dictatorships, where someone specifically had a problem with art and killed people for making it. But even then, there's plenty of art from those places.

Not sure who told you art was scarce at some point, but they're wrong, and you're wrong. Hell we have found art from our non-human ancestors. You're clearly completely out of your element, and talking out of your ass here. You'd be wise to quit digging.

1

MrSickRanchezz t1_j9uyzk1 wrote

Humans have always, and will always have both emotion and free will. At no point in history has art ever been scarce on a global scale. The only societies art has EVER even been suppressed in, were dictatorships, where someone specifically had a problem with art and killed people for making it. But even then, there's plenty of art from those places.

Not sure who told you art was scarce at some point, but they're wrong, and you're wrong. Hell we have found art from our non-human ancestors. You're clearly completely out of your element, and talking out of your ass here. You'd be wise to quit digging.

1

zero0n3 t1_j9vo41k wrote

I wasn’t the one saying art was scarce. I’m the one saying it was abundant! It’s the medium we record it on that has changed over time. The concept of art really hasn’t.

And even then it wasn’t scarce. Just look at the pyramids. Art everywhere from the writing to the presentation of mummies etc.

The emotion and free will piece was more conceptual. Like A species that doesn’t have emotions or free will wouldn’t be able to create or understand art at any level.

1

MrSickRanchezz t1_j9uzcdc wrote

Wrong. Just because you do not have a whole bunch of clay pots doesn't mean art was scarce. Time exists dude, it makes objects disappear and get buried if they're not maintained.

It appears you've confused the word 'scarce' with something else. Scarce by definition means there was not enough to meet the needs of the population. Or, demand was higher than something's availability.

Art has never had that problem. Art has been suppressed at various points throughout history, but it was still there, and meeting the public demand for it.

English better, or stop bickering with people when you can't even write coherently.

1

turnip_burrito t1_j9v5wje wrote

Read the rest of the discussion. "Art" has several different definitions, and we were using two of those different definitions. This led to disagreement.

>English better, or stop bickering with people when you can't even write coherently.

Was that necessary? I see now that you're either a troll, or if not, a strange person. My written English is fine, and I'm sorry if you have trouble reading it.

1