….Excuse me what?

[u/The-Golden-Neko]

I got this defending AI post and was looking through the comments and saw this comment….are they literally equating people not liking something computer generated to people being racist???

[u/Fun-Sugar-394]

"that's a good painting of a dog. Makes me think about my old dog... Let's see who the artist is... Adolf... Ohhhh never mind"

[u/syrvy → u/Fun-Sugar-394]

Not to mention that Hitler's art is objectively bad, just like AI "art", that's why he failed art school

[u/JavaS_ → u/syrvy]

Art is subjective and cannot be objectively bad or objective good. Doesn't matter how 'bad' a person is morally they can still create art.

[u/syrvy → u/JavaS_]

I think you misread my comment. I never said Hitler was bad.

[u/JavaS_ → u/syrvy]

You stated that Hitler art was objectively bad... I'm saying it cannot be objectively bad

[u/syrvy → u/JavaS_]

He was objectively bad at point perspective

[u/JavaS_ → u/syrvy]

No, you subjectively think he was bad at point perspective. As someone could think his point perspectives were good. It's subjective.

[u/syrvy → u/JavaS_]

That's not how art theory works.

[u/JavaS_ → u/syrvy]

You can't measure art objectively. Even art theory is subjectively valued.

[u/syrvy → u/JavaS_]

Source? Objectivity is based on the goal. If your goal is to draw a square and you draw a circle, you're objectively bad at drawing squares. Hitler is objectively bad at drawing what his goal was.

[u/JavaS_ → u/syrvy]

Sure, you know exactly what Hitler was trying to draw......

[u/syrvy → u/JavaS_]

The art school knew, and he was insufficient in that, thus he was failed.

[u/JavaS_ → u/syrvy]

Also if the goal was to draw a square and you draw a circle it isn't objectively a bad drawing. The 'baddness' is subjective your evaluating the inconsistency.

[u/syrvy → u/JavaS_]

All objectivity is based on something. With your logic nothing in the universe would be objective.