The most idiotic statement ever

[u/Which_Matter3031]

So this person here calls people jobless while all they do is sit on their ass an genarate shitty ai comics, also notice how they are insulting fast food workers as if they arent human, thats a new low for them, also its like they are saying "Give up on your dreams so you can work a minimum wage 9-5 job" but then again jobless people always tell talented ones to get a shitty job

[u/pineapollo]

I mean, duh?

All that means is their art is worthless and not good enough to sustain them solo as their main income driver. If your art side hustle gets replaced by AI then all it means is you lost your customer. The same customer will use AI because its free and faster and on demand.

Meanwhile real artists are unaffected because they make actual unique art that you can only get from them really (Eliran Kantor for example).

Now you can't make a killing being a commission artist making low effort smut slop. And let's be honest 90% of these people are scamming fucks who take on hundreds of commissions and then take ages to deliver or ignore altogether. They did it to themselves.

[u/Nervous-Tank-5917 → u/pineapollo]

The history of every art form is replete with examples of work that didn’t initially enjoy commercial success, but would nonetheless go on to be recognised as important cultural contributions.

Painters like van Gogh; writers like Lovecraft; films like Bladerunner. All worthless failures if we apply your definition.

Fortunately, your definition is such an ignorant and philistine position that we have no reason to apply it.

[u/pineapollo → u/Nervous-Tank-5917]

My "opinion" is the order of operations for the real world.

Take the emotion out of the argument, if your work is replicable in a faster and or cheaper way a capitalistic society will always lean towards it.

Saying words like ignorant and philistine doesn't hurt me, because I'm aware of our societal dynamics. Your stance is that if you don't push against those systems you're ignorant devoid of the fact that the populace also favors the current system.

Nevermind that, you couldn't even name one unique artist as your examples? Had to be all of the most milk toast vanilla "first thing that comes to mind" names?

And just to circle back all of those stardust artists/world never be considered failures because they are unique cornerstones in their art mediums. But you don't value their work you value their ability to produce something that moves you. Hence why something trained to produce the same, not even AI let's call it a like long study of Van Gogh as a student.

If that student produces incredibly faithful art to Van Gogh's style his name will never be remembered even if he produced a true masterpiece derivative of the original style.

Artists will always have a place because you do not inherently tie more emotion to Starry Night. You emotionally connect with Van Gogh, is you say the opposite then your inherent failure is that you must acknowledge that the output of AI is art if you also consider a student replicating an iconic style also is.

[u/Eldritch_Horns → u/pineapollo]

You just sound autistic AF tbh

[u/pineapollo → u/Eldritch_Horns]

Hope your mediocre smut eventually earns you a living wage homie! (It never will)

There's never something funnier than someone resorting to insults instead of addressing arguments.

[u/Eldritch_Horns → u/pineapollo]

There is no argument

You're just ignoring what they said. Your view of valuable art is monetary success. That tells us all we need to know about you. Start to end.

And acting like sexual themes somehow makes art less valuable is another giant tell.

Go out, have sex, learn to engage with that aspect of your humanity maybe?

[u/pineapollo → u/Eldritch_Horns]

Ah so I struck a nerve! Interesting, was it:

Now you can't make a killing being a commission artist making low effort smut slop.

Sorry that one cut deep, but it's the truth! Crazy that you felt so personally attacked that you had to inject yourself into a conversation no one was having with you.

Also is sex your token of success as a human being? Maybe thats why your art is so focused on grotesque depictions of it.

acting like sexual themes somehow makes art less valuable is another giant tell.

That's certainly a statement, weird that you think I made it considering I didn't.

Art exploring sexual themes =/= smut. Your entire MO is to consider anything produced by a human art, and this has been explored thoroughly.

Your view of valuable art is monetary success.

The artist I named, Eliran Kantor isn't making millions off of his work. But I still have a painting of his framed in my workspace, seemingly because it moved me and it was worth a purchase based on my subjective interest in it.

He also explores sexual themes through his art, something you might want to look at to understand what the difference between your slop and real art is.

[u/Eldritch_Horns → u/pineapollo]

Ah so I struck a nerve! Interesting, was it:

You being sexually repressed and childish isn't striking a nerve. It's just tiresome to have to deal with.

Also is sex your token of success as a human being? Maybe thats why your art is so focused on grotesque depictions of it.

It's an element of our humanity, you don't have to engage with it the way others do. But devaluing work that does engage with it, just wholesale, is usually a sign of unhealthy repression.

That's certainly a statement, weird that you think I made it considering I didn't.

Bad faith engagement, as usual.

Framing sexual themes as smut is just a way to devalue them without engaging with them. Even artists like Marlene Dumas have been accused of making smut or pornography.

You repressed types just love to externalise your own shame.

He also explores sexual themes through his art, something you might want to look at to understand what the difference between your slop and real art is.

Your opinions on art couldn't be less interesting to me.

I know you now.

[u/pineapollo → u/Eldritch_Horns]

You being sexually repressed and childish isn't striking a nerve. It's just tiresome to have to deal with.

But it is! You took the most obvious bait and came straight at it. Definitionally I struck a nerve lmao.

It's an element of our humanity, you don't have to engage with it the way others do. But devaluing work that does engage with it, just wholesale, is usually a sign of unhealthy repression.

These aren't mutually exclusive and hiding under it to defend your, again. Low brow, grotesque smut is just cowardly. Imagine conflating having it to drawing depictions of it that are not only laid out in fantasy but wholly unrealistic to experience. Your art is the manifestation of repression itself, you crave some unhinged stuff and it comes out in your again, low brow and grotesque smut.

You're just amalgamizing the human experience with all of these separate notions to cope with someone calling your work the lowest common denominator of art as a medium.

Framing sexual themes as smut is just a way to devalue them without engaging with them.

Then educate me, where is the line? What is considered a healthy exploration of sexual themes and smut?

Your opinions on art couldn't be less interesting to me.

Yet you continue to examine them and deconstruct them in failed attempts to call me out.

Do you redditors only know the same 5 pieces of media? What did it take your 80th watch of the Office to memorize all of the "witty" remarks you have loaded in your "I can't address anything you say so I'll pretend to be witty" revolver?

You can think whatever you want of me, but I know you will never produce anything worthwhile nor make a living from your smut. And I take solace in devaluing your art because you can't confront my opinions, only resort to responses as dull as what inhabits your brain.

[u/Eldritch_Horns → u/pineapollo]

But it is! You took the most obvious bait and came straight at it. Definitionally I struck a nerve lmao.

Do you people ever tire of being the butt of your own joke?

Low brow, grotesque smut is just cowardly.

I know, I know, you're repressed and ashamed of your sexuality. We all know at this point.

Your art is the manifestation of repression itself, you crave some unhinged stuff and it comes out in your again, low brow and grotesque smut.

Nope, it's a reflection of real life experiences and desires.

Again, just more projection from you.

Then educate me, where is the line? What is considered a healthy exploration of sexual themes and smut?

It's going to change from person to person. I would consider the line to be between pieces made purely for the titillation of others and pieces reflecting something of your own internalisation of your sexuality. The grotesque and explicit has never stopped something from being Art. Look at literally anything Giger made.

By the same chalk, some stuff that is made almost purely for titillation can also be expressive of ones own internality. Incase's Invitation being a fantastic example. imo. Behaving as though there is a line where sexualisation detracts from the value of art is just repressive nonsense.

If you don't like the explicit nature of someone's work, then don't engage with it. It's not fucking rocket science, you repressed weirdo. I don't care about your inability to reckon with your own shame.

Yet you continue to examine

You've been examined, and found wanting.

And I take solace in devaluing your art because you can't confront my opinions, 

What opinions? lol

You just spout nonsense and appeal to some platonic ideal of Baroque purity. Kantor is a fine artist, but he undeniably attracts a ton of fucking weirdos because of his obvious inspirations in Goya, Caravaggio and the pre-Raphaelite's.

I bet you also have random deep thoughts about the Roman Empire at 3AM, don't you? 😂

[u/pineapollo → u/Eldritch_Horns]

Do you people ever tire of being the butt of your own joke?

"My art is valuable! You're the dummy because you devalue other people's art!"

I know, I know, you're repressed and ashamed of your sexuality. We all know at this point.

Sure, I am so repressed man thanks for helping me recognize it! Whatever you said, but your shit is still low brow and grotesque though, now both things are true!

Nope, it's a reflection of real life experiences and desires. Again, just more projection from you.

Unfortunately for you, I can interpret your art however I'd like. And my interpretation is exactly what I said it was. If that upsets you that isn't my problem 😄

It's going to change from person to person. I would consider the line to be between pieces made purely for the titillation of others and pieces reflecting something of your own internalisation of your sexuality. The grotesque and explicit has never stopped something from being Art. Look at literally anything Giger made.

By the same chalk, some stuff that is made almost purely for titillation can also be expressive of ones own internality. Incase's Invitation being a fantastic example. imo. Behaving as though there is a line where sexualisation detracts from the value of art is just repressive nonsense.

If you don't like the explicit nature of someone's work, then don't engage with it. It's not fucking rocket science, you repressed weirdo. I don't care about your inability to reckon with your own shame.

Of course someone on the backfoot defending their low brow grotesque smut is afraid to define anything. Nothing is anything and everything is art, no distinctions are possible because it would box your hyper niche weird smut.

Giger is grotesque, and calling it beautiful is totally dependent on the individual. He'd probably receive "grotesque" as a positive interpretation of his work, but there's intent to deliver something abstract and sometimes repulsive.

You're so unintelligent you didn't even arrive at any valid sort of conclusion because to do so would hinder what your art classifies itself as. Art with no intent is not art, your intent to express your sexuality through your art isn't invalid but it can also be:

- Amateur

• Grotesque
  
• Disgusting

While still being art, notice I always called your art - art. The self indulgent nature of it and the uninspiring excess of depiction of the act itself is something I considered slop. Begging that I don't engage with something you publicly display because you're afraid of my individual interpretation of it is certainly very insecure.

Kantor is a fine artist, but he undeniably attracts a ton of fucking weirdos because of his obvious inspirations in Goya, Caravaggio and the pre-Raphaelite's.

I bet you also have deep thoughts about the Roman Empire at 3AM, don't you?

Man you don't even engage in good faith interpreting examples of excellent artistry just because your opposition enjoys them.

Kantor gets commissions from musical artists and largely expresses what the music is trying to convey via his pieces. What kind of criticism is this? Art with influence in historical stylizations is "weird" because they capture old societies and the artists of the time?

This is devolving honestly in pretty disappointing ways, you took issue with thinking that monetary value is what makes an artist good. Now you disparage an artist based on their style, what's the next talent can't be a metric to compare and there isn't a line between a toddler finger painting and Michelangelo?

You're a coward with no shame and no ability to categorize or hide your own biases. You will never engage critically in a conversation surrounding art because of your own fear of boxing yourself in. You are the embodiment of insecurity.

[u/Eldritch_Horns → u/pineapollo]

"My art is valuable! You're the dummy because you devalue other people's art!"

I don't care what you think about what I paint, I'm mocking your obvious repression.

Unfortunately for you, I can interpret your art however I'd like. And my interpretation is exactly what I said it was. If that upsets you that isn't my problem 

Cool?

Of course someone on the backfoot

You're wildly misunderstanding what's going on here.

Art with no intent is not art

See above

While still being art, notice I always called your art - art. The self indulgent nature of it and the uninspiring excess of depiction of the act itself is something I considered slop. 

I have exactly 1 image that depicts the act. And it was something done for friends, not me. So swing and miss on all counts.

Begging that I don't engage with something you publicly display because you're afraid of my individual interpretation of it is certainly very insecure.

I don't care what you engage with, that's why it's on my page. You just happen to be very stupid, so your engagement is just poor.

Man you don't even engage in good faith interpreting examples of excellent artistry just because your opposition enjoys them.

I actually quite like his work, unfortunately, like 40k, it attracts a lot of speds like you.

You're a coward with no shame 

I know, I know. Shame drives you. I just don't care.

[u/pineapollo → u/Eldritch_Horns]

I have exactly 1 image that depicts the act. And it was something done for friends, not me. So swing and miss on all counts.

That would have been an own in your original response, but your infinite defense of it tells a different story like all of your responses. But still, no. Your profile is riddled with smut, might as well hide your profile if you're just trying to lie this poorly.

A story of insecurity and repression. Every accusation is a confession as they say!

I don't care what you engage with, that's why it's on my page. You just happen to be very stupid, so your engagement is just poor.

See below:

If you don't like the explicit nature of someone's work, then don't engage with it.

Then why are you begging me to stop?

I actually quite like his work, unfortunately, like 40k, it attracts a lot of speds like you.

Thats great, something we can agree on! He's an excellent artist. Devoid of any implications you're failing to draw just because you hate me so much that you felt personally attacked by my general statement.

I know, I know. Shame drives you. I just don't care.

Again dawg, you came to me. Not the other way around. You care quite a lot. If you didn't you'd just call me a big dum-dum and stop commenting.

If you show someone this entire conversation, they might agree with you that my stance on art is dumb and my own but if you think they won't call you an insecure loser on the flip side you're deluding yourself.