But people said the same thing about photography and painting 150 years ago!
This is entirely different from that. Landscaping had aesthetic value after photography because people were able to embellish and stylize landscapes in ways they didn't actually exist in real life. There is no way to "escape" from AI into more stylization. All it takes is enough of those new stylized images and it'll be able to replicate it. This is different from photography because photography can't learn.
But people want human expression!
Yes, they do, but they'll probably only realize this after a couple decades of art [almost] completely uninspired by the human condition and depression and anxiety skyrockets. In the short term, people will only care that they can type into a field and get what they want without any significant investment. Good luck finding an art job that isn't just making prompts in that economy (And if you say that making prompts is the same as being a painter or illustrator, yes it is art but no it isn't the same and fuck you).
I rest my case, art automation is cool but under capitalism it'll only be used to devalue artists further, and drive them deeper into poverty. It would be a great tool in a society capable of regulating itself but WE DON'T LIVE IN THAT SOCIETY AND I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO POINT THAT OUT.
STOP LISTENING TO :melon-musk: :debatebro-l: AND SUPPORT YOUR ARTIST COMRADES NOW
Now that I got your attention with my inflammatory statements, please commission your artist comrades and support them in their struggle to exist in what is already a very punishing world to live in. I promise to give any of you that do big hugs, I love you all, and bye.
If we didn't live in capitalist hellworld these tools would be the coolest shit and everyone would maybe be able to play with them generating silly shitposts and fake cryptid photographs and artists could use them to generate backdrops and poses and references without fear but instead we do live in hellworld and when I see these tools all I fear is physical pain and the awareness that these AI generators have scraped off the artwork of living, struggling artists like a fishing trawler going over a coral reef
Not an artist, but as a professional writer recently encountering scarily good AI generated writing I can really relate to the fear. Capitalism already despises paying creative types anything, and its only going to get worse.
Yeah, as someone who this directly affects I think the entire endeavour is fucking horseshit pushed by soulless pricks who have no idea why it is so cancerous.
The examples I have seen, while technically impressive, have no life, style, expression, or character. Everything is pushed through the artstation filter and comes out as soft-focus, banal, garbage. And the clowns who advocate this pat themselves on the back, heralding every blurry mess as a triumph and act as if each image was handcrafted when all they did was write a Google Image search string. It doesn't help that it piggybacks on NFT's and crypto fuckery.
There is a place for it because it is a technology with huge potential - disabled people, for instance, unable to hold or use materials can find ways to express themselves and for quick spec work as a primer for further work - but pushing it as a wholesale replacement for an entire industry and disciplines is dangerous and infuriating.
Technology isn't the problem and I stand by that. The problem is capitalism and if that is your message then I agree 100%. But with regards to the techonology itself we are still at least 1 or 2 decades away from this shit becoming good enough to actualy replace artists. I think that you are underestimating just how corporations actualy deal with artists, the instances where the whole workflow can be dumbed down by a single sentence or a few lines is actualy rare, though some industries are definitely worse than others.
The biggest impact will be where artist creativity isn't all that important to begiin with, advertising for example is a huge waste of time for everyone and I think taking people away from working on art for shit like that is not bad actualy.
Same thing for the majority of corporate software and design garbage bullshit. Do you realy need a human being to work hours a day designing buttons or icons? Who will ever give a shit about that? Right away you can't say this is all bad. You can't argue this point without sounding like a luddite, photoshop vs traditional art is a dead argument, let alone software like Zbrush.
So lets get to the worst parts say the game industry. Even here you can tell at least half of the stuff is already made through generic means. Think asset bundles(and then flipping). Procedural art i.e texturing, animation is huge already.
If you think Dall-e is a game changer then you don't know half of it, the modern workflow in the AAA industry is already highly artificial. Just look at UE5 and how much they are pushing the idea of massive content creation.
So this isn't imo even all that useful yet, you wont see AAA studios rushing to make an environment or character through Dall-e. Not for a long time, 10-20 years at least. And then there is Hollywood where artists are already being exploited to shit because the absurd workload. Now if you imagine an SFX studio maybe cutting workload by 10 or 30% is that realy bad?
Some people will lose their jobs for sure. But if the job is a 10-12h daily crunch in a SFX company is that even bad? For everyone else not suffering through the absurd grind and shit conditions, I say it is still far too early, come back in a decade. Even if somehow AI software becomes that good then I am not sure how the general public is going to react.
Realy ask yourself would you watch a movie that just popped into existence? Complete ai generated voices, ai generated models, environment, effects. All that was necessary is one guy writing a complete script. Maybe you'd watch the best ones. But the majority would be so incredibly generic I doubt you'd give a shit past a certain point.
Heck just look at the entertainment industry today, do you even care about all the work and effort behind the dogshit streaming shows out there? You can't because for those artists it is not about art anymore but about making money. As I said at the start the problem is capitalism not technology.
Now that I got your attention with my inflammatory statements, please commission your artist comrades and support them in their struggle to exist in what is already a very punishing world to live in.
That's it? Buy commissions?
I understand that you mean well. But there's probably something more we could be doing beyond just buying some art. Is anyone doing anything? Is literally anyone in the art world organised? Even if it's pop up small groups intended on activism, what are groups actually doing? Serious question, I want to know and have very little knowledge about this sector.
This is the ACTUAL "Great Replacement". AI rendering large groups of people useless, and if you are unlucky enough to be one of those: sucks to be you! Have fun starving to death, now that even a bag of rice is for rich people only!"
I used to be one of those "Idiocracy is a documentary" shitlibs but then I realized that I am one of "the rubes" corporate overlords want to replace. They think I am taking up space for them to live IRL as if it's a video game.
This is eugenics by austerity, and anyone who questions the economic order in the "wrong" way is mocked as a rube who simply can't handle that they are useless unlike the geniuses that are Silicon Valley CEOs that probably inherited their money anyway. Sure, you are allowed to say "I will not eat the bugs/live in the pod" as long as you are blaming the Jews and not the actual people listed in the Panama papers.
Fascists play fast and loose with ideology. They will embrace nihilism under the guise of rationality when pressed on this, claiming "who cares? No one owes anyone anything! It's my money, my planet, and therefore my rules! Stop trying to steal from me, moocher!" However, if a minority does too well for themselves, or someone acts in a way that offends their puritan beliefs, they will claim that they are owed comfort, owed treats "I will not live in the pod or eat the bugs (but women and the brown people should!)". They will be in for a shock when some of them never get the easy mode they were promised, and instead realize that they claimed to be okay with being a slave as long as they were a house slave that got to look down on the field slaves.
TL;DR: I HATE THE ANTICHRIST! I HATE THE ANTICHRIST!
They will be in for a shock when some of them never get the easy mode they were promised, and instead realize that they claimed to be okay with being a slave as long as they were a house slave that got to look down on the field slaves.
lol none of them will ever realize this
but yea it's just climbing tiers of unemployment from factory workers>artists>retail>builders>coders until eventually the entire population is either dead or in prison except for the owners
Capitalists wants to turn every media into something like the current Japanese anime & manga industry, but without the whiny artists who keeps complaining about "wages" and "work hour".
Liv Agar had an interesting point awhile ago related to crypto but I think applies pretty broadly. Often when we fight against capitalist “innovations” knee jerk response is to push against its use as opposed to moving it forward, i.e., using a “yes, and” progression to throw off the “reasonable” stans and win over those on the fence.
I think this is it: https://livagar.medium.com/cryptocurrency-and-the-end-of-capitalism-1-2-f11db6a4815b
I read the piece awhile ago and I remember her argument fell flat at times (could have benefited from some more more thought regarding certain aspects of blockchain) but it was a novel take I found merit in. Basically, that socialists should embracingly shape and challenge the applications of emergent technologies for a better world.
I’m just wondering how AI generation could shift art positively. You still generally need to provide prompts, and based on google everyone knows what you type in matters. I could see new art forms blossom from AI tools that either use it completely or as a component alongside other medias.
This is already a problem with meme art, but I think one major key will be to make sure we remember the name of the human artist (even if they’re just the one writing the prompts) over the name of the algorithm, and give them a platform to explain and benefit from their creations.
People said the same thing about digital art 15 years ago.
Artists will use the tools provided to make their lives easier. AI can free up more of the technical skills, lowering the barrier of entry and creating more room for creativity, aka the part of art that people actually enjoy.
What I imagine we’ll see is artists using AI as a shortcut as a part of their work. Think of it as using stock images or reference photos for backgrounds, so you can focus on what you want in the foreground.
For artists who enjoy creating entirely new styles, they’ll be able to focus on innovating, and then train an AI on new styles to allow it to be further democratised (or commodified).
Yes, the means of production are owned by the bourgeoisie, and that will impact, as it always does. Paint, workshops, easels, all cost money. Photoshop costs money. Access to the premium AI models will likely cost money.
Yes, as the productive forces develop and require less live labour for the same result, prices drop, and the previous mode of production becomes boutique. That’s as true for art as it is for linen.
Tell your artist comrades to apply for Dall-E access ASAP, and incorporate it into their workflow. They have an understanding of art theory, and are better equipped to use it than a random management consultant is.
Not yet, no. You’re left working with it as it is. It’s still faster to work with a single layer pregenerated image than it is to create that image yourself.
This is a new technology, and it’s developing quickly. Think about how fast we got from Pong to Crysis, or from the Pager to an iPhone. Give it time, and we’ll see AI not only produce images in PSD layers, but likely even split existing images into layers.
Since the 2000s? That’s the takeoff of the digital era, so think of everything supplanted by digital variants.
Streaming and piracy killed Blockbuster. VOIP and video calls killed pay phones and landlines, and will kill mobile voice calls too. Navigation software killed paper maps. Email’s killing snail-mail. Ctrl+F alone has saved countless labour-hours.
Yes, any new technology is used to break labour. Labour is in an era of weakness. Its gains were won during the social democratic period, and any disruption of that order will cause those ossified remnants of labour power to shatter.
Take CGI for example. Suddenly you can create anything, literally anything you can imagine on screen. To people of the special effects era, it’d be near impossible to believe. It’s a modern miracle. And yet the CGI industry is young, without the hard-won protections of film unions. It ends up overworked and exploited, fresh feed for the Mouse.
Maybe! The question there is whether there is an inelastic demand for art.
Personally, my money would be on that not being the case. People love art. If artists can work twice as fast, the price of art will drop to approx half, and people will buy twice as much.
It will hurt artists who don’t adapt. They’ll be stuck producing increasingly boutique pieces for a dwindling customer base. Those that survive will survive as artisans. It’s the same process that other commodities, like clothing and furniture, have already undergone.
Artists have a distinct advantage, though. The desire for art, unlike the desire for bedsheets, is near limitless, especially when it’s custom art. As technology improves, ease of production increases, and prices fall, demand will rise.
Of course, ‘artists’ may change form significantly. It could be that ‘artist’ means ‘designer of unique styles for an AI to learn from’, for example.
It could also be that, like OP says, AI will get ‘good enough’ to satisfy most people instantly, and the value-add of a real artist will be limited.
My point is less about composition of organic vs AI, and more demand for ‘art’ at all, regardless of composition.
Commercial art (advertising) will also need artists. AI cannot replace artists. It is just a tool used by artists. The artist still needs to conceive of what the final product should look like, and describe that to the AI. The artist will probably even train the AI specifically on manually-produced art, to ensure consistency of design and style.
Let’s take the cereal example. You’re a marketing executive, and you want a box for your new line of cereal.
You’ll want an artist to draw the reference sheet for the mascot first, for one. What animal will it be? Will it even be an animal? What colours will be the most enticing? Then you need to decide what feelings you want the box design to evoke, and know how to bring those to fore in a viewer.
Next, you need to create the art. This will take multiple iterations of attempts. You need to be able to recognise what is and is not ‘good enough’, when to keep going, and when to stop.
Then you need to show that product to your client/boss, and sell it to them convincingly.
What I’ve just described sounds an awful lot like the standard artistic process. In fact, I never even mentioned the word ‘AI’.
Correct—it will reduce the number of humans needed to produce the same results.
The question is, will the extra capacity for art production be used for anything?
As I’ve said before, I think it will be. People really like art. Let’s take the cereal box example. Perhaps where before, there was but a single box design in a run, there will instead be multiple. Perhaps the cereal company will decide to use the spare capacity to have a unique design on every single box on the shelf.
Or maybe that capacity is instead turned towards a boom in the furry industry, with fursonas mass produced like never before.
If there’s one area I have confidence in our ability to induce demand, it’s in demand for art.
Some thoughts on AI art and AI/software in general:
The impact of AI on artists is not unique to them. The same goes for all skilled fields affected by AI/software, but again, the effect is not uniquely produced by software. Rather, all of these instances are a sequential step towards capitalism's end point: complete proletarianization and reduction of all strata into a two-class system via the hyper-accumulation of capital.
The impact of technology on art is the same as the impact of the power loom on the weaver. Previously, you had artisans and a craft, with a single individual involved in all aspects of the production process and thus unalienated from their labor. Following capital development, you have laborers/technicians and a production process, with intense division of labor that grinds down workers into their unadulterated labor power. It's easy to see how artists' traditional interfacing with the art market (through direct sale, commission and patronage) lines up with the earlier, while studio systems for animators and SFX artists lines up with the later.
With that in mind, participating as a consumer in the art market will not reverse the trends of capital development. Neither would a socialist revolution to be frank. The Soviets did not smash the textile mills like as the Luddites thought to do, but sought to utilize capital development in a manner that benefited human development.
Cyberpunk dystopia one step closer. As with everything else, this shit would be really cool under communism where nobody would be making art to live. And dont forget these algorithms are trained with the work of thousands of people who wont ever see a cent of royalties or something
I keep saying how this is absolutely going to destroy entry level artist positions and gig based artist work (ie small time commissions, selling stock images) but people keep saying to me 'no you're wrong' but they never offer any arguments as to how.
I lurk in a bunch of these AI image generator spaces and I'm fucking seeing in real time what people are using these generators for and it's all shit that they previously would have commissioned someone to do, like album covers, illustrations for news articles, youtube thumbnails, character concept art, etc etc.
People who say 'but it's not going to destroy reaaaaal art or artistic expression' are missing the fucking point. If new artists can't get into art fields in any way other than nepotism (at least before now it was theoretically possible) then art fields won't be getting any new blood, then existing art industries will just have the same stagnant industry insiders swirling around the toilet bowl forever until catastrophic climate change renders capeshit movies and video games and comic book presses just a burning memory
tl;dr AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I want you to see something.
Right now the limitation on AI art imitation seems to be really the ability to give it specific information.
Here's a little taste of its capability, using a tool that just went public less than a week ago. Not only can you copy an art style, you can actually blend the style and tendencies of multiple artists into one image.
I created those two images in an online tool for 2 cents each. It knew who both of those people were, and it seamlessly blended their two wildly different techniques.
Yaknow, if artists had been more sympathetic to the problems of the working class, I might feel more. But no. Artists treat the working class with a great deal of flippancy and contempt. Pardon me while I get out the world's smallest violin.
You know the painting called "American Gothic"? The farmer with the pitchfork standing next to the woman? First of all, that's not his wife, it is his spinster daughter. Moreover in the background there is a gothic window? It's mocking them. That's right, if there's one group of people deserving of mockery it's midwestern Americans who live in rural areas. How dare they live in houses built 50 years ago implementing styles that were popular at the time! “Who would live in this outdated house?” asked the artist. Then the East Coast art critics dogpiled on, disparagingly declaring that this represents rural backwardness. And this was in the 1930s and it's only gotten worse since then. Of course the midwesterners even back in the 1930s had tractors and modern farm equipment, but no serious artist thinks they have anything worthwhile to listen to.
"Poetry is nobody's business except the poet's," wrote Philip Larkin, "and everybody else can fuck off."
Yeah, let's use a painting from the 1930s as an example why graphic designers pushing pixels for minimum wage (actually below minimum wage if you account for unpaid overtime) do not deserve class solidarity from "real workers". Very cool and materialist analysis, totally not divisive shit stirring and totally not a pure appeal to emotion.
Please point us to this magical place of sympathy and understanding among artists for the working class, because to the rest of us it's as mythical as Stoval'Kor.
American Gothic popped to mind because I just found out the other day it was mocking the little people for living in outdated houses, but this sort of attitude is all over the place. Visit any art gallery. Ask artists what they think of people who work for a living.
Visit any art gallery. Ask artists what they think of people who work for a living.
"go to a place that caters to and promotes mostly the wealthy and the children of the wealthy and ask them about their opinion of less wealthy people" is not the own you may initially think it is
OK, so now we've admitted that part of the artistic community has a problem with punching down. Making progress.
Where may we find this mythical hive of sympathy and understanding for the problems of the working class? It must be a secret society. One that does such a good job of staying hidden that evidence for its existence is undetectable.
Are you a materialist or a liberal? It doesn't matter what the wealthy "arty" stereotypes are like or say about you and me. They don't represent all artists, and even if they did they arrived at their position and beliefs due to this thing called material conditions.
So, there is no such sympathetic group in the artistic community.
The only artist I know personally works in auto body because he's not a wealthy elite. Fuck him because there are not sympathetic artists.
Anyway :LIB:
Please point us to this magical place where this post and poster belong
Oh hey, look who it is! :gulag:
I dont believe you have any experience at all dealing with artists beyond some very lazy and surface-level cultural stereotypes. You also seem to think that all artists are gallery artists? Thats a vanishingly small sector of creative work and one of the only thats totally insulated from the effects of AI competition.
:downbear: This is even more unhinged than going off about animators not deserving better working conditions.
A lot of people get uncomfortable when it's pointed out that they've been punching down.
If you want sympathy out of this world, first you have to put it in.
What's the magical sympathy quota that must be given to the world before one deserves it back? The leftist position is that we feel for our fellow humans because we can see a better life for all. The vegan position pushes that all life deserves to be treated with respect and that the inhumane conditions we subject other creatures to is unconscionable. People can have worse experiences under capitalism than others, it does not invalidate the fact that a nurse working 12 hour days with a patient load 2 times the pre-covid levels has a hard job. The child slave working on a cocoa plantation has it worse but the leftist position states that both deserve a better life. An artist has to go through a different set of stressors and challenges than the nurse, artists are underpaid and overworked like pretty much every worker under capitalism. Just because some artists can be dicks and class traitors does not condemn an entire facet of the human condition. Art has existed for millennia and to say that you don't care because some American artist made a painting that made fun of rural farmers is to miss the entire goddamn point of being a leftist.
:juche-WPK: Boy, I wonder what this paintbrush is for? :GDR-emblem: Or this funny little thing in front of this hammer? Get outta here, artists are workers too!
literally not.. they own their own means of Production...
:lenin-sure:
They are workers because they sell their own labor power, sure they own their own means, but they (in most cases, afaik) do not exploit others nor seek rent, they survive solely on their own work. Or take an artist working for a company with company equipment, suddenly they do not own their own means anymore, just their labor power which they are then selling. Magically, the artist now fits in with the usual description of a worker.
In the second part of your writing you described a Contract worker..
An Artists for me is a One Man Company , it Sells his Talent and therefore is the Monopolist of his Talent. If he has a Boss of course he is a Worker but a classic "Artist " is pretty solid in the petit Bourgouise Class..
But one of the Bourgeoisie class exploits others, the classic artist doesn't. :jesse-wtf:
yeah .. so
he owns his means of Production.
he Sets the Price for his own Labour
he is in no Autority Structure
he is a Specialist whos labour is not easy to replace (until now)
he has no Contract or Wage
he is Petit Bourgoise
they are Contract Workers .. DUDE .. What is that ? Are you even Trying .. ?
Artist are Petit Bourgoise
Like it or like it not..
Yeah
"The term is politico-economic and references historical materialism. It originally denoted a sub-stratum of the middle classes in the 18th and early-19th centuries. In the mid-19th century, the German economist Karl Marx and other Marxist theorists used the term petite bourgeoisie to identify the socio-economic stratum of the bourgeoisie that consists of small shopkeepers and self-employed artisans.[2][3][4] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie
Are we done now ?
CONTRACT WORKERS ARE NOT ARTISANS ;
they have a CONCTRACT with their EMPLOYER , ABOUT HOW THEY WILL SPEND THEIR LABOUR .
They are SELLING THEIR LABOUR to their Contract Holder ..
Your Literally denying the Offical Definition ...
You define everybody involved with ART as an ARTIST ... thats wrong in a Class Definition , please devide the Class definition from your classical "Job Categories"
The Artist is NOT in A Contrcat but is Producer! , Seller! and Profiteur! of his own Product. ---> Petit Bourgoise.
If he can not Sell his own Art on the Market , then hes just a Dude with a Hobby , no matter what he tells his Parents . If he has A Contract he is a Worker that calls himselfs "artist".
Class is defined by the Market Relations.
yeah so ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie
So far artists have been (according to you) Petite bourgoise, bourgoise, boheme, artisans and contract workers
Okay lets make it Clearer .. Sucessfull Artisans Are Petite Bourgoise up to Haute Bourgoise
Unsuccessfull Artist will end up as Contract Workers... for the Petite Bourgoise or haute Bourgoise Artisan
the Boheme is more of a Social Class / sphere the Succesfull ad Unsuccesfull artisans Mingle connecting both Speheres..
these are 19th century definitions so dont get to worked up over it
there are many definitions as there are Many speheres . like the Law Definition in Germany is afaik : Your an Artist if you have the "Gewerbeschein" and sold Art of more then 5000€ worth or something ..
So i can not follow this hole "artist is artist because he makes Art"
like yes hat is also right thats like "Generall Knowledge" Definition..
Let me reitegrade again
Artisans belong to the Petit-Bourgoise in Marxist Class Theory.
that you call everything not on the Trees after the Count to 3 an "Artist" is your Problem and makes your hole conversation useless blabber ...
Again even following your literal definition you’re wrong. The majority of
artistsWORKERS do not own the means of production, they do not set their own wages or hours, they do not exist outside of other hierarchies.nope
i can not answer a question thats not asked ... i dont do "Discoussion on the Syle of Discussion" Meta Shit , but i think its Funny that you dont state the so important Question like ever.. then accuse me of not answering it I dont even think there is a Discussion going on to be Honest ..
I informed you of an offical definition. And probably some things got lost in Translation .. But the Subject of the "Dissoussion" is settled. All of this Hostility following is more direected against the Messanger then he Message , and sure theres always potential to deliver it better ,.. "feel the Room" and all of that. But thats not really of Substance.
Also there is a culturall differencee working here
A - You search for the "Absolute" Definition, fitting all Speheres - Where i come from there is Diffrent Spehers necesscitating different Definitions.. So No Search for Absoluts.. "Boheme " serves the exactly the purpose of adressing the Problem of the "Artisan Definition" to be this inbeetween thing , that Artisans obviously are ..
B - You Think I try to attack Artist .. Art in some kind of Chud way.. I got one comment with "Pat soc" ?, so I assume this is what creates this hostility .. ? I fucking lovee Art and Artist and all of that shit. How Boring and Gray would be the World without the Muses and their Messangers ?
.. thats this very nasty thing with Anglosphere Culture ,there Konversation is not Subjet oriented but Person oriented, therefore the Goal is to Establish a Winner instead Wisdom. It happens in the Internet with th Anglossphere , I think even the Schools have debate Clubs and all Debates are allways framed after a Winner? , theres Never a "What new Wisdoms did we get" framing but a "Who Won ? " Framing , totally derailing a Konversation. Giant Psy Ops..
So lets just settle it in the 2 Main Spheres
-
Sphere The Wisdom aquired
-
Sphere Who Won ?
I am Deranged and all of the other Words , do the worst kind of Dissussion.. change definition.. all of that .. Yes yes .. Sorry I am very sorry for that.. please lets end it here.. take your Trophy and leave me to my ....
-
funny how this kind of dogmatism runs exactly counter to real material conditions. being a contract worker in 2022 means nothing more than not being eligible for healthcare, overtime, stock grants, etc
he does not ...
maybe the Brush Factory Workers ?
but no he does not exploit . Thats your Singular Definition ?
its one of the indicators yes.. not the Single Indikator for me
ownership of the means to procude and ownership of the Product is pretty important as well
Dude I got it now , I went into the Archievs and look what I found out
Apperently the Artist belongs to the special Class of
"Boheme"
Oh my god this guy is on about fucking art again? Last time he was insisting that you couldnt understand modern art without having gone through a full college education and just kept going on about this fucking bullshit "oooh i bow to your superior education".
just read up ..
ist im Allgemeinen eine Bezeichnung des wohlhabenden Bürgertums oder im Marxismus die Bezeichnung der herrschenden sozialen Klasse der Gesellschaft, die der Klasse des Proletariats gegenübersteht und manchmal auch zur Abgrenzung gegenüber der (künstlerischen) Bohème verwendet wird.
Im Gegensatz zur beherrschten und ausgebeuteten Klasse der Arbeiter, deren Angehörige nur ihre auf dem Arbeitsmarkt zu verkaufende Arbeitskraft besitzen, sind die Groß unfd Kleinbürger daher Eigentümer der entscheidenden Produktionsmittel (etwa Fabriken, Transportmittel, Bodenschätze) und können mit deren Hilfe – und durch die Ausbeutung der Arbeiter (just one Indicator not THE Indicator) – ihren Kapitalbesitz beständig vermehren.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie
yeah so if i have the literal definition of Marx and Wallenstein and i have your opinion , i think i gonna go with the Literall definition .. but you do yours ...
ITS NOT MY DEFINITION BOY !!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie
I give you the Offical Definition and you followed with "Patsoc" /"Nazbol" just saying ..
The Glass house and the Stone Throwing ..
How about you do that ?
How about you now go and try to find what you would like to find so that you can define Artist as Working class .. Me searching for you what you want to find is exploitation of my Labour..
Yeah , .. but not everybody has a Market for his Talent..
An Artist that does not is therefore not an Artist. If Your Talent produces a Product that has Value in the Market.. How are you not the Master of your own Work ? your not a Worker your Petit Bourgouise ... Literally a Company ..
( One of the Best Companies , not gonna lie ) but your Not an Worker..
(..) Dabei erfährt die Zugehörigkeit zur Bourgeoisie keine Beschränkung durch das Ausüben bestimmter Berufe oder die Verfügung über ein irgendwie geartetes Eigentum. Der Eintritt in die Bourgeoisie kann auch mittels eines Sprungbrettes oder aufgrund besonderer Strebsamkeit oder Talentiertheit erfolgen. Auch garantiert die Zugehörigkeit zur Klasse nicht den Verbleib in dieser. An dieser Stelle werden laut Wallerstein dann doch bestimmte Charaktereigenschaften für den Bourgeois maßgeblich, nämlich Cleverness, Härte und Fleiß. Denn das wichtigste Kriterium für den Klassenerhalt ist der Erfolg auf dem Markt.
What in the fuck do you think "from each according to his ability to each according to his means" means? What do you think "ability" means in that context? This is one of the worst understandings of Marx, art and the idea of labour I've ever seen. Like mind-bogglingly wrong in every possible way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie
Theorists used the term petite bourgeoisie to identify the socio-economic stratum of the bourgeoisie that consists of small shopkeepers and self-employed artisans.[2][3][4]
Because the artistic community has a long history of treating the little guy with contempt. Still waiting for anyone to show me where in the artistic community a place of sympathy and kindness for the working class exists. Who is more noble, the artist, or the plumber? The question answers itself, doesn't it?
Who is more noble, the artist, or the plumber?
this has powerful caleb maupin vibes
artists are working class because they have to sell their labour power in order to access the essentials of life
they do not deserve better conditions because of any inherent sympathy, destitution, prostration, humility and so on, but because perpetuating this mode of production fucks us all of us over
refusing to stand with any group of the working class when it matters is individualized brain worms, i don't want you to like them, i want you to have solidarity, this tit for tat bullshit won't get you anywhere
Yeah it has everything to do with art and individual artists and nothing to do with the market for art and who buys it.
AI is dangerous for the entire world. The implications have only just now started. It’s going to fuck our society all up.
to start, it's already enabled mass policing of complex human behavior with almost zero human effort
If the Hunter Biden laptop story had been allowed to get out of control, Trump would be president today.
