furry_irl

1553 readers

122 users here now

"For the fur in u"

Welcome to Furry_irl, a community for furry memes, shitposts, and other relatable images or comics.

Community rules:

Code of Conduct — Follow our instance rules.
Post formatting — All titles should be a single word, followed by _irl. An emoji may substitute the underscore.
Credit artists — If it's not your art, include who made it in the title or the post body. Links are appreciated, except to X/Twitter.
Stay on topic — Images should contain or be related to furries. Images should be relatable or a meme. This isn't the place for general art posts.
Avoid AI images — Our fandom has countless artists, please share their (or your own) labors of love instead.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

liam@pawb.social

Foxfire@pawb.social

397

Accessible_irl (Art by Igdoods) (pawb.social)

submitted 6 days ago by ThefuzzyFurryComrade@pawb.social to c/furry_irl@pawb.social

113 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Source (Bluesky)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That's nice.

Meanwhile, the average person only sees results. They do not seem to share your fundamental aversion to how a JPG was made. They didn't experience whatever grand philosophical journey produced it. It doesn't need to be artisanal grass-fed human Art.™ It either provokes an emotional response, or not.

If AI slop is a text in the absence of subtext, it is still a text. Comes with death-of-the-author built in. And people can still say something with works they did not make themselves... as you're doing right now.

[–] ThefuzzyFurryComrade@pawb.social 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Meanwhile, the average person only sees results. They do not seem to share your fundamental aversion to how a JPG was made. They didn’t experience whatever grand philosophical journey produced it. It doesn’t need to be artisanal grass-fed human Art.™ It either provokes an emotional response, or not.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19368623.2024.2368040

And people can still say something with works they did not make themselves… as you’re doing right now.

Are you seriously suggesting that sharing something made by somebody else is the same as it being made by nobody at all?

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

I'm suggesting people can communicate with images regardless of who made them. What they're communicating does not have to resemble what an artist originally intended. Surprised Pikachu face.

You could pick ten nature shots out of some catalog, and tell a story just by arranging them in a certain order. If you later found out one image was generated - how would that change your story?

Can you imagine how funny it would be, if that 'I don't want your slop' image turned out to be made in Midjourney? Not one pixel would change, but half the people celebrating it would declare it never meant anything to them. How could it? It's not art. Anymore.

Meanwhile, Duchamp put a toilet in a museum. He didn't make it. He just signed it.