Source (Bluesky)
this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
397 points (93.6% liked)
furry_irl
1553 readers
101 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hmm... That's a good point. I've been focused on whether or not the final product is art, and it's definitely not, because again, it's created by a machine that can't express itself, but it's true that the prompt itself may be considered art. The thing that can make a shovel into art isn't the shovel itself, but the self-expression coming out in the artist's idea to look at it in a way that elevates it to become art. But there's a difference between elevating something mundane into art, and randomly declaring things to be "art." Marcel Duchamp's work is art, but I think most would agree that people who ridicule it by saying things like "Okay, then this pencil's called 'Mr. Writey' now - it's art!" are not creating art. Maybe the only real difference is intent? I'll have to think on this one, but I appreciate your insight!
Surely Mr. Writey is art to the same degree that every outsourced frame of a cartoon is art. Some no-kidding capital-a Art™ was made as a piss-take. Ask Duchamp.
Better yet, ask Damien Hirst. His piece For The Love Of God is the diamond-encrusted skull of an 18th-century monk. Two pieces quickly appeared in response. One, For The Laugh Of God, is missing a front tooth. The other was a close replica of the skull and its display case, briefly installed in the dumpster behind the auction house.
Neither response is claiming the pattern of the diamonds as the purpose of the work. That's not what they contributed. Each work, as a whole, is still art.
A more clarifying question might be: who made Koyaanisqatsi? It's mostly stock footage and b-roll. Y'know, long shots of daily life, sped up or slowed down. It has no actors, no characters, no verbal narrative. It is a film where principal photography is just raw material.
And we say George Lucas made A New Hope. He wrote it, certainly... with apologies to Kurasawa. But to what degree is he responsible for what you see onscreen? He doesn't act. His direction was famously terrible. Gilbert Taylor did cinematography. The character designs were by Ralph McQuarrie. ILM did the sets and props. Marcia Lucas had final edit. Even if we granted him sole authorship, he didn't draw those frames; he pointed a camera at some guys. The footage is not the work.
The idea that a text cannot be art requires strange definitions. 'That's definitely not art, because they did it with a machine' is what people said about Tron.