Lemerksdagaming
Member
Yeah that's fair actually.
Only part I don't like is how tatsuru was like "erm actually, we did warn him" when it was on a day where he didn't post anything, that I still believe is pretty scummy behavior
Does anyone know where the claim that this is "an art community" came from?
- Thread starter Lemerksdagaming
- Start date
Only part I don't like is how tatsuru was like "erm actually, we did warn him" when it was on a day where he didn't post anything, that I still believe is pretty scummy behavior
XyloDude
"Jackpot!"
While I will accept this, I still believe the way that the situation got handled was.. not good. Warnings being attached to messages and sometimes not even giving notifications is not a good way to, well, warn someone. Hell, Wumbo not getting a notification for his (TEST) warning shows that Bandder might have also not gotten a notification for his warn, not to mention that shortly after (as Lemerksdagaming mentioned) RoyKirbs dropped the big ol' BAN HAMMER on him. However, if Bandder DID get a notification from his warning, you still have to address the possibilities that Bandder got the warning while he was asleep and couldn't have possibly reacted in time and stop.
I think this shows that the current Warning System is incredibly flawed as it can be easily missed or straight up not even notify the user that they've been warned. Even Bandder had the same thoughts that the current system is shoddy.
Either way, ignoring my thoughts on the Warning System, the way RoyKirbs handled the situation was very unprofessional, immediately banning him not even an hour later the warn is a horrible move as it doesn't let the person react in time at all. Even if the ban was discussed during the period between the warn and ban, it still felt very unfair for Bandder.
No, it does not, actually. In the time when Bandder got warned, he could've realized he was simply going too far with the argument and stopped. You could've all waited for him to see the warning itself and perhaps even.. apologize? I know he's been somewhat of a pain the ass for some of you but that doesn't mean he deserves such harsh treatment. This is just a very poor way to defend your actions.
Post automatically merged:
A thing I forgot to mention is that even if the warn was changed into a temp ban, that doesn't change the problem with it being changed less than an hour later. You should've thought out the warn before you gave it to Bandder.
Think before you give any type of punishment to users. Is it too harsh? Is it harsh enough?
Post automatically merged:
Last thing, if this is off by default, then that shows an inherent problem within the system. There should be a way to make it on by default, no?That may be Xenforo dying on us, or just being obscure about whatever this option does exactly, but it's sure something to look into. Thanks for letting me know.
Last edited:
We're aware of the issues and are looking into it, if this has been a longer running issue from notify user outright not working, we do have alternative ways of making sure people are informed regardless so this should never be an issue in the future. But being informed of the warning isn't important in this case, we decided to move from a warning to a temp ban, and this was communicated poorly.
XyloDude
"Jackpot!"
This is a response I wanted from the moderators but why was my reply not approved?
I don't think I can show what reply I'm talking about as it'll most likely be a rule breaker but I presonally didn't see any problems with it.
Ah, seems like my post was allowed in. Either way, I feel like I should throw in my 2 cents about the whole 'art community' deal.
By text book definition, SRB2 and its mods are art. However, the problem with taking the defintion of 'art' by face value is that ANYTHING that man has crafted is 'art'. And that includes AI-Generated Images, which I suppose most people here are against. Even if AI does most of the work, human input is still needed, typing in the prompts and all. I believe Grayvy Guy made a point like this, if I recall correctly.
The literal defintion of art is as follows:
"1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."
"2. the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance."
(Source: Oxford Languages)
I personally don't take definitions literally, so to me the SRB2 community is not an art community. I will agree that the sprite work for character addons, custom texture work and music for maps is art, no doubt about it. However, I feel like calling the SRB2 community solely an art one is.. incorrect. I feel like it disregards all of the code (lua/SOC) done for the mod, as without code, the mod would be stuck with simple vanilla abilities. And in that case, there would be no real reason (besides it being a character you like) to play SRB2 character addons, as they'd all be simple reskins made with no rhyme or reason. If anything, the SRB2 community is a general community, as it's not only about addons. When I say it's a general community, I'm talking about the people who play the game, people who make addons and so on. I'm not discrediting the hard work done by others when it comes to some beautiful sprite work but without unique coded abilities, a character addon just becomes a pretty picture to look at. I personally believe that for an addon to be solely art, it would be an addon that has psychological aspects, such as SRB Dream Emulator. Said map pack also fits the defintions of art I stated earlier, as even if it's inspired by LSD Dream Emulator it still has that feeling of it being the expression of human creative skill and imagination and should be appreciated for it's beauty or emotional power.
In conclusion, the SRB2 community to me is first and foremost a community for everyone. Even if it does have aspects of art, that shouldn't mean it's one. A lot of people who are in the SRB2 community aren't primarily modders or artist for that matter, they just enjoy the game and its addons. Those are my final words.
Post automatically merged:
I don't think I can show what reply I'm talking about as it'll most likely be a rule breaker but I presonally didn't see any problems with it.
Post automatically merged:
Ah, seems like my post was allowed in. Either way, I feel like I should throw in my 2 cents about the whole 'art community' deal.
By text book definition, SRB2 and its mods are art. However, the problem with taking the defintion of 'art' by face value is that ANYTHING that man has crafted is 'art'. And that includes AI-Generated Images, which I suppose most people here are against. Even if AI does most of the work, human input is still needed, typing in the prompts and all. I believe Grayvy Guy made a point like this, if I recall correctly.
The literal defintion of art is as follows:
"1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."
"2. the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance."
(Source: Oxford Languages)
I personally don't take definitions literally, so to me the SRB2 community is not an art community. I will agree that the sprite work for character addons, custom texture work and music for maps is art, no doubt about it. However, I feel like calling the SRB2 community solely an art one is.. incorrect. I feel like it disregards all of the code (lua/SOC) done for the mod, as without code, the mod would be stuck with simple vanilla abilities. And in that case, there would be no real reason (besides it being a character you like) to play SRB2 character addons, as they'd all be simple reskins made with no rhyme or reason. If anything, the SRB2 community is a general community, as it's not only about addons. When I say it's a general community, I'm talking about the people who play the game, people who make addons and so on. I'm not discrediting the hard work done by others when it comes to some beautiful sprite work but without unique coded abilities, a character addon just becomes a pretty picture to look at. I personally believe that for an addon to be solely art, it would be an addon that has psychological aspects, such as SRB Dream Emulator. Said map pack also fits the defintions of art I stated earlier, as even if it's inspired by LSD Dream Emulator it still has that feeling of it being the expression of human creative skill and imagination and should be appreciated for it's beauty or emotional power.
In conclusion, the SRB2 community to me is first and foremost a community for everyone. Even if it does have aspects of art, that shouldn't mean it's one. A lot of people who are in the SRB2 community aren't primarily modders or artist for that matter, they just enjoy the game and its addons. Those are my final words.
Last edited:
"the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power"
bring up ai image generation doesn't make sense as literally none of the addons here use that kind of ai (iirc the first version of Granifer Giganticus used chat gpt, but was removed in a recent update) I would understand if this was someplace like bsky or instagram or whatever, but there are no ai generated images here, and the first description outright excludes artificial image generation
I can agree with this tho, it's a community with artist, not just artist.
time gear
Eternity in an hour
I'd just like to take the moment to add my two cents to this aspect of the discussion now that AI has been brought up.
The way that I see it, AI generated images are not man-made, they're generated by AI without much in the way of proper human input beyond being trained on man made images and maybe some tags or phrases to attempt to guide it in a particular direction. When AI generates an image, it does so based on images it is trained on and user commands. AI does not possess free will, it does not possess artists intention, and it makes no effort to creatively interpret anything. It is simply a program that is carrying out its function as designed, nothing more and nothing less. As such, AI generated images are, in my eyes, exactly that. Images created through AI generation.
So why do I not consider these images art? It's because I feel that the ultimate defining factor behind what art is when broken down to its most core essence is its emotional value. Art is something that means something to at least its creator if not also others who experience it for themselves. It is created with deliberate intention behind it, and resonates with the particular emotions that the artist behind it was trying to convey, often all the way down to the tiniest details.
AI generated images are comparatively "soulless". The AI that generated the image does not possess thoughts or emotions and generated the image simply because it is designed to do so, and based on information trained into it and user commands. The AI is not capable of truly caring for its own work, or feeling anything at all about it. It does not put meticulous care into every last detail until everything is just right, nor does it rush to get it done and over with to meet a deadline. It robotically generates the image as it was designed to and that's it.
The closest thing to artistic value then that these images can hold is assigned to them after the fact by human observers. Although often quite imperfect on top of being meaningless to their creator, humans can assign meaning and emotional resonance to these images after the fact. This, I think, is why there are those who believe these images to be art. However, I worry we are setting a bad precedent if we discard the authors intentions into the matter of whether something is or is not art. If the intentions and emotions of the author do not matter when it comes to whether something is art, we broaden the scope of what can be considered art to an absurd degree. That is to say, quite literally everything that exists, or at least everything that is known about would count as art as everything means something to someone, and if everything is art then that's in effect the same as nothing being art. The word loses its meaning.
Last edited:
*GOOFYRAT!*
The goofiest of investigators.
When tf was AI brought in?
chromaticpipe
X LB RB RB B A Feelin' Good!
Somewhere the claim was made that art is art regardless of exactly how it was made, such an ambiguous definition could include a weird edge case like AI art and it was used to show how such a broad definition could have weird edge cases like AI art
I mean, one could argue that creative skill and imagination comes into writing the prompt itself when telling AI what to generate.
*GOOFYRAT!*
The goofiest of investigators.
That's the one exception imo.
C.D. Dinosaur
Three rats in a trench coat
if I'm the artist because I told the AI what to do, would I not also be the artist if I told the actual illustrator I'm getting a commission from what to draw?
that doesn't really make sense
*GOOFYRAT!*
The goofiest of investigators.
THIS, THANK YOU!
Sls64LGamingBro
An ordinary coder...
I'm not a fan of Generating Machines that can adapt a photo of an artist's creation, and take its data into a document file. Because that's just nothing creative you're adding, it's more of suggesting something you commission rather than practicing it the way Art is meant in its true identity.
time gear
Eternity in an hour
I've got to agree with C.D. here. It doesn't take any creative skill or imagination to just come up with a prompt, and even if you do come up with something unique and out there, you're still not the one putting in the leg work to transform that into a real image. The AI is, and the AI as I pointed out before is doing nothing more and nothing less than following its programming, training, and instructions to generate an output. It's an unthinking, unfeeling generative algorithm that has no opinion at all whatsoever on what it creates, nor will it likely even retain any sort of "memory" of having done so for long.
Perhaps more human-like AI with true sentience will exist some day, and if and when that day comes I'll be willing to concede the point that their creations are art because they will be capable of properly filling in the role of the artist through their deliberate intentions and desires for what they want their work to be and to convey. For now however, these images are just images.
However, I do believe that humans are capable of taking AI generated images and creating art with them. Redrawing an image to put in some more deliberate details or creating something completely new inspired by these generated images or etc. I'm not saying that these images have no artistic place, I just think that they serve more as places to start with creating art rather than being art in and of themselves. Just as a paintbrush can't claim authorship and can't create art on its own, neither can a current day AI. Both however can be used as tools in the creation of art.
XyloDude
"Jackpot!"
Yes, this is what I meant. If you look at the defintion of art literally, it means that even imagining something and bringing it to life in any mean is art.
As I brought up above, bringing your imagination to life is art, no matter what. That is if you look at the defintion literally and take it that way. I'm not calling AI Generated Images art, as they are not, but with the way people are taking the defintion of art literally and calling this an art community, couldn't someone use that as a way to argue that those images are art?
And to emphasize my point further, if we replace the AI with a real artist, you'd still be a part of the process, as you are telling them what you want them to do. And the thing that you want them to do comes from your imagination and creative skill. In that sense, you are a part of the process, as without you, the art piece wouldn't have been made.
time gear
Eternity in an hour
People are calling this an art community because it's a community of people who make and discuss art, not just because of how art is defined.
But you still aren't the one actually creating the art. Artists are people who create art, not just anyone who imagines anything. Imagination by itself does not create art, it's when this is turned into something real that art is made. Whether the art would have been made without you being involved is irrelevant. Setting forth the chain of events that lead to the creation of art is not the same thing as actually creating art. When you come up with an idea and then make it into something real, you are an artist no matter how small or insignificant the thing you make is. When you come up with an idea and have someone else makes it into something real, they become the artist and you're just the commissioner/requester. The end result is art either way, but if you weren't directly involved in the creation process, you haven't done anything to claim that you are the artist of the piece, only that you came up with the idea.
Or to put it in simpler terms, you can claim ownership if the art was made for you by someone else and the idea was all yours, but you cannot claim authorship. It's their work that they made for you even if the idea was all yours to begin with. They authored the piece, you own it. If you are the only one involved and made it, you are both the author and the owner. The only case you could make for claiming even partial authorship would be if you helped out with the actual creation process, in which case you would be co-authors.
The issue comes in when you don't have anyone actually creating the art, you just have someone coming up with ideas and then an AI with no thoughts or intentions or creative interpretation or anything of the sort simply generates an output. In this case, you have generated an image (or more precisely the AI has), but the output image lacks the crucial creative element in its creation that makes it art. It doesn't have an author, only an owner.
SilverVortex
True,
as a person who has no strong feelings regarding why we should refer to this art community as an art community, i have very strong feelings regarding generative a.i!
art (regardless of what you think of it) is a human effort to create something internally or externally significant, no matter what it is, how stupid, how initially meaningless or subjectively insignificant; art matters. even srb2 mods, which people in this thread have very reductively referred to as lesser art or somehow inferior to fine art or industry work. it isn't! all art takes some kind of work to make, and is an achievement in and of itself when it is achieved or completed. it's how we communicate with each other and show ourselves to the world, and that's a beautiful thing! it can display our worldview, our beliefs, our sense of humour, our interests, anything, and it can leave an impact on us and bring out these same things from us as consumers (couldn't think of a good word) in turn.
ai generated imagery is the commodification of art. it's a quick and easy solution for people who don't want to go through the process of honing a craft, and in turn it cheapens the impact of people's actual art when placed alongside it. there's no meaning in there, there's nothing i can take from it beyond a surface level, it's not even something i can appreciate as a labour or something someone committed time to making (which i can at least say for artwork or media that i don't personally enjoy). ai isn't a display of human work, it's a slop generator.
not to mention, the use of generative ai is insanely inethical. it puts actual artists out of jobs just to save money, it uses an absurd amount of energy which damages the environment, it spreads disinformation across social media, it exploits artists who have already done the work by feeding their artwork into the slop machine and it incentivises corporations, production studios and individual artists to try less because wasting time on effort doesn't compare to constantly putting out half-baked media for money. i don't like it! you shouldn't either!
tl;dr generative ai sucks ass and shouldn't be considered "art" under any circumstance or technicality
art (regardless of what you think of it) is a human effort to create something internally or externally significant, no matter what it is, how stupid, how initially meaningless or subjectively insignificant; art matters. even srb2 mods, which people in this thread have very reductively referred to as lesser art or somehow inferior to fine art or industry work. it isn't! all art takes some kind of work to make, and is an achievement in and of itself when it is achieved or completed. it's how we communicate with each other and show ourselves to the world, and that's a beautiful thing! it can display our worldview, our beliefs, our sense of humour, our interests, anything, and it can leave an impact on us and bring out these same things from us as consumers (couldn't think of a good word) in turn.
ai generated imagery is the commodification of art. it's a quick and easy solution for people who don't want to go through the process of honing a craft, and in turn it cheapens the impact of people's actual art when placed alongside it. there's no meaning in there, there's nothing i can take from it beyond a surface level, it's not even something i can appreciate as a labour or something someone committed time to making (which i can at least say for artwork or media that i don't personally enjoy). ai isn't a display of human work, it's a slop generator.
not to mention, the use of generative ai is insanely inethical. it puts actual artists out of jobs just to save money, it uses an absurd amount of energy which damages the environment, it spreads disinformation across social media, it exploits artists who have already done the work by feeding their artwork into the slop machine and it incentivises corporations, production studios and individual artists to try less because wasting time on effort doesn't compare to constantly putting out half-baked media for money. i don't like it! you shouldn't either!
tl;dr generative ai sucks ass and shouldn't be considered "art" under any circumstance or technicality
Uh-huh. On normal terms id agree with this statement.
But because of circumstances: the definition of art does not say that you specifically need to create the art.
It DOES say “human creative skill and imagination” however, and you can argue that it takes creative skill and imagination to create a prompt for the AI to generate the goods for you.
I'm just saying, if srb2 can technically be considered a art community, then AI art can technically be considered art.
But you don't see people going around saying that it is, do you?
Yet again: “just because your correct doesn't mean your right.”
XyloDude
"Jackpot!"
You missed my point. This community isn't an art community, calling it that is disregarding all the code done for addons.
This is a general community, it's for everyone. Calling it an art community is just incorrect, even if the community does have artists and musicians.
Yes, you are correct. What I meant to say was that when said imagination is turned into art, even if the person who imagined it isn't the artist, that's when it's art. Thinking out the prompt itself doesn't qualify as art, when you put it into the AI.. it counts as art (with a heavy asterik). I know the AI doesn't have a creative thought or process but wouldn't us putting in the prompt or correcting it if it made any mistakes count as us being the creative input the AI lacks?
Thing is, when we're taking the definition of art literally as we are with the idea of this being an art community, that's only when this idea gets applied. When we take the definition of art rationally and don't apply it literally, commissiong someone or generating images with AI isn't art.
As for your ownership and authorship point, I agree. However, I was never implying the person inputting the idea was the author of the work, I just said that they were a part of the process of this idea of making art.
I am not defending AI generated images, I am criticizing the flawed way this community defines art.
*GOOFYRAT!*
The goofiest of investigators.
Mhm.
REALLY hoping someone locks this thread, so no one hates someone else for life or anything lmao-