None of this makes any sense to me. I’m not defending any part of it, but I also don’t really understand the bits about objectifying women (the AI is literally an object and it can’t be anything else) or pushing impossible beauty standards on women - these are drawings. Why would a girl feel pressured to look as good as an image that doesn’t have actual bones or organs or skin pores - not even fucking gravity.
But that confusion aside, this is just the stupidest thing ever. There is no artistry. There is no, you know, working to stay in shape or applying makeup just so. It’s all a bunch of fake stupidity and I can’t understand why anyone would care at all about this, much less deign to critique it from a feminist perspective. It doesn’t seem worthy of spending the time analyzing it to that degree.
Of course I’ve just wasted two paragraphs of my life on it so I guess I shouldn’t cast stones.
Eh not that it’s crystal clear to me but the winner actually looks much more realistic in terms of what’s achievable for real humans than the runner ups. I think there is some sort of merit in the clout category, all participants already have a media presence which for better or worse means they drive some engagement. I’m not saying it has virtue though.
I take it as a silly competition. A just because you can thing.
There is no artistry. […] It’s all a bunch of fake stupidity and I can’t understand why anyone would care at all about this, much less deign to critique it from a feminist perspective. It doesn’t seem worthy of spending the time analyzing it to that degree.
I really don’t get this take.
If they’re crafting prompts and iterations they are crafting. If they’re crafting them according to artistic concerns on the output, there’s artistry.
It’s a different kind. But I don’t see why it would be immediately disqualified just because it’s something different.
It’s much closer to creative/producing arts than it is to classic beauty pageants.
Why would a girl feel pressured to look as good as an image that doesn’t have actual bones or organs or skin pores - not even fucking gravity.
If you can interpret it as an image of a woman then there is correlation. What they are sourced from doesn’t make a difference.
Do you think photoshopped images or makeup also don’t change perception and consequently influence beauty standards? Those are also not based on the inherent physical properties of the original bodies.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
None of this makes any sense to me. I’m not defending any part of it, but I also don’t really understand the bits about objectifying women (the AI is literally an object and it can’t be anything else) or pushing impossible beauty standards on women - these are drawings. Why would a girl feel pressured to look as good as an image that doesn’t have actual bones or organs or skin pores - not even fucking gravity.
But that confusion aside, this is just the stupidest thing ever. There is no artistry. There is no, you know, working to stay in shape or applying makeup just so. It’s all a bunch of fake stupidity and I can’t understand why anyone would care at all about this, much less deign to critique it from a feminist perspective. It doesn’t seem worthy of spending the time analyzing it to that degree.
Of course I’ve just wasted two paragraphs of my life on it so I guess I shouldn’t cast stones.
Eh not that it’s crystal clear to me but the winner actually looks much more realistic in terms of what’s achievable for real humans than the runner ups. I think there is some sort of merit in the clout category, all participants already have a media presence which for better or worse means they drive some engagement. I’m not saying it has virtue though.
I take it as a silly competition. A just because you can thing.
I really don’t get this take.
If they’re crafting prompts and iterations they are crafting. If they’re crafting them according to artistic concerns on the output, there’s artistry.
It’s a different kind. But I don’t see why it would be immediately disqualified just because it’s something different.
It’s much closer to creative/producing arts than it is to classic beauty pageants.
I don’t care that they did this. I just can’t see why anyone would pay attention.
If you can interpret it as an image of a woman then there is correlation. What they are sourced from doesn’t make a difference.
Do you think photoshopped images or makeup also don’t change perception and consequently influence beauty standards? Those are also not based on the inherent physical properties of the original bodies.
Yeah. Had this conversation with my wife and she’s with you - emphatically.