I heard a bunch of explanations but most of them seem emotional and aggressive, and while I respect that this is an emotional subject, I can’t really understand opinions that boil down to “theft” and are aggressive about it.
while there are plenty of models that were trained on copyrighted material without consent (which is piracy, not theft but close enough when talking about small businesses or individuals) is there an argument against models that were legally trained? And if so, is it something past the saying that AI art is lifeless?
I think he meant painting and the like when saying “plastic arts”, not doing art with plastic.
Or so I guess.
Plastic arts is sculptures, three dimensional things like statues. Nothing to do with plastic, the material. It just so happens that 3D printing is a type of plastic art that uses types of plastic as its medium.
Not only 3D things, it englobes paintings too, some add photo & film even.
If that’s the case, it’s a language barrier thing. The equivalent to “plastic art” in my native language excludes paintings.
Fair enough!
English and french seems to include it.
What’s the language? Maybe it’s more literal and fr/en has some historical etymology…
In German, it’s “plastische Kunst”. The adjective “plastisch” basically means “three dimensional”, as in “not flat”.
Plastische Chirurgie is plastic surgery - it’s not primarily putting “plastic” into bodies ;) but sculpting a three dimensional form.
Interesting, in french, latin, greek before that, it seems it’s about plasticity, the possibility to modulate materials.
Stumbled onto wilipedia and Kant coining the modern expression, with, if I understood it correctly, painting in the definition. Guess it didn’t stick in his homeland :-)