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.

The thing, even with human-made art, is that what’s “moving” is highly personal. Maybe accept that their experience is different from yours?

If that’s the case, it’s a language barrier thing. The equivalent to “plastic art” in my native language excludes paintings.

That presumes you can read the author’s mind. It’s impossible to tell with 100% certainty what an author meant to say. You can make assumptions and some can be more plausible than others and people can agree that one interpretation seems more valid than another but that’s it. When a work of art is released into the world, the author has no authority over its meaning.

A good artist of course can make certain intentions very obvious and control, to a certain degree, what the recipient feels. That’s what you’re perceiving as missing in AI generated pictures.

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.

Exactly. I have no intention of selling my art and I object strongly to it being used by some company for their own profit. That’s mine, wtf makes them think they can use it, regardless of its current monetisation status?

What difference does the medium make? The people who think AI pictures are good enough or even better than art made by humans will be perfectly fine with generating 3D models and printing them if they want any kind of sculpture.

The fuck are you on about? Where is any of this in your original post? What does it have to do with anything?

“Meme” is not another word for “joke”.

Physical artists won’t, especially those doing plastic art.

Why would they be safe with 3D printers being a thing?

Who uses the Death of the Author to justify media illiteracy? I think you may be misunderstanding what the term means?

When people say “the author is dead”, what they mean is that, when interpreting a piece of art, it doesn’t matter what the original artist meant to say with it - for the purpose of the interpretation they are dead and you cannot ask them what they meant.

It’s always a personal matter what you see in art, any interpretation that makes sense to you is valid, even if it may not be what the artist intended. (That does not mean you can bullshit your way through poem analysis in school, different situation)

Triceratops onesie.

I don’t think it’s “glossing over”, it’s that actual mental health problems are outside most people’s frame of reference so the thought doesn’t occur to them. It’s less active ignoring, more simply not knowing.

Call me stupid but I don’t understand what it is you’re arguing. It doesn’t seem to have any connection to the claims made here.

Be that as it may, have a nice day, good sir/ma’am.

This is kind of amazing, I was actually, genuinely interested in what the people calling the story “fake” had to say because it’s obviously pretty out there and I have no prior knowledge about the source. Everything I got in response to asking for more information was utter dumbfuckery. Also straight up lies about what I said. Good job with the propaganda, Genossen.

Keep those pesky Luigis away

Excuse you?

The DW source (which @Lumidaub@feddit.org casts doubt on)

lolno I didn’t. Don’t put words in my mouth.

I know the DW background, I live in the country they’re based in. I’m asking if you know the background of the source you use.

Also, still waiting for anti-vax source.

? I’m not going to hunt down whatever you’re referring to.

DW money?

Source for anti-vax claim?

You do know where DW, the one source you provide, gets its money?

How so? Genuinely asking. Is that not a credible source?