WrongPixel

 90%  

My Pixel is the Wrong Pantone

We are not uploading high art to the internet. 

None of us are. *

What we are doing is uploading pixels to the internet. 

Pixels. 

Pixels which are representational reproductions of visual stimulation.

Visual stimulation which we react to, mentally and emotionally. 

That is all any of it is. 

Some, our eyes and minds interpret as written language with meaning. 

Some, we interpret as pictorial representations. 

Some simply as colour. Shapes. 

What we have with the vocal minority of “anti-AI art” lobbyists is they have attempted to set themselves up as GateKeepers for what representational reproductions, what pixel configurations, other people are allowed to see. 

It is an attempt to establish themselves into a position of authority and power, based on griping and on assuming control that they know better than other peoples ability to formulate their own opinions, without requiring of those peoples consent. 

It has created an ‘us verses them’ cultural dynamic, with controlling haters on one side of their projected line finding an excuse to persecute other people who react to said pixels differently to themselves. 

There is an awareness that despite allegedly 90% of internet use being pornographic, ** 

there is content online which we should rightly be protecting vulnerable members of our community from. 

The contention surrounds protecting children, who many of us (myself included) feel should not be sexualised by exposing them to graphic detail. Neither do we want to see pixels which indicate that. In this situation it is correct for the community to establish a level of GateKeeping. For the majority of us this is already sensibly in place. 

There are also several massive industries involved in the global economy, fulfilling the wants and needs of people of many persuasions who have no problem whatsoever with observing adult and mature content. Many people actively want to see multimedia art sexualising adults to such extent they are willing to pay a lot of money for it.   

The sex equation is not the same thing as censoring other peoples art and other peoples enjoyment of what they consider to be art. What ‘art’ is in this sense is; representational reproductions. Pixels. 

Who GateKeeps the GateKeepers? Who tells them they do not have a moral or legal right to prevent us from creating, observing, being influenced by, new, original art using a new medium? The majority of us would rather be looking at safe pixels than listening to their arguments as to why we are wrongful for wanting to look at safe pixels. 

* It is not technologically possible to do so until someone invents that thing from the MikeTV scene in Charleys Chocolate Factory (see original movie), where real-world physical items are transported as radio-waves and reassembled elsewhere. Some people call these ‘teleporters’ and ‘cloning machines’. 

** How would we know if thats accurate? I know my own internet use of observing and being influenced by pornography certainly is significantly less than 90%