My cousin went to RISD in 1972 after graduation she started hanging around MIT eventually studying under Negroponte before the formation of the media lab. After graduation she worked as a computer animator.
She is in the photo at the terminal working on the last starfighter.
She has been creating computer art ever since. She has often expressed confusion and disillusionment with the field. She is often unsure if she or the computer is the artist.
Photographers have always had similar sentiments, but if you look at artistic photography versus random or amateur photography the former is definitely an art form.
Nearly all art except singing and dance is made with tools. In many cases tools define the art form.
> She is often unsure if she or the computer is the artist.
Did she really say that? As a moonlighting digital artist, I feel like this is the same thing as a painter saying they’re not sure if the paintbrush is the artist. Maybe if I wanted a full time art career I should have leaned into it and fostered the dramatic narrative of the computer having intent. God knows there are a bunch of artists who actually know better say lots of stupid untrue stuff that anthropomorphizes computers, and they enjoy a lot of attention for it. I think this hyperbolic ghost in the machine crap is very short sighted and has influenced public opinion much for the worse.
Artists are undermining their own efforts and talents and spreading misinformation about what computers actually do when they tell the story this way. More importantly, they are undermining the efforts and talents of all artists, specifically of digital artists who don’t want to take part in the computer-as-artist narrative. I’ve stood next to my art at a gallery show and had people walk by and say out loud something like “ugh why is this here? this crap is just made by a computer”. I don’t expect people to understand how I use the computer, but the bias and lack of curiosity is pretty sad, and my computer was neither artist nor collaborator. It was a tool that I used to achieve a vision I had, the same way I use a paintbrush to make pictures.
We could talk about who made the tools, whether it’s a paintbrush, a camera, or computer hardware and software. There’s a Grand Canyon of space for credit that various other people might deserve, in between the artist and the art made using a computer. Jumping to the conclusion that the computer did anything on it’s own and deserves attribution is to be unintentionally (or sometimes intentionally) ignorant about what a computer is and what it does.
People have said similar things about artists throughout history. Oil Paint? Non-religious/mythical subjects? Impressionism? Fauvism? Cubism? Modern Art? Etc.
Throughout art history people have often not valued the new, but only the existing. Beaux-Arts de Paris in the late 1800's was the premiere art school in Europe training traditional artists; yet many eventually turned to impressionism, etc. and abandoned the old styles. I do "computer art" today and go in directions that are new. If all you do is what came before, everything including art will stagnate. Evolve or die is not just for biology.
Throughout art history the good stuff always floats to the top as it will always.
> This leads to Eliot's so-called "Impersonal Theory" of poetry. Since the poet engages in a "continual surrender of himself" to the vast order of tradition, artistic creation is a process of depersonalisation. The mature poet is viewed as a medium, through which tradition is channelled and elaborated. He compares the poet to a catalyst in a chemical reaction, in which the reactants are feelings and emotions that are synthesised to create an artistic image that captures and relays these same feelings and emotions. While the mind of the poet is necessary for the production, it emerges unaffected by the process. The artist stores feelings and emotions and properly unites them into a specific combination, which is the artistic product. What lends greatness to a work of art are not the feelings and emotions themselves, but the nature of the artistic process by which they are synthesised. The artist is responsible for creating "the pressure, so to speak, under which the fusion takes place." And, it is the intensity of fusion that renders art great. In this view, Eliot rejects the theory that art expresses metaphysical unity in the soul of the poet. The poet is a depersonalised vessel, a mere medium.
> Great works do not express the personal emotion of the poet. The poet does not reveal their own unique and novel emotions, but rather, by drawing on ordinary ones and channelling them through the intensity of poetry, they express feelings that surpass, altogether, experienced emotion. This is what Eliot intends when he discusses poetry as an "escape from emotion." Since successful poetry is impersonal and, therefore, exists independent of its poet, it outlives the poet and can incorporate into the timeless "ideal order" of the "living" literary tradition. [0]
Depends. Ancient Egyptian art didn’t evolve that much and it remained for millennia as current without the feeling that it ‘stagnated’. There is nothing that says things need to eternally evolve. There is some advantage in some systems in evolution, but not all systems and not for every species and not even for man.
People do not value the new because the new has no value.
Tell me the importance of a x1SjelifbOoo. It's not important because it has no importance.
Value, in this way, is formed by way of merit; of doing. That which fails to be valued greater or equivalent to another is less valuable, and lesser than another.
There are but a few classical traint artist that started to use computer programs to produce art. One of them is the Dutch artist Peter Struycken. See pstruycken.nl for his art works. In his last works, that focus on colour, he used software to find arrangements of squares with no recognizable patterns as not to distract the viewer from the subject of his works, the interaction of carefully selected coloursm
I am an artist who works with both digital and traditional media. When household computers were just making an appearance I remember talking with a family friend on the subject of art. They asked my if I had considered trying out this new technology, saying with stars in her eyes that ‘it can draw lines to a degree of accuracy of thousands of an inch’. I was at the time rightfully unconvinced.
This anecdote demonstrates how completely misunderstood new technologies can be. Such accuracy is completely irrelevant to an artist.
In the end the thing that ‘converted’ me was getting my hands on a copy of Photoshop. I was then, and remain, unimpressed by its painting tools. However, I was blown away by its ability to penetrate the surface of a photo - to change the facts of that photo. Effectively, this solved a creative problem I did not even know I had.
I honestly believe that tools are invented before tool users.
> That is, the role of the computer in the production and presentation of semantic information which is accompanied by enough aesthetic information is meaningful; the role of the computer in the production of aesthetic information per se and for the making of profit is dangerous and senseless.
I think this was prescient and still worthy of contemplation.
Humanity's abilities are always enhanced by their tools. This simply changes the judgement of art in the face of easier execution.
Let's say I used a custom power saw to carve a statue faster than ever before and more precisely. Would that reduce my influence and my application of taste? No. I would in fact be able to produce a piece faster and have more room for making more attempts.
Neural network based art tools are all giving us the same thing - easier execution. This means greater production and the ability to try most possibilities. The fact that creating art is more accessible to the public means that more creatives can be in the arena, making for more competition.
Any creator grapples with this change over time. Woodworkers of old prefer their techniques to modern power tools, painters prefer physical media, carvers prefer real blocks of marble/whatever. All of these things have modern digital equivalents, but the establishment of existing artists refuse to leave their posts. They hold their ground that the medium is critical to the art.
Art moves and changes slowly because of this human bias against new solutions. Go to any museum of modern art and you'll find that most of it could have been executed as such 20+ years ago. It's just that art takes time to accept a new way of doing something.
The banana stuck to the wall isn't as dumb as it sounds. Look up the story behind it. I read an argument that it's a clever bit of satire on NFTs and the idea of "owning a piece of art".
Does that make it art? Dunno. Don't care. It makes it interesting which is a more useful category.
> I'll stick to the best definition of art that I've heard : "if it gives you an emotion, it is art".
Stubbing my little toe gives me an emotion, is that "art"? lol
I would suggest that art is a method is communication. One philosophical definition that I've often used is that "it is a selective recreation of reality in accordance with what the artist considers to be essential."
When viewed through the lens of how art might be a useful tool for human survival, it allows us, as rational animals, to communicate highly complex topics in a condensed, straight-to-the-point manner. Morality tales and other stories, paintings, statues, theatrical plays ... all serve to communicate something.
To circle back to computer-generated "art", I would say that if the computer-generated artwork has a human programmer who was trying to communicate something through the software and its output, then I could consider it to be "art." It is not the computer producing the art, it is the human being who is programming or otherwise directing the computer through an intent to communicate something. If you leave a computer alone, and using some kind of random entropy it just so happens to produce an image of something because that's what the random generator landed on, then it's not art. There was no intent to communicate.
And in the example of computers visualizing some natural phenomenon (the article mentioned an oscilloscope as an example), then it is no more "art" than the image projected into the eye from a microscope since there is no recreation. It is, in that context, a tool for observing reality as it exists, rather than a medium of communication intended to express an idea.
> I'll stick to the best definition of art that I've heard : "if it gives you an emotion, it is art".
I think it's necessary, but not sufficient. So I kinda like my better:
It's art if (and to the extent of) people generally agree it's art.
Sounds tautological, but it isn't[0].
Of course, not everything is art. There are some aspects typically - but not always - present. Whether something gives you an emotion is one. Whether it has a deeper story behind it is another. Whether it's something that you can bond over with other people, or a shared experience, yet another. But none of those are required to be present. Art is ultimately a consensus opinion.
--
[0] - In fact, most of our civilization is built on ideas that exist only as long as most people expect most other people to believe them. Examples include: money, laws, countries, corporations, even the concept of society itself.
Don't forget "Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue" too - a huge rectangle of mostly red, which angered someone enough to try to destroy it, proving that someone was, in fact, afraid of red, yellow and blue.
The banana would be interesting art if the concept hadn't been done a million times before. This iteration is just a cash grab (and/or publicity play). Which does, to an extent, make it interesting again, so what if it's a commentary on the cash-grab nature of contemporary ar--okay I'm logging off.
If not for a PBS documentary on surrealism, I wouldn't have considered the existence of meta-art; art as commentary on art. The example I remember was Ceci n'est pas une pipe.[0] That sounds a bit like the banana taped to the wall.
that's not a good definition. if I go hiking and look at the mountains. that gives me an emotion. But is it art? it's just the actual planet. No human created that.
One is made by a human for other humans. The other is a randomly recognized pattern built from the stolen art of millions, and has no intended audience (because it itself is incapable of consuming art).
I also want to emphasize the "banana sticked to a wall" complaint is an often right wing stance to devalue art.
Art can be emotional, but not everything that creates emotion is art. In time I think we will work out a better definition of what constitutes art. One that excludes generated images and videos and emphasizes the human connection of artwork.
I think something missing in the article is role of art as a way to communicate meaning. Perhaps it's deliberate, i.e. author wanted to provoke people into talking about that aspect.
Obviously, art is part of the broader culture and it is one of the ways people update the collective unconscious. With computers entering human life, and thus culture, people need to make sense of computers. And "computer art" is a part of it, and it's part of the discussion about originality and individuality, so it definitely should be (if anything should be at all).
I remember there being a bit of a storm, roughly when Braid was released, about whether games are allowed to be called art. And at that time I spoke with lots of digital artists who had been told that they weren't artists at all also.
> I find it easy to admit that computer art did not contribute to the advancement of art.
(We = humans) We made the tweets. We made the paintings. We wrote stupid things on Reddit (or the smarter things). We photographed nature. We built LLMs. In a way, what LLMs are doing is derivative/product of 'our' (and nature's) work. It's like adding 4 ingredients to the blender, blend it for only a few seconds, and you get variation. If you put 4 similar ingredients and you blend again for the exactly same amount of seconds you will get something similar but not the same.
LLMs are probably better compared to a fully equipped chef’s kitchen: a suite of powerful tools that can be used to make sublime fare, or just to burn a nice steak to a crisp.
There are people around who successfully predict new modes of creativity when humans and AI will be working together. Seriously: “working together”. Not: “humans using software”. One such software is called “Botto”. An artist is its inventor.
I read, there are machines that take an input text to generate images from it. That’s meant to be surprising. Haven’t programs always been texts? You mean, natural language texts are different? So what? Isn’t there Natural Language Programming?
I've got to say though, I dont think his takes were very good
A little distracting that the cookie dialog buttons on dam.org have black text on black backgrounds when I’m in dark mode.
The styling is not as annoying as the cookie dialogs themselves, though.
Google shot themselves in the foot by transferring the pain of privacy to the user for Google Analytics. No one wants this. It wastes so much time. It’s as if every storefront that previously had open doors got a half door added with a crappy combination lock.
Art is unique and made directly. You can record and photograph it. Creating the recording or the scan of the photograph with the computer is direct digital cloning. A source file and no originals.
That being said you can make a print on canvas and take a brush to add some unique strokes or play the recording and strum along on a guitar.
or you can automate the direct digital cloning and ask the computer for something original.
I'm not an artist, and I don't know much about aesthetics.
But I've always felt that the most meaningful kind of image is one that somehow captures what you were feeling inside at the time.
AI-generated art can be stunning, but the more I see, the more it feels a bit empty. It often looks great, but there's no emotion behind it.
> There is no need for the production of more works of art, particularly no need for “computer art”
I mean, if you're against new art in the first place then the rest kinda follows from that right? This article is like titling an essay "Against Chelsea" and then halfway subtly dropping that, well, actually, you hate football in general and people should stop playing it.
Commenting about recent events, because that's why probably why the link was posted:
I think AI art is actually going to make gallery-based individual contemporary art objects more valuable, because they are unique things that cannot be replicated. There are only so many paintings by Picasso, or Kiefer, or Hockney, and even if you could copy them down to the atom, the chain of provenance would still basically make the copies worthless and the originals invaluable. This extends even to smaller contemporary artists that aren't world-famous names. And it also means that digital / computer art is probably never going to sell for much money, at least directly as an art object.
At the end of the day, it's essentially simple supply and demand. AI is commoditizing digital images, but it can't commoditize physical ones (yet, or ever.)
I am an artist who uses a computer to make art (https://gods.art). The reason I starting doing art with code was due to the difficulty of drawing wave interference pattens and phyllotaxis spirals by hand. Why should I spend hours doing it by hand when I can write an algorithm to perfectly draw the mathematical patterns I have in mind? It feels more elegant to me to understand the math, and express it in code, rather than just copying it manually (which can be done without understanding the mathematical dynamics).
That said, doing a simple prompt into an LLM and calling it "my art" seems disingenuous.
yeah, i think what you're getting at is something i think about a lot re: art, which is the delineation and interplay between "art" and "craft".
i value and appreciate craft on its own merit. something intentionally well-done by someone who is informed by practice is valuable in at least some capacity. but not all craft is art (obviously, harder to define), or at least, i don't hold all craft-as-art as equal or as personally valuable.
to me the biggest thing that separates art from craft is the intention behind creating or materializing an idea through craft vs simply creating or materializing an object (digital or physical). i can really appreciate your "artist's statement" behind the mastery of craft (mathematics in this case) as a means to an end to convey a greater concept, if that's what you're getting at.
this is entirely personal, but it's why i value certain forms of craft-centric art less than art that places a higher value on concept. i guess it's a value difference between media and message. it's why i kinda can't stand listening to prog rock like Rush or Dream Theater (technically very impressive! and valuable craft as someone who strives to become better at "Music"), but instead tend to prefer things that don't place the craft so prominently compared to other aspects.
again - that's not me knocking Rush or Dream Theater anything like that. extremely talented people doing extremely impressive things. but on my personal barometer (personal! not forced on anyone else), i guess i just tend to find it harder to enjoy than some other types of music.
[+] [-] detourdog|9 months ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Starfighter
She is in the photo at the terminal working on the last starfighter.
She has been creating computer art ever since. She has often expressed confusion and disillusionment with the field. She is often unsure if she or the computer is the artist.
[+] [-] api|9 months ago|reply
Nearly all art except singing and dance is made with tools. In many cases tools define the art form.
[+] [-] dahart|9 months ago|reply
Did she really say that? As a moonlighting digital artist, I feel like this is the same thing as a painter saying they’re not sure if the paintbrush is the artist. Maybe if I wanted a full time art career I should have leaned into it and fostered the dramatic narrative of the computer having intent. God knows there are a bunch of artists who actually know better say lots of stupid untrue stuff that anthropomorphizes computers, and they enjoy a lot of attention for it. I think this hyperbolic ghost in the machine crap is very short sighted and has influenced public opinion much for the worse.
Artists are undermining their own efforts and talents and spreading misinformation about what computers actually do when they tell the story this way. More importantly, they are undermining the efforts and talents of all artists, specifically of digital artists who don’t want to take part in the computer-as-artist narrative. I’ve stood next to my art at a gallery show and had people walk by and say out loud something like “ugh why is this here? this crap is just made by a computer”. I don’t expect people to understand how I use the computer, but the bias and lack of curiosity is pretty sad, and my computer was neither artist nor collaborator. It was a tool that I used to achieve a vision I had, the same way I use a paintbrush to make pictures.
We could talk about who made the tools, whether it’s a paintbrush, a camera, or computer hardware and software. There’s a Grand Canyon of space for credit that various other people might deserve, in between the artist and the art made using a computer. Jumping to the conclusion that the computer did anything on it’s own and deserves attribution is to be unintentionally (or sometimes intentionally) ignorant about what a computer is and what it does.
[+] [-] coldcode|9 months ago|reply
Throughout art history people have often not valued the new, but only the existing. Beaux-Arts de Paris in the late 1800's was the premiere art school in Europe training traditional artists; yet many eventually turned to impressionism, etc. and abandoned the old styles. I do "computer art" today and go in directions that are new. If all you do is what came before, everything including art will stagnate. Evolve or die is not just for biology.
[+] [-] dataviz1000|9 months ago|reply
> This leads to Eliot's so-called "Impersonal Theory" of poetry. Since the poet engages in a "continual surrender of himself" to the vast order of tradition, artistic creation is a process of depersonalisation. The mature poet is viewed as a medium, through which tradition is channelled and elaborated. He compares the poet to a catalyst in a chemical reaction, in which the reactants are feelings and emotions that are synthesised to create an artistic image that captures and relays these same feelings and emotions. While the mind of the poet is necessary for the production, it emerges unaffected by the process. The artist stores feelings and emotions and properly unites them into a specific combination, which is the artistic product. What lends greatness to a work of art are not the feelings and emotions themselves, but the nature of the artistic process by which they are synthesised. The artist is responsible for creating "the pressure, so to speak, under which the fusion takes place." And, it is the intensity of fusion that renders art great. In this view, Eliot rejects the theory that art expresses metaphysical unity in the soul of the poet. The poet is a depersonalised vessel, a mere medium.
> Great works do not express the personal emotion of the poet. The poet does not reveal their own unique and novel emotions, but rather, by drawing on ordinary ones and channelling them through the intensity of poetry, they express feelings that surpass, altogether, experienced emotion. This is what Eliot intends when he discusses poetry as an "escape from emotion." Since successful poetry is impersonal and, therefore, exists independent of its poet, it outlives the poet and can incorporate into the timeless "ideal order" of the "living" literary tradition. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition_and_the_Individual_T...
[+] [-] mc32|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] registeredcorn|9 months ago|reply
Tell me the importance of a x1SjelifbOoo. It's not important because it has no importance.
Value, in this way, is formed by way of merit; of doing. That which fails to be valued greater or equivalent to another is less valuable, and lesser than another.
[+] [-] 4gotunameagain|9 months ago|reply
Examples of new things that were criticised and rightfully not adopted include the "metaverse" or even chemical warfare.
[+] [-] fjfaase|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] Daub|9 months ago|reply
This anecdote demonstrates how completely misunderstood new technologies can be. Such accuracy is completely irrelevant to an artist.
In the end the thing that ‘converted’ me was getting my hands on a copy of Photoshop. I was then, and remain, unimpressed by its painting tools. However, I was blown away by its ability to penetrate the surface of a photo - to change the facts of that photo. Effectively, this solved a creative problem I did not even know I had.
I honestly believe that tools are invented before tool users.
[+] [-] cmrx64|9 months ago|reply
I think this was prescient and still worthy of contemplation.
[+] [-] parentheses|9 months ago|reply
Let's say I used a custom power saw to carve a statue faster than ever before and more precisely. Would that reduce my influence and my application of taste? No. I would in fact be able to produce a piece faster and have more room for making more attempts.
Neural network based art tools are all giving us the same thing - easier execution. This means greater production and the ability to try most possibilities. The fact that creating art is more accessible to the public means that more creatives can be in the arena, making for more competition.
Any creator grapples with this change over time. Woodworkers of old prefer their techniques to modern power tools, painters prefer physical media, carvers prefer real blocks of marble/whatever. All of these things have modern digital equivalents, but the establishment of existing artists refuse to leave their posts. They hold their ground that the medium is critical to the art.
Art moves and changes slowly because of this human bias against new solutions. Go to any museum of modern art and you'll find that most of it could have been executed as such 20+ years ago. It's just that art takes time to accept a new way of doing something.
[+] [-] whynotmaybe|9 months ago|reply
But a banana sticked to a wall with some tape did!
I'll stick to the best definition of art that I've heard : "if it gives you an emotion, it is art".
[+] [-] andybak|9 months ago|reply
Does that make it art? Dunno. Don't care. It makes it interesting which is a more useful category.
[+] [-] gspencley|9 months ago|reply
Stubbing my little toe gives me an emotion, is that "art"? lol
I would suggest that art is a method is communication. One philosophical definition that I've often used is that "it is a selective recreation of reality in accordance with what the artist considers to be essential."
When viewed through the lens of how art might be a useful tool for human survival, it allows us, as rational animals, to communicate highly complex topics in a condensed, straight-to-the-point manner. Morality tales and other stories, paintings, statues, theatrical plays ... all serve to communicate something.
To circle back to computer-generated "art", I would say that if the computer-generated artwork has a human programmer who was trying to communicate something through the software and its output, then I could consider it to be "art." It is not the computer producing the art, it is the human being who is programming or otherwise directing the computer through an intent to communicate something. If you leave a computer alone, and using some kind of random entropy it just so happens to produce an image of something because that's what the random generator landed on, then it's not art. There was no intent to communicate.
And in the example of computers visualizing some natural phenomenon (the article mentioned an oscilloscope as an example), then it is no more "art" than the image projected into the eye from a microscope since there is no recreation. It is, in that context, a tool for observing reality as it exists, rather than a medium of communication intended to express an idea.
[+] [-] kendalf89|9 months ago|reply
Therefore, unless you grant an autonomous AI personhood it can't create art.
However, one could use AI as a tool to express themselves and that would be art. But that's where I admit the line gets blurred.
[+] [-] brookst|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] TeMPOraL|9 months ago|reply
I think it's necessary, but not sufficient. So I kinda like my better:
It's art if (and to the extent of) people generally agree it's art.
Sounds tautological, but it isn't[0].
Of course, not everything is art. There are some aspects typically - but not always - present. Whether something gives you an emotion is one. Whether it has a deeper story behind it is another. Whether it's something that you can bond over with other people, or a shared experience, yet another. But none of those are required to be present. Art is ultimately a consensus opinion.
--
[0] - In fact, most of our civilization is built on ideas that exist only as long as most people expect most other people to believe them. Examples include: money, laws, countries, corporations, even the concept of society itself.
[+] [-] immibis|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] banannaise|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] tialaramex|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] bookofjoe|9 months ago|reply
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/20/arts/design/cattelan-bana...
https://archive.ph/vs3g3
[+] [-] hydrogen7800|9 months ago|reply
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images
[+] [-] zzzeek|9 months ago|reply
Art requires human intention to be art.
[+] [-] exe34|9 months ago|reply
Even if it's made by chatgpt? A lot of carbon-chauvinists believe only meatbags can make art.
[+] [-] unknown|9 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ralfd|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] auggierose|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] cainxinth|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] onthedystopia|9 months ago|reply
I also want to emphasize the "banana sticked to a wall" complaint is an often right wing stance to devalue art.
Art can be emotional, but not everything that creates emotion is art. In time I think we will work out a better definition of what constitutes art. One that excludes generated images and videos and emphasizes the human connection of artwork.
[+] [-] killerstorm|9 months ago|reply
I think something missing in the article is role of art as a way to communicate meaning. Perhaps it's deliberate, i.e. author wanted to provoke people into talking about that aspect.
Obviously, art is part of the broader culture and it is one of the ways people update the collective unconscious. With computers entering human life, and thus culture, people need to make sense of computers. And "computer art" is a part of it, and it's part of the discussion about originality and individuality, so it definitely should be (if anything should be at all).
[+] [-] protocolture|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] throw93849494|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] brookst|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] IAmBroom|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] HenryBemis|9 months ago|reply
(We = humans) We made the tweets. We made the paintings. We wrote stupid things on Reddit (or the smarter things). We photographed nature. We built LLMs. In a way, what LLMs are doing is derivative/product of 'our' (and nature's) work. It's like adding 4 ingredients to the blender, blend it for only a few seconds, and you get variation. If you put 4 similar ingredients and you blend again for the exactly same amount of seconds you will get something similar but not the same.
LLM is a blender :)
[+] [-] brookst|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] tempaway43563|9 months ago|reply
https://x.com/CarlCanary/status/1479567776272498693
There are people around who successfully predict new modes of creativity when humans and AI will be working together. Seriously: “working together”. Not: “humans using software”. One such software is called “Botto”. An artist is its inventor.
https://x.com/CarlCanary/status/1480107734087479296
I read, there are machines that take an input text to generate images from it. That’s meant to be surprising. Haven’t programs always been texts? You mean, natural language texts are different? So what? Isn’t there Natural Language Programming?
I've got to say though, I dont think his takes were very good
[+] [-] 00x-2|9 months ago|reply
The styling is not as annoying as the cookie dialogs themselves, though.
Google shot themselves in the foot by transferring the pain of privacy to the user for Google Analytics. No one wants this. It wastes so much time. It’s as if every storefront that previously had open doors got a half door added with a crappy combination lock.
[+] [-] mediumsmart|9 months ago|reply
That being said you can make a print on canvas and take a brush to add some unique strokes or play the recording and strum along on a guitar.
or you can automate the direct digital cloning and ask the computer for something original.
[+] [-] Kiyo-Lynn|9 months ago|reply
AI-generated art can be stunning, but the more I see, the more it feels a bit empty. It often looks great, but there's no emotion behind it.
[+] [-] falcor84|9 months ago|reply
I'm just surprised that someone writing in 1971 thought that they're sufficiently close to the end of the century to comment on it.
[+] [-] _m_p|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] skrebbel|9 months ago|reply
I mean, if you're against new art in the first place then the rest kinda follows from that right? This article is like titling an essay "Against Chelsea" and then halfway subtly dropping that, well, actually, you hate football in general and people should stop playing it.
[+] [-] keiferski|9 months ago|reply
I think AI art is actually going to make gallery-based individual contemporary art objects more valuable, because they are unique things that cannot be replicated. There are only so many paintings by Picasso, or Kiefer, or Hockney, and even if you could copy them down to the atom, the chain of provenance would still basically make the copies worthless and the originals invaluable. This extends even to smaller contemporary artists that aren't world-famous names. And it also means that digital / computer art is probably never going to sell for much money, at least directly as an art object.
At the end of the day, it's essentially simple supply and demand. AI is commoditizing digital images, but it can't commoditize physical ones (yet, or ever.)
[+] [-] calebm|9 months ago|reply
That said, doing a simple prompt into an LLM and calling it "my art" seems disingenuous.
[+] [-] GuinansEyebrows|9 months ago|reply
i value and appreciate craft on its own merit. something intentionally well-done by someone who is informed by practice is valuable in at least some capacity. but not all craft is art (obviously, harder to define), or at least, i don't hold all craft-as-art as equal or as personally valuable.
to me the biggest thing that separates art from craft is the intention behind creating or materializing an idea through craft vs simply creating or materializing an object (digital or physical). i can really appreciate your "artist's statement" behind the mastery of craft (mathematics in this case) as a means to an end to convey a greater concept, if that's what you're getting at.
this is entirely personal, but it's why i value certain forms of craft-centric art less than art that places a higher value on concept. i guess it's a value difference between media and message. it's why i kinda can't stand listening to prog rock like Rush or Dream Theater (technically very impressive! and valuable craft as someone who strives to become better at "Music"), but instead tend to prefer things that don't place the craft so prominently compared to other aspects.
again - that's not me knocking Rush or Dream Theater anything like that. extremely talented people doing extremely impressive things. but on my personal barometer (personal! not forced on anyone else), i guess i just tend to find it harder to enjoy than some other types of music.