4 ms·

If art itself was never worth much, then I don't see a future where we as a culture are willing to pay a lot more for it.

by xlm1717 11y ago

bdavisx 11y ago
If we ever get to a "post scarcity" future, then art would be one of the few things there would be a scarcity of (or at least good art).
- vfdfv 11y ago
  Unless computers are significantly better and faster at creating art that humans enjoy.
  - soylentcola 11y ago
    This is one of those things I still wonder about. On one hand, if some hypothetical computer could generate the exact same song I'm currently listening to obsessively, then it would seem to be true. At the same time, there's at least some level of connection with the creator that influences my enjoyment. I think it's mostly unconscious but when I really think about it, I think a lot of the music I like has some element of "empathy" with the artist. I don't mean that I have to directly identify with whatever they're creating but when someone is singing or playing a song, on some level you like to think about what they were feeling when they wrote or performed it. Likewise, something that always made me feel affinity for a band (especially as a teenager who was learning to play music) was the feeling that this was something I could do myself if I spent the time or developed the skills. I was drawn to a lot of punk bands and bedroom experimenters because I heard things that sounded like something I would do if I was more talented or experienced. It's hard to explain but it made things feel more personal. I think machine-generated music could certainly exist and be programmed to be indistinguishable from human-generated music but as soon as I knew it was created solely by algorithms, I'd lose much of the intangible (and irrational) connection I might have shared with the actual art.
    - vfdfv 11y ago
      Well I think the terrifying part is that a computer might be able to generate an identity / artist(s) for the music it creates that we would also feel a stronger relationship to than the real thing. On a purely musical level, there are already some artists that I really enjoy, who I suspect use algorithmic composition heavily in their music. I was wondering about this one the other day, since it's sort of similar to algorithmically mashed-up sample pieces that I've made (but better): https://inpuj.bandcamp.com/album/anthill https://inpuj.bandcamp.com/album/anthill
exelius 11y ago
Yeah; that's pretty much what I was going for.
vinceguidry 11y ago
There was a fascinating article about how visual art from contemporary artists gets valued. Essentially, you have a patronage system whereby galleries keep stables of artists and build brands out of their output. The galleries try their hardest to ensure that values climb steadily upward, and the rest of the industry tries their best to not rock the boat. Auction houses throw a wrench into the works by allowing the market as a whole to weigh in. If an artwork gets sold at auction for significantly more or less than where it "should" be selling at, the whole system suffers. So the galleries representing the artists will bid on the artworks themselves and auctioneers will pretend that the piece was sold, to someone in the back, if it doesn't meet the reserve. The takeaway I got from it was that value of art is not and can never be intrinsic, somebody is acting as a taste-maker, but that somebody never has complete control over the market. If you think about it, it's not a whole lot different from other kinds of tradable good, (currency comes to mind) it's just that there are far fewer external indicators of value, making it more difficult to operate rationally. There's stability within the system, but the system is artificial and can seem rather arbitrary.

If art itself was never worth much, then I don't see a future where we as a culture are willing to pay a lot more for it.

by xlm1717 11y ago

If art itself was never worth much, then I don't see a future where we as a culture are willing to pay a lot more for it.

bdavisx 11y ago

If we ever get to a "post scarcity" future, then art would be one of the few things there would be a scarcity of (or at least good art).

vfdfv 11y ago
Unless computers are significantly better and faster at creating art that humans enjoy.
- soylentcola 11y ago
  This is one of those things I still wonder about. On one hand, if some hypothetical computer could generate the exact same song I'm currently listening to obsessively, then it would seem to be true. At the same time, there's at least some level of connection with the creator that influences my enjoyment. I think it's mostly unconscious but when I really think about it, I think a lot of the music I like has some element of "empathy" with the artist. I don't mean that I have to directly identify with whatever they're creating but when someone is singing or playing a song, on some level you like to think about what they were feeling when they wrote or performed it. Likewise, something that always made me feel affinity for a band (especially as a teenager who was learning to play music) was the feeling that this was something I could do myself if I spent the time or developed the skills. I was drawn to a lot of punk bands and bedroom experimenters because I heard things that sounded like something I would do if I was more talented or experienced. It's hard to explain but it made things feel more personal. I think machine-generated music could certainly exist and be programmed to be indistinguishable from human-generated music but as soon as I knew it was created solely by algorithms, I'd lose much of the intangible (and irrational) connection I might have shared with the actual art.
  - vfdfv 11y ago
    Well I think the terrifying part is that a computer might be able to generate an identity / artist(s) for the music it creates that we would also feel a stronger relationship to than the real thing. On a purely musical level, there are already some artists that I really enjoy, who I suspect use algorithmic composition heavily in their music. I was wondering about this one the other day, since it's sort of similar to algorithmically mashed-up sample pieces that I've made (but better): https://inpuj.bandcamp.com/album/anthill https://inpuj.bandcamp.com/album/anthill

exelius 11y ago

Yeah; that's pretty much what I was going for.

vinceguidry 11y ago

There was a fascinating article about how visual art from contemporary artists gets valued. Essentially, you have a patronage system whereby galleries keep stables of artists and build brands out of their output. The galleries try their hardest to ensure that values climb steadily upward, and the rest of the industry tries their best to not rock the boat. Auction houses throw a wrench into the works by allowing the market as a whole to weigh in. If an artwork gets sold at auction for significantly more or less than where it "should" be selling at, the whole system suffers. So the galleries representing the artists will bid on the artworks themselves and auctioneers will pretend that the piece was sold, to someone in the back, if it doesn't meet the reserve. The takeaway I got from it was that value of art is not and can never be intrinsic, somebody is acting as a taste-maker, but that somebody never has complete control over the market. If you think about it, it's not a whole lot different from other kinds of tradable good, (currency comes to mind) it's just that there are far fewer external indicators of value, making it more difficult to operate rationally. There's stability within the system, but the system is artificial and can seem rather arbitrary.