7 ms·

It would be great to have an art gallery, digital or physical, devoted to ai produced media. They could run exhibits highlighting different strategies, or have

It would be great to have an art gallery, digital or physical, devoted to ai produced media. They could run exhibits highlighting different strategies, or have awards for creative or accurate results.

EGreg 8y ago
Unlike real art, computers can produce a trillion unique works an hour. This will apply to all forms of art in the future, including stories, music and movies. So where is the scarcity?
- nafey 8y ago
  Wide as an ocean deep as a puddle. It will have the same problems as the procedurally generated worlds in No man's sky.
- taneq 8y ago
  > So where is the scarcity? Up one meta-level. The artwork isn't the sonata, or the portrait, or the sculpture. The artwork is the algorithm and input data.
- mattnewport 8y ago
  There's already no scarcity of stories, music, photography, paintings or sketches. Even with the higher cost of production for movies there's still more than most people could reasonably watch in a lifetime. Aren't we already past that point without AI?
  - drusepth 8y ago
    Furthermore, I'd argue that it's _better_ to be without scarcity in art, because a larger pool of differences in available art makes it far more likely for any random individual to find a piece that resonates specifically with themselves. It's the same logic with e.g. books: if there are 100 great books, people are going to love those books and some subset of people are going to find a book and say, "wow, this book was really meant for me". If there are 1,000,000 great books, then 1) there's going to be a wider selection for people who enjoy more niche aspects in books who wouldn't otherwise find those, and 2) there's a much higher chance of one of those million books really resonating with any random individual. The real struggle is in curation and recommendation: which of these million books would John Smith _most_ like (ideally more than, say, the original 100 books), instead of requiring him to peruse through them all on his own.
- Freeboots 8y ago
  Why do we need scarcity?
- hrnnnnnn 8y ago
  Scarcity matters if you regard art as a commodity to be bought and sold. Otherwise I don't see why it's important.
  - bklaasen 8y ago
    I recommend John Berger's "Ways of Seeing", available on YouTube. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ways_of_Seeing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ways_of_Seeing
- 7Z7 8y ago
  The scarcity is in the "quality" - its ability to move us in new and interesting ways, just like now. A trillion similar things are not very interesting, so quality stands out.
- notahacker 8y ago
  In an era where artworks are already abundant, curation creates scarcity. Not all works are considered equal.
- Broken_Hippo 8y ago
  There is hardly scarcity in art now, though. Not as a whole. If you like a particular style, you can usually find it at an affordable price so long as you aren't going by "famous" or "brand name". I'll also add that scarcity will be simply built-in. Most folks won't initiate such art - and such art has to be initiated. There will still be a personal selection process going on with a human behind the scenes. Just because the computer can make so many doesn't mean we'll see that many at all. I imagine it will eventually edge out some art forms: Making advertising graphics for movies and print, for example. Making logos. And so on.
yason 8y ago
What art would that be? Part of art is not just the physical piece but the message it delivers, or a message that can be interpreted in many ways. Computer generated images can learn to do the aesthetic part but if the piece has no human context from which it comes nor has anything to say, how would that be art? Why did the computer create the image, and what is it trying to tell us with it?
- adventured 8y ago
  Art doesn't have to have something to say, it does not require a message, there does not have to be a thought-out why to its creation. It's strictly subjective, without exception. I can give whatever meaning to computer / AI generated art that I please. To intentionally use an exaggerated example: I can urinate on a wall, tell nobody else about it, give it no further meaning or consideration, have done it for no particular reason other than my need to urinate, and call it art (regardless of whether the setup premise is offensive to some). I can look at this image from the site: https://78.media.tumblr.com/015901ac8ded0c711dcec8f8de7ec223/tumblr_inline_pdjd8hvd4J1rl9zu7_500.png https://78.media.tumblr.com/015901ac8ded0c711dcec8f8de7ec223... And I can decide that is art which represents my emancipation from indentured servitude in another life when I was a coal miner for BigCorp on Mars. Or any other seemingly ridiculous meaning I choose to give it.
  - bojo 8y ago
    Sorry, but as someone with an art degree I have to respectfully disagree. Pissing on a wall and arbitrarily calling it art does not make it art. That style of thinking worked during the Dada movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada but is no longer something that would work today, unless you were doing a live art installation, in which case you are committing to some kind of commentary on some factor of the world anyways. Artists almost always create art with meaning, and in the rare cases they don’t they are still attempting to make genuinely thought provoking works of art, even if it’s simply showing off their skills. If you go to an art gallery there is always the artist’s thesis statement or message written out at the entrance. You are correct that art is subjective though. What an artist envisions and what their audience gets out of it has been shown time and again to not line up in many cases. And in a way, that is the beauty of art - our shared experiences while appreciating it.
walesmd 8y ago
Google has had AI art museums at the past 2-3 I/Os.

EGreg 8y ago

Unlike real art, computers can produce a trillion unique works an hour. This will apply to all forms of art in the future, including stories, music and movies. So where is the scarcity?

nafey 8y ago
Wide as an ocean deep as a puddle. It will have the same problems as the procedurally generated worlds in No man's sky.
taneq 8y ago
> So where is the scarcity? Up one meta-level. The artwork isn't the sonata, or the portrait, or the sculpture. The artwork is the algorithm and input data.
mattnewport 8y ago
There's already no scarcity of stories, music, photography, paintings or sketches. Even with the higher cost of production for movies there's still more than most people could reasonably watch in a lifetime. Aren't we already past that point without AI?
- drusepth 8y ago
  Furthermore, I'd argue that it's _better_ to be without scarcity in art, because a larger pool of differences in available art makes it far more likely for any random individual to find a piece that resonates specifically with themselves. It's the same logic with e.g. books: if there are 100 great books, people are going to love those books and some subset of people are going to find a book and say, "wow, this book was really meant for me". If there are 1,000,000 great books, then 1) there's going to be a wider selection for people who enjoy more niche aspects in books who wouldn't otherwise find those, and 2) there's a much higher chance of one of those million books really resonating with any random individual. The real struggle is in curation and recommendation: which of these million books would John Smith _most_ like (ideally more than, say, the original 100 books), instead of requiring him to peruse through them all on his own.
Freeboots 8y ago
Why do we need scarcity?
hrnnnnnn 8y ago
Scarcity matters if you regard art as a commodity to be bought and sold. Otherwise I don't see why it's important.
- bklaasen 8y ago
  I recommend John Berger's "Ways of Seeing", available on YouTube. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ways_of_Seeing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ways_of_Seeing
7Z7 8y ago
The scarcity is in the "quality" - its ability to move us in new and interesting ways, just like now. A trillion similar things are not very interesting, so quality stands out.
notahacker 8y ago
In an era where artworks are already abundant, curation creates scarcity. Not all works are considered equal.
Broken_Hippo 8y ago
There is hardly scarcity in art now, though. Not as a whole. If you like a particular style, you can usually find it at an affordable price so long as you aren't going by "famous" or "brand name". I'll also add that scarcity will be simply built-in. Most folks won't initiate such art - and such art has to be initiated. There will still be a personal selection process going on with a human behind the scenes. Just because the computer can make so many doesn't mean we'll see that many at all. I imagine it will eventually edge out some art forms: Making advertising graphics for movies and print, for example. Making logos. And so on.

yason 8y ago

What art would that be? Part of art is not just the physical piece but the message it delivers, or a message that can be interpreted in many ways. Computer generated images can learn to do the aesthetic part but if the piece has no human context from which it comes nor has anything to say, how would that be art? Why did the computer create the image, and what is it trying to tell us with it?

adventured 8y ago
Art doesn't have to have something to say, it does not require a message, there does not have to be a thought-out why to its creation. It's strictly subjective, without exception. I can give whatever meaning to computer / AI generated art that I please. To intentionally use an exaggerated example: I can urinate on a wall, tell nobody else about it, give it no further meaning or consideration, have done it for no particular reason other than my need to urinate, and call it art (regardless of whether the setup premise is offensive to some). I can look at this image from the site: https://78.media.tumblr.com/015901ac8ded0c711dcec8f8de7ec223/tumblr_inline_pdjd8hvd4J1rl9zu7_500.png https://78.media.tumblr.com/015901ac8ded0c711dcec8f8de7ec223... And I can decide that is art which represents my emancipation from indentured servitude in another life when I was a coal miner for BigCorp on Mars. Or any other seemingly ridiculous meaning I choose to give it.
- bojo 8y ago
  Sorry, but as someone with an art degree I have to respectfully disagree. Pissing on a wall and arbitrarily calling it art does not make it art. That style of thinking worked during the Dada movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada but is no longer something that would work today, unless you were doing a live art installation, in which case you are committing to some kind of commentary on some factor of the world anyways. Artists almost always create art with meaning, and in the rare cases they don’t they are still attempting to make genuinely thought provoking works of art, even if it’s simply showing off their skills. If you go to an art gallery there is always the artist’s thesis statement or message written out at the entrance. You are correct that art is subjective though. What an artist envisions and what their audience gets out of it has been shown time and again to not line up in many cases. And in a way, that is the beauty of art - our shared experiences while appreciating it.

walesmd 8y ago

Google has had AI art museums at the past 2-3 I/Os.