4 ms·

> Well, that is kind of the problem with generative art, it is all process with no point. I don't see how this should be specific to computer-generated art. Yo

> Well, that is kind of the problem with generative art, it is all process with no point. I don't see how this should be specific to computer-generated art. You can make drawings by hand that have no point. In my opinion computers are just another tool for artists.

nefitty 5y ago
When I was young I thought photographers just took like one photo and by sheer willpower and skill, they sometimes captured beautiful scenes. I then found out that they actually sit there and click the shutter thousands of times, then they go somewhere else to sit and scour through the "generated art" to find the gems. Then they polish the gems. Then they publish those. My novice AI-art workflow involved a similar pattern. I come up with some topic or thing I want to see, then I iterate on the wording of the prompt and all the little variables the tool takes. I end up with dozens of crap pictures, but sometimes cool stuff comes out. If I keep working on this, alongside increased generation speed, I could see myself "creating" really good art. To me it is about the process. It's the human input that makes art valuable. I mean, if AI becomes sentient then those judgements would be a valuable input in themselves too.
- maroonblazer 5y ago
  I've had this same experience with writing music. The trick isn't to be brilliant and pop out a masterpiece. The actual trick is to be able to generate enough variations that you can sort through them, cull the promising from the unpromising, rearrange them in various ways, stitch together the seams, and then sit back and lean on your personal aesthetic to decide whether what you've cobbled together makes you want to share it with others, keep chipping away at it, or abandon it altogether and start over (or not).
  - hlbjhblbljib 5y ago
    And this process repeats itself in the small. Even abstract paintings are made in stages, by artists stepping back, and seeing which areas they are happy with and which areas need more work.

nefitty 5y ago

When I was young I thought photographers just took like one photo and by sheer willpower and skill, they sometimes captured beautiful scenes. I then found out that they actually sit there and click the shutter thousands of times, then they go somewhere else to sit and scour through the "generated art" to find the gems. Then they polish the gems. Then they publish those. My novice AI-art workflow involved a similar pattern. I come up with some topic or thing I want to see, then I iterate on the wording of the prompt and all the little variables the tool takes. I end up with dozens of crap pictures, but sometimes cool stuff comes out. If I keep working on this, alongside increased generation speed, I could see myself "creating" really good art. To me it is about the process. It's the human input that makes art valuable. I mean, if AI becomes sentient then those judgements would be a valuable input in themselves too.

maroonblazer 5y ago
I've had this same experience with writing music. The trick isn't to be brilliant and pop out a masterpiece. The actual trick is to be able to generate enough variations that you can sort through them, cull the promising from the unpromising, rearrange them in various ways, stitch together the seams, and then sit back and lean on your personal aesthetic to decide whether what you've cobbled together makes you want to share it with others, keep chipping away at it, or abandon it altogether and start over (or not).
- hlbjhblbljib 5y ago
  And this process repeats itself in the small. Even abstract paintings are made in stages, by artists stepping back, and seeing which areas they are happy with and which areas need more work.