3 ms·

A lot of this makes sense until the end, and then it sounds like the usual engineering-centric evaluation of art. I don’t think you know a lot of artists. Arti

A lot of this makes sense until the end, and then it sounds like the usual engineering-centric evaluation of art. I don’t think you know a lot of artists. Artists, like the actual ones, do Art to create meaning and participate in the meaning making process. Assuming they do it for external signaling and the sort of implied “hey look at me” desire is off base.

JellyBeanThief 4y ago
> do Art to create meaning and participate in the meaning making process is just > for external signaling and the sort of implied “hey look at me” desire in a different light. You cannot participate in the meaning making process without signalling to other meaning makers, attracting their attention, and influencing their subsequent signalling. If you don't signal, then you haven't participated because you just didn't try. And if you don't attract attention, then you haven't participated because you had no effect on the proceedings. This is not to say that it's your interpretation versus their interpretation. It's to say it's both at the same time.
- dogman144 4y ago
  Incorrect. Check this OP’s latest comment for what I refer to. https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=nbzso https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=nbzso
  - eyelidlessness 4y ago
    In case they post other comments before other readers get there, here’s a direct link https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32489833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32489833
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  > > do Art to create meaning and participate in the meaning making process > is just > > for external signaling and the sort of implied “hey look at me” desire OP didn’t specify “create meaning” for anyone else, or otherwise conveying art to others. One of the weird things about art is that it’s a form of expression that doesn’t necessarily have an audience. Quite a lot of art is more akin to keeping a diary, or singing in your head, than “look at me”. > You cannot participate in the meaning making process without signalling to other meaning makers I have ample evidence to the contrary which I have no desire to share with you, or anyone, other than noting its value to me having created it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
> Artists, like the actual ones, do Art to create meaning and participate in the meaning making process. Right, and they make the art, and others pay huge premiums to collect art to speculate and signal.
- dogman144 4y ago
  right… your point?
  - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
    The people who buy art are usually not artists and have almost nothing in common with artists.
sp527 4y ago
I somewhat agree with this but I think introducing a hierarchy to segment art is important. 'High art' (the kind that hangs in galleries) has a meaning attached to it that escapes into the level of a meme and that often has little to do with what is represented to the senses, which is easily replicated. For example, the Mona Lisa is now famous because of an attempted theft in the early 20th Century. Other art is meaningful because it was at the vanguard of a particularly novel aesthetic, associated with a specific artist (very common), or because it encodes a commentary on a particular aspect of history (Picasso is a good example of all three). This kind of art will endure because AI cannot copy what makes it "valuable", though it may still be of assistance to the 'high artist'. The same is true for music. Kendrick Lamar isn't famous because he's exceptional technically (some enthusiasts I've spoken with find him fairly mediocre in this regard). He's famous because of what his music communicates, because of its (apparent) authenticity, and how that resonates with listeners. That plus Kendrick's story is what gives his music signaling value, which is then amplified into a meme. Most people on the other side of the meme adoption curve probably don't even understand why they should care about Kendrick or his music. Rather, they're imagining they like it in order to follow the trajectory plotted by the tastemakers. I strongly suspect all 'high art' is like this. A perhaps more germane example of the above phenomena arises in NFTs. NFTs of weird anthropomorphized monkeys are valuable because of a collective hallucination that they in fact have value. You can use AI to generate the monkey JPEGs, but you cannot so readily use it to craft the meme. 'Low art', by contrast, is much more utilitarian and often devised in response to fairly prosaic demands. Technical sophistication usually wins out. This is what AI will supplant. It's a problem insofar as many employed artists were relying on low art to sustain themselves. Perhaps art will now become even more so the province of the wealthy? Personally I've always been more a 'low art' person since 'high art' seems to be about participating in mutual delusion and even snobbery, and its surface characteristics may not evoke anything profound when divorced from the subtext with which the art has been furnished. Incidentally, I think this is partly why 'nerds' gravitate towards things like fantasy + sci-fi literature, anime, and video games. These are artistic mediums that are very directly evocative and wherein the meaning and the superficial/sensory experience are rather closely aligned. And, of course, they prioritize technical sophistication. Anyone who's a fan of 'low art' should probably be very excited because we're fast approaching a time where you'll be able to experience a near infinite abundance of 'JIT art' that caters precisely to your tastes.
oraphalous 4y ago
I've known a lot of artists. I agree that many would report this as their motivation. Whether or not it actually is...? Anyway it's an empirical question that we might get to see the answer to - so no need to argue about it really. If artistic creation is disrupted as some predict, we'll get to see the impact on artists.
wetpaws 4y ago
Desire for attention and desire for creativity are not mutualy exclusive, usually you have a feedback loop between both.
_carbyau_ 4y ago
Then they will continue to do so in their own little world and largely be ignored by society. Which is fine. Everyone else engaging with art will take what the algorithm(influenced by monetary deals/cuts/middlemen as ever in history) puts in front of them. Which will be the "hey look at me" people.

JellyBeanThief 4y ago

> do Art to create meaning and participate in the meaning making process is just > for external signaling and the sort of implied “hey look at me” desire in a different light. You cannot participate in the meaning making process without signalling to other meaning makers, attracting their attention, and influencing their subsequent signalling. If you don't signal, then you haven't participated because you just didn't try. And if you don't attract attention, then you haven't participated because you had no effect on the proceedings. This is not to say that it's your interpretation versus their interpretation. It's to say it's both at the same time.

dogman144 4y ago
Incorrect. Check this OP’s latest comment for what I refer to. https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=nbzso https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=nbzso
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  In case they post other comments before other readers get there, here’s a direct link https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32489833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32489833
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
eyelidlessness 4y ago
> > do Art to create meaning and participate in the meaning making process > is just > > for external signaling and the sort of implied “hey look at me” desire OP didn’t specify “create meaning” for anyone else, or otherwise conveying art to others. One of the weird things about art is that it’s a form of expression that doesn’t necessarily have an audience. Quite a lot of art is more akin to keeping a diary, or singing in your head, than “look at me”. > You cannot participate in the meaning making process without signalling to other meaning makers I have ample evidence to the contrary which I have no desire to share with you, or anyone, other than noting its value to me having created it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago

> Artists, like the actual ones, do Art to create meaning and participate in the meaning making process. Right, and they make the art, and others pay huge premiums to collect art to speculate and signal.

dogman144 4y ago
right… your point?
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  The people who buy art are usually not artists and have almost nothing in common with artists.

sp527 4y ago

I somewhat agree with this but I think introducing a hierarchy to segment art is important. 'High art' (the kind that hangs in galleries) has a meaning attached to it that escapes into the level of a meme and that often has little to do with what is represented to the senses, which is easily replicated. For example, the Mona Lisa is now famous because of an attempted theft in the early 20th Century. Other art is meaningful because it was at the vanguard of a particularly novel aesthetic, associated with a specific artist (very common), or because it encodes a commentary on a particular aspect of history (Picasso is a good example of all three). This kind of art will endure because AI cannot copy what makes it "valuable", though it may still be of assistance to the 'high artist'. The same is true for music. Kendrick Lamar isn't famous because he's exceptional technically (some enthusiasts I've spoken with find him fairly mediocre in this regard). He's famous because of what his music communicates, because of its (apparent) authenticity, and how that resonates with listeners. That plus Kendrick's story is what gives his music signaling value, which is then amplified into a meme. Most people on the other side of the meme adoption curve probably don't even understand why they should care about Kendrick or his music. Rather, they're imagining they like it in order to follow the trajectory plotted by the tastemakers. I strongly suspect all 'high art' is like this. A perhaps more germane example of the above phenomena arises in NFTs. NFTs of weird anthropomorphized monkeys are valuable because of a collective hallucination that they in fact have value. You can use AI to generate the monkey JPEGs, but you cannot so readily use it to craft the meme. 'Low art', by contrast, is much more utilitarian and often devised in response to fairly prosaic demands. Technical sophistication usually wins out. This is what AI will supplant. It's a problem insofar as many employed artists were relying on low art to sustain themselves. Perhaps art will now become even more so the province of the wealthy? Personally I've always been more a 'low art' person since 'high art' seems to be about participating in mutual delusion and even snobbery, and its surface characteristics may not evoke anything profound when divorced from the subtext with which the art has been furnished. Incidentally, I think this is partly why 'nerds' gravitate towards things like fantasy + sci-fi literature, anime, and video games. These are artistic mediums that are very directly evocative and wherein the meaning and the superficial/sensory experience are rather closely aligned. And, of course, they prioritize technical sophistication. Anyone who's a fan of 'low art' should probably be very excited because we're fast approaching a time where you'll be able to experience a near infinite abundance of 'JIT art' that caters precisely to your tastes.

oraphalous 4y ago

I've known a lot of artists. I agree that many would report this as their motivation. Whether or not it actually is...? Anyway it's an empirical question that we might get to see the answer to - so no need to argue about it really. If artistic creation is disrupted as some predict, we'll get to see the impact on artists.

wetpaws 4y ago

Desire for attention and desire for creativity are not mutualy exclusive, usually you have a feedback loop between both.

_carbyau_ 4y ago

Then they will continue to do so in their own little world and largely be ignored by society. Which is fine. Everyone else engaging with art will take what the algorithm(influenced by monetary deals/cuts/middlemen as ever in history) puts in front of them. Which will be the "hey look at me" people.