3 ms·

I’m not crazy about the tone you’re striking, but the bit about “software you barely understand” does ring true. Lots of folks who think hitting play in a noteb

I’m not crazy about the tone you’re striking, but the bit about “software you barely understand” does ring true. Lots of folks who think hitting play in a notebook makes them some sort of AI-art-engineer these days. On the other hand, the whole point of automating creation is that you don’t need to understand the underlying mechanisms.

HPsquared 4y ago
It's division of labour. The toolmaker has a different set of skills to the user of the tools.
- leetrout 4y ago
  Somewhat related, that made me think if pioneers, settlers and town planners https://medium.com/org-hacking/pioneers-settlers-town-planners-wardley-9dcd3709cde7 https://medium.com/org-hacking/pioneers-settlers-town-planne...
- lm28469 4y ago
  The user, me included, has less and less knowledge and skills though. When your tool becomes a megacorp owned subscription based service you barely understand is it really a tool ? It doesn't produce art in the way a brush and paint produce art, you barely have any control on what it does, you just become an image filter, you press a few keys, look at the image for 5 seconds and decide if it triggers the right part of your brain or not It's not so different from the artist shitting on canvas, but at least he had the creativity to do something new and daring. The end result might be called art but the whole process is completely devoid of what makes art "art"
  - psyc 4y ago
    I can sort of see the "barely understand" part being relevant if I squint. Really don't know how "megacorp subscription" relates to a tool's toolhood.
    - lm28469 4y ago
      > Really don't know how "megacorp subscription" relates to a tool's toolhood. Owning the tool vs being owned by the tool, yadda yadda..
      - psyc 4y ago
        Oh ok. That makes some sense.
  - IanCal 4y ago
    > you barely have any control on what it does, You have quite a lot of control from style and colour to composition by feeding in initial images. You can do this iteratively, selecting parts you want to keep and others you want to adjust. Photography hasn't killed art, yet you can describe it as "point at something and press a button". Sure you'll get something out of it, and it might be alright. But the great outputs take more work and care, just like with the air art now.
- dumpsterlid 4y ago
  Time spent designing a tool is time spent not using the tool to make art and honestly the types of brains that are good at designing art tools... often have very formulaic and structurally rigid ways of thinking about creating art (they tend to use tools for what they are intended for which almost no breakthrough in art has happened from). It is a good thing if artists can uses tools without having to understand the nitty gritty.

HPsquared 4y ago

It's division of labour. The toolmaker has a different set of skills to the user of the tools.

leetrout 4y ago
Somewhat related, that made me think if pioneers, settlers and town planners https://medium.com/org-hacking/pioneers-settlers-town-planners-wardley-9dcd3709cde7 https://medium.com/org-hacking/pioneers-settlers-town-planne...
lm28469 4y ago
The user, me included, has less and less knowledge and skills though. When your tool becomes a megacorp owned subscription based service you barely understand is it really a tool ? It doesn't produce art in the way a brush and paint produce art, you barely have any control on what it does, you just become an image filter, you press a few keys, look at the image for 5 seconds and decide if it triggers the right part of your brain or not It's not so different from the artist shitting on canvas, but at least he had the creativity to do something new and daring. The end result might be called art but the whole process is completely devoid of what makes art "art"
- psyc 4y ago
  I can sort of see the "barely understand" part being relevant if I squint. Really don't know how "megacorp subscription" relates to a tool's toolhood.
  - lm28469 4y ago
    > Really don't know how "megacorp subscription" relates to a tool's toolhood. Owning the tool vs being owned by the tool, yadda yadda..
    - psyc 4y ago
      Oh ok. That makes some sense.
- IanCal 4y ago
  > you barely have any control on what it does, You have quite a lot of control from style and colour to composition by feeding in initial images. You can do this iteratively, selecting parts you want to keep and others you want to adjust. Photography hasn't killed art, yet you can describe it as "point at something and press a button". Sure you'll get something out of it, and it might be alright. But the great outputs take more work and care, just like with the air art now.
dumpsterlid 4y ago
Time spent designing a tool is time spent not using the tool to make art and honestly the types of brains that are good at designing art tools... often have very formulaic and structurally rigid ways of thinking about creating art (they tend to use tools for what they are intended for which almost no breakthrough in art has happened from). It is a good thing if artists can uses tools without having to understand the nitty gritty.