3 ms·

> Humans learn to produce good art largely by learning from existing art I think you’re wrong on this. Humans learn (anything) from teachers. Yes, you can lear

> Humans learn to produce good art largely by learning from existing art I think you’re wrong on this. Humans learn (anything) from teachers. Yes, you can learn much on your own, but the idea of a solo artist learning from books is exceedingly rare. So in this case, you learn art by doing, critiquing your work and the works of others. You put forth effort. While I am amazed at the generated images and think they truly are amazing, I can’t help but think they all feel a little cheap. Like someone took a shortcut that was never meant to be found. I do think there are real ethical issues behind the training data for both image and code generation. Nothing that can’t be solved, but random images scraped from the web are not meant for training. First - it’s not necessarily a fair-use issue. And second, garbage in, garbage out. I don’t want my auto generated images to come with a Getty watermark. Where I do think there is hope is for the use of these as tools for artists. Where there can still be a human behind the choices and curation, but using the algorithms as a means rather than an end.

spywaregorilla 4y ago
> I think you’re wrong on this. Humans learn (anything) from teachers. Yes, you can learn much on your own, but the idea of a solo artist learning from books is exceedingly rare. If you take an art class where a teacher instructs you and tells you to replicate 12 paintings by Van Gogh, I would argue you've learned more from Van Gogh than the teacher, even if he's showing you some physical techniques.
- mbreese 4y ago
  You could masterfully copy the Van Gogh stroke for stroke, but without the understanding behind the composition, intent, and meaning behind the work, I’d argue you learned nothing. Except for how to copy. The student/teacher interaction is where you learn. Even if you want to only paint in Van Gogh’s style, the back and forth with the teacher is where you actually learn how to apply that style to new works. To explore the meaning behind the stars, etc. (You could get there solo, but you’d still need to go through the criticism/questioning phase somehow, which is probably best done with an IRL teacher).

spywaregorilla 4y ago

> I think you’re wrong on this. Humans learn (anything) from teachers. Yes, you can learn much on your own, but the idea of a solo artist learning from books is exceedingly rare. If you take an art class where a teacher instructs you and tells you to replicate 12 paintings by Van Gogh, I would argue you've learned more from Van Gogh than the teacher, even if he's showing you some physical techniques.

mbreese 4y ago
You could masterfully copy the Van Gogh stroke for stroke, but without the understanding behind the composition, intent, and meaning behind the work, I’d argue you learned nothing. Except for how to copy. The student/teacher interaction is where you learn. Even if you want to only paint in Van Gogh’s style, the back and forth with the teacher is where you actually learn how to apply that style to new works. To explore the meaning behind the stars, etc. (You could get there solo, but you’d still need to go through the criticism/questioning phase somehow, which is probably best done with an IRL teacher).