9 ms·

Humans mix a much more broader and deeper experience pool to create things without prompts. That wide variety of experience changes the decision of what to cre

Humans mix a much more broader and deeper experience pool to create things without prompts. That wide variety of experience changes the decision of what to create, but I think it has less influence on the actual output than one might expect. A person can have enormous life experience but if they have never seen a logo, a photo, a painting, a drawing, or any other kind of rendered image they will be no more sophisticated in their artistic output than a caveman. Modern artists stand atop a mountain that their ancestors had to climb inch by inch.

bayindirh 4y ago
Actually, I don't agree. I take photographs and design logos for my pet projects sometimes, and I optimize for feeling most of the time. I want my photos to make the viewer feel a particular way when viewing what I took. This affects colors, style, and everything. Arguably, as long as the medium carries the message the creator intended, it's equal in my view. It can be a photo, a drawing, a digital painting or a physical painting with oils. They can create the same feeling if the artist aims for it. This "optimization for feelings" is a result of my own non-photographic experiences. Sometimes a song, sometimes an event I went through, sometimes an art piece I saw on a medium I don't work. From my understanding and observation, I saw that many artists work that way. They reflect their emotions in one domain (generally personal life) to another domain (the art they create). Also, there was a video which I fail to find over and over which shows how three designers got affected by the things they saw (and deliberately planted into their minds slowly) during a 20 minute car trip. Yes, we're building upon this great mountain of experience and knowledge, yet our output is affected by what we experience in other parts of life, unrelated to the art we create. Consider the following experiment: The music you listen changes your mood, your working speed, and what you feel; effectively changing how you operate and what you create. Exclude work from this, which is by definition something you have to do, unless you're literally dying.
- smaudet 4y ago
  "yet our output is affected by what we experience in other parts of life, unrelated to the art we create." Right, and what happens when you let that loop feedback to itself? An asphalt road on every corner, so we build more asphalt roads, we design only what has been designed before. Amplify this thousands of time through computer generated design, the feedback loop is closed and unchanging. Unless your goal is actually to create an independent organism (different moral issue), you are creating sophisiticated feedback loops, not worthwhile content generation. Unless by content generation you mean endless remixing...which is not the same. Sort of like changing the color of a 3d model and claiming it is a new race with new attributes, as is often done on the cheap e.g. in videogames.

bayindirh 4y ago

Actually, I don't agree. I take photographs and design logos for my pet projects sometimes, and I optimize for feeling most of the time. I want my photos to make the viewer feel a particular way when viewing what I took. This affects colors, style, and everything. Arguably, as long as the medium carries the message the creator intended, it's equal in my view. It can be a photo, a drawing, a digital painting or a physical painting with oils. They can create the same feeling if the artist aims for it. This "optimization for feelings" is a result of my own non-photographic experiences. Sometimes a song, sometimes an event I went through, sometimes an art piece I saw on a medium I don't work. From my understanding and observation, I saw that many artists work that way. They reflect their emotions in one domain (generally personal life) to another domain (the art they create). Also, there was a video which I fail to find over and over which shows how three designers got affected by the things they saw (and deliberately planted into their minds slowly) during a 20 minute car trip. Yes, we're building upon this great mountain of experience and knowledge, yet our output is affected by what we experience in other parts of life, unrelated to the art we create. Consider the following experiment: The music you listen changes your mood, your working speed, and what you feel; effectively changing how you operate and what you create. Exclude work from this, which is by definition something you have to do, unless you're literally dying.

smaudet 4y ago
"yet our output is affected by what we experience in other parts of life, unrelated to the art we create." Right, and what happens when you let that loop feedback to itself? An asphalt road on every corner, so we build more asphalt roads, we design only what has been designed before. Amplify this thousands of time through computer generated design, the feedback loop is closed and unchanging. Unless your goal is actually to create an independent organism (different moral issue), you are creating sophisiticated feedback loops, not worthwhile content generation. Unless by content generation you mean endless remixing...which is not the same. Sort of like changing the color of a 3d model and claiming it is a new race with new attributes, as is often done on the cheap e.g. in videogames.