4 ms·

> Everyone who talks about this stuff can't seem to talk about its value without reference to the hypothetical human artist or writer or whoever who didn't make

by catach 4y ago

> Everyone who talks about this stuff can't seem to talk about its value without reference to the hypothetical human artist or writer or whoever who didn't make it. Consider that it's because that's the interesting areas of conversation to be had. The overwhelming majority of art I see all day does not warrant comment, and so it goes with AI art that is of a quality to replace that everyday art. The AI art that I do share and comment on tends to be works that are hilariously broken in some bizarre way. And I agree that that's possibly a novelty that will pass, but that would be due in part to AI gen improving to the level where it's consistently indistinguishable from artist-made art. > I just don't think we have the ability to separate these things. Perhaps not entirely, but it seems to be an overreach to claim the impact is necessarily debilitating. With my very modest amount of formal arts training, I approach analysis piece by piece. Composition, color, shape. Line and form, light and shadow, anatomy, texture. Subject. Abstraction and realism, style and tone. While not objective, it's easy to clinically assess the subjective quality achieved with an individual element, up to one's limit of taste. Further, when I am knowingly looking at AI art I'm not doing it from a place of enthusiasm, but criticism. I am aware of a set of flaws that current art gen models are prone to include, and I actively look for them. Each one found speaks to the limitations of the technology, and the patterns suggest challenges that may be un-resolvable with consistency. So yes, when I say that I genuinely appreciate an AI-made work for itself, I am indeed confident in the truth of that. > The painting, and all the others like it, can only speak one thing: themselves as novel works. Your concern with "statements" suggests that the area of art you are talking about is narrow, indeed. To clarify, I speak of the wide world of works made for primarily aesthetic goals. Well no, that's not entirely true. For the purposes of this discussion I've been speaking of static visual arts. But that ranges from museum oil paintings to product labeling, from the stunning to the mundane. That's all preamble to this blunt point: being visually pleasing is sufficient to provide worth. AI gen can provide that. I am sympathetic however to what may be your position: what meaning can be learned from a work if no mind was behind it to intend meaning? If your appreciation of art requires the belief that you are part of communication between souls, then clearly knowing a work is authored by AI would render that work worthless in your eyes. And I can understand that, or some version of it. It does not apply to me, however. In a death-of-the-author way I care much more about the meaning I can find myself from a work, considering the meaning intended as optional spice. Lastly, no: I'm aware of what I like and do not, thanks.

beepbooptheory 4y ago
Im sorry, but I just have to point out: > And I agree that that's possibly a novelty that will pass, but that would be due in part to AI gen improving to the level where it's consistently indistinguishable from artist-made art. Why must it be indistinguishable?? Why not good, but distinct? This is our narrowness in mind right now. Consider, let's say, 20th century art and music. Abstract expressionism, minimalism. Things like Pollack or Rothko, Reich. It probably takes much less than a huge array of GPUs and such to recreate something "indistinguishable" from a Pollack, granted you knew you're colors and are really trying. And its, like you say, not art that necessarily "says" anything in the form of statement. But regardless, the thing is, that while it's not imbued with a statement or meaning that can be told as a story, it can't help but be full of something like "meaning". Post-WWII 20th century art like Pollack's, its turn to deep abstraction or otherwise nonrepresentational things, came from a shared belief about what art should become at that point. That is, now that they had all seen how broadly shared cultural narratives were so easily integrated by facism, the very idea of a work that "speaks" something was suspect. The fact that Pollack made that kind of art when he did, and made precisely the art he did, is all a part of it. And the content of the work couldn't be any different, or he wouldn't of made it. Unconsciously or not these decisions enter our mind when we view it, they can't help but to, even if you don't have the training I'd argue. But either way its meaning or "worth" as you say can't be tied to maybe any kind of direct communication. You could make a model do a million Pollack's or Rothko's, but nobody really is going to care, because the moment kind of passed for that kind of art, right? What should we fill our canvases with now? Nobody is going to have the same answer, but the point is that artists want to answer that question, not see how quickly or how perfectly they can fill it up with whatever, but simply, find what should be painted, what is called for. I'll remind you the specific article I have talking about, where the fear is humans will be demoralized by AI in reference to what they are passionate about. Not like, cereal boxes or whatever. Simply pleasing, generative works is somewhat a solved art anyway isnt it? > I am sympathetic however to what may be your position: what meaning can be learned from a work if no mind was behind it to intend meaning? I feel like thats not giving the models enough credit honestly! Isn't it rather filled with a million intentions, which can come together in new wholes infinitely. It is in fact, I think, almost like a strange but also beautiful literalization of Plato's dialogue Meno, if that's what you are referencing with the communication between souls bit. I'm not sure I ever implied you didn't know what you liked. How was I even supposed to know you indeed like that piece that won the state fair? Why, just in general, be so defensive. Am I really saying anything at all that calls for it? I just don't understand the stakes here I guess. How can so many people both feel that this is a paradigm shifting moment in art, and be utterly sure of how its all going to play out, much less how they will feel about it? Is this not the time for some humility? Wont that all allow us to navigate this soberly and fruitfully?

by catach 4y ago

beepbooptheory 4y ago

Im sorry, but I just have to point out: > And I agree that that's possibly a novelty that will pass, but that would be due in part to AI gen improving to the level where it's consistently indistinguishable from artist-made art. Why must it be indistinguishable?? Why not good, but distinct? This is our narrowness in mind right now. Consider, let's say, 20th century art and music. Abstract expressionism, minimalism. Things like Pollack or Rothko, Reich. It probably takes much less than a huge array of GPUs and such to recreate something "indistinguishable" from a Pollack, granted you knew you're colors and are really trying. And its, like you say, not art that necessarily "says" anything in the form of statement. But regardless, the thing is, that while it's not imbued with a statement or meaning that can be told as a story, it can't help but be full of something like "meaning". Post-WWII 20th century art like Pollack's, its turn to deep abstraction or otherwise nonrepresentational things, came from a shared belief about what art should become at that point. That is, now that they had all seen how broadly shared cultural narratives were so easily integrated by facism, the very idea of a work that "speaks" something was suspect. The fact that Pollack made that kind of art when he did, and made precisely the art he did, is all a part of it. And the content of the work couldn't be any different, or he wouldn't of made it. Unconsciously or not these decisions enter our mind when we view it, they can't help but to, even if you don't have the training I'd argue. But either way its meaning or "worth" as you say can't be tied to maybe any kind of direct communication. You could make a model do a million Pollack's or Rothko's, but nobody really is going to care, because the moment kind of passed for that kind of art, right? What should we fill our canvases with now? Nobody is going to have the same answer, but the point is that artists want to answer that question, not see how quickly or how perfectly they can fill it up with whatever, but simply, find what should be painted, what is called for. I'll remind you the specific article I have talking about, where the fear is humans will be demoralized by AI in reference to what they are passionate about. Not like, cereal boxes or whatever. Simply pleasing, generative works is somewhat a solved art anyway isnt it? > I am sympathetic however to what may be your position: what meaning can be learned from a work if no mind was behind it to intend meaning? I feel like thats not giving the models enough credit honestly! Isn't it rather filled with a million intentions, which can come together in new wholes infinitely. It is in fact, I think, almost like a strange but also beautiful literalization of Plato's dialogue Meno, if that's what you are referencing with the communication between souls bit. I'm not sure I ever implied you didn't know what you liked. How was I even supposed to know you indeed like that piece that won the state fair? Why, just in general, be so defensive. Am I really saying anything at all that calls for it? I just don't understand the stakes here I guess. How can so many people both feel that this is a paradigm shifting moment in art, and be utterly sure of how its all going to play out, much less how they will feel about it? Is this not the time for some humility? Wont that all allow us to navigate this soberly and fruitfully?