4 ms·

This is a good point, and I upvoted it. AI tools do redistribute the ability to produce art, which might otherwise tend to be limited to a lucky few who get th

This is a good point, and I upvoted it. AI tools do redistribute the ability to produce art, which might otherwise tend to be limited to a lucky few who get the right education and training. The problem, however, is that without a professional class, fields tend to drop in stature, and whole fields of human endeavour begin to seem less consequential. This is important to the self-respect argument I outlined above. I recall an Onion article entitled something like "Area man asks friend if he knows how to get any doctoring work," about a man who (apparently) sees conducting surgery and doing odd-job home repairs as roughly equivalent. Something like a "doctoring work" market is on its way for the artworld, and in the process, it will dramatically change the social significance of artists, the social stature of artists, and, more generally, the possiblity of making a defensible 'moat' around one's living as an artist. The big beneficiaries of this process, aside from Susan, who will suddenly be able to write that novel, will be the guys selling Susan her novel, one token at a time. Perhaps I'm old fashioned, but I genuinely think this will make Susan's novel less meaningful, both to her and to her readership, as well as making novels in general less meaningful. All the while lining the pockets of, inter alia, my former employer.[1] I think this is.... not a good change? [1] Disclosure: I benefitted financially from the advent of contemporary ML. It made my career, frankly. It stands poised to unmake the careers of many of my art friends.

Kim_Bruning 4y ago
Note that at some point, some people-identifying-as-artists tried to attack Creative Commons. They were making very similar arguments to the arguments we hear against AI today. Since Creative Commons is commonly used by charities, museums and volunteer organizations, they had some trouble maintaining the moral high ground. The attacks eventually fizzled out. (Even just finding back their texts attacking CC turns out to be pretty tricky) But I still remember something of those attempts. Just because some people are saying bad things about you, doesn't mean that those things are necessarily true.
artsytrashcan 4y ago
The social significance of art has endured in disparate cultures and through hundreds of years of economic transition, and has managed to recover its footing in the cases that it has slipped; it's not at risk. I could not give less of a damn about the social stature of artists, in and of itself; like most people, artists tend to abuse this status within their little fiefdoms, encouraged by the social and economic spoils of such abuse under Capitalism. Those with the most success are those most in need of humility. What you're talking about is akin to the "professionalization" (or the maintenance of status) of a trade, artificially limiting the breadth of practice in order to direct energy to the quality. This is almost always portrayed as a good thing, when we've lived through an example of it (IT) being disastrous for workers. Professionalization puts up onerous barriers to entry; encourages cronyism; and strips a field of its base of novice workers, as well as a clear and germane path for advancement, replacing it with glad-handing and credentialism. Collective action - unionization, foremost - would be a better solution in securing the livelihood of artists and conditions under which art is made, both for those who participate and even for those who don't. But we haven't seen it, or even the serious talk of it, and I imagine that it's for the reasons I've given: a central ethos rooted ego and not principle. And faced with a choice between shoring up the barriers for people who are only out for themselves, and opening the floodgates for expression, I choose the latter.
- 1attice 4y ago
  Strongly recommend that you read the book I linked to above. 'Artist', as a thing that an adult can be and do, has only been around for a hundred or so years (said William Deresiewicz https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/53935644-the-death-of-the-artist?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=iUKrO3Bkzd&rank=1 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/53935644-the-death-of-th...) and there is no reason to think it will be around for a hundred more. Yes, art has been around for thousands of years, but most of that time, it was beholden to: the church, the power structures of the day, etc. The idea of 'art for art's sake', the idea of artists empowered to do and make things that their commission did not specifically tell them to do, is not an immortal category of human. I'm not doing this argument justice, please read William Deresiewicz. <3 What a great book.

Kim_Bruning 4y ago

Note that at some point, some people-identifying-as-artists tried to attack Creative Commons. They were making very similar arguments to the arguments we hear against AI today. Since Creative Commons is commonly used by charities, museums and volunteer organizations, they had some trouble maintaining the moral high ground. The attacks eventually fizzled out. (Even just finding back their texts attacking CC turns out to be pretty tricky) But I still remember something of those attempts. Just because some people are saying bad things about you, doesn't mean that those things are necessarily true.

artsytrashcan 4y ago

The social significance of art has endured in disparate cultures and through hundreds of years of economic transition, and has managed to recover its footing in the cases that it has slipped; it's not at risk. I could not give less of a damn about the social stature of artists, in and of itself; like most people, artists tend to abuse this status within their little fiefdoms, encouraged by the social and economic spoils of such abuse under Capitalism. Those with the most success are those most in need of humility. What you're talking about is akin to the "professionalization" (or the maintenance of status) of a trade, artificially limiting the breadth of practice in order to direct energy to the quality. This is almost always portrayed as a good thing, when we've lived through an example of it (IT) being disastrous for workers. Professionalization puts up onerous barriers to entry; encourages cronyism; and strips a field of its base of novice workers, as well as a clear and germane path for advancement, replacing it with glad-handing and credentialism. Collective action - unionization, foremost - would be a better solution in securing the livelihood of artists and conditions under which art is made, both for those who participate and even for those who don't. But we haven't seen it, or even the serious talk of it, and I imagine that it's for the reasons I've given: a central ethos rooted ego and not principle. And faced with a choice between shoring up the barriers for people who are only out for themselves, and opening the floodgates for expression, I choose the latter.

1attice 4y ago
Strongly recommend that you read the book I linked to above. 'Artist', as a thing that an adult can be and do, has only been around for a hundred or so years (said William Deresiewicz https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/53935644-the-death-of-the-artist?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=iUKrO3Bkzd&rank=1 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/53935644-the-death-of-th...) and there is no reason to think it will be around for a hundred more. Yes, art has been around for thousands of years, but most of that time, it was beholden to: the church, the power structures of the day, etc. The idea of 'art for art's sake', the idea of artists empowered to do and make things that their commission did not specifically tell them to do, is not an immortal category of human. I'm not doing this argument justice, please read William Deresiewicz. <3 What a great book.