6 ms·

Seems to me there's a confusion of ideas here. If you want to create "true" art no one is stopping you. If you're upset people can make more money by "undermini

Seems to me there's a confusion of ideas here. If you want to create "true" art no one is stopping you. If you're upset people can make more money by "undermining" the creative process by using tools then you're not really interested in creating "true" art with the "creative process", you're interested in money.

chrisweekly 3y ago
Random tangent - your comment reminded me about one of my all-time favorite domain names (the site's decent too, but I'm focused on the name). https://we-make-money-not-art.com/ https://we-make-money-not-art.com/
vouaobrasil 3y ago
The problem is, society is set up now so that the ONLY thing people CAN do is go after money. It was pushed hard in that direction by tech companies like Google, Microsoft, and Facebook because they wanted to maximize pure short-term profit by sucking life out of people. There was a time in history where you COULD create real art and make a decent living out of it. Now, AI has set up the ultimate PRISONER'S DILEMMA (game theory) situation where everyone needs to jump on the frenetic race ot the bottom to get their work recognized.
- poopbutt7 3y ago
  > There was a time in history where you COULD create real art and make a decent living out of it. Honest question, is that actually true? Historically, professional art always struck me as the domain of the rich, the starving artist, or the person taking commissions for the rich.
  - pphysch 3y ago
    Sorta. Being a small time musician was a sizeable industry before the invention of the playback device. But still, it was commodity "art". The restauranteur wanted you to play the classics, not your creative original "nonsense".
  - vouaobrasil 3y ago
    Well, as a case in point: people can make money from YouTube and writing books now...that may indeed be a thing of the past if a person is not willing to use AI. But even if not, some people were definitely able to make money out of being an artist in the past, like people who painted other people's portraits. AND, if you read about the history of photography, some people were definitely able to make money out of taking people's portraits. That was still the case until advanced technology came around. But I do agree with your point: not everyone was able to do so.
    - eightysixfour 3y ago
      > AND, if you read about the history of photography, some people were definitely able to make money out of taking people's portraits. That was still the case until advanced technology came around. People still make money from taking people’s portraits… and those people took money from the portrait artists who used to travel and paint portraits. Artists almost always reject technology that makes what they do a commodity, which makes sense, but the reality is that art that lasts is usually something which comes into existence when the previous art gets commoditized. IMO, when the artists freak out it is because we have made a new technology that is actually disruptive.
  - RetroTechie 3y ago
    There have been times in history (middle ages? Renessance?) where some artists were sponsored by rich person. Rich person for whatever reason, thinking it worthwhile to pay for artists' expenses. Or house them, buy their works etc. So that artist could create art. Modern day equivalent would be Patreon. But back then, usually 1, maybe a few sponsors. Or 1 rich dude sponsoring a small ensemble of artists. Just for... dunno. 'Social credit' / personal glory? Art lover? Bragging rights? Some kind of platonic or romantic relation between artist & sponsor? To leave something behind?
  - chefandy 3y ago
    You can currently. You've always been able to. I have a friend that is a workaday oil painter. He went to college for oil painting, got good at painting seaside vistas, and sells them steadily. There are also all manor of other commercial artists. Concept artists, illustrators, graphic designers, animators, composers, musical instrumentalists... they are artists who make a living from being artists. They get artistic satisfaction from their work just like a developer gets creative satisfaction from writing code for a living. They put their heart and soul into the things they create even if it might end up making them, or even other people profit. Art doesn't have to be some magical personal journey completely divorced from the prospect of money to be art. I'll bet that nearly every single musical artist you like made the majority of their work to sell it and make money. That does not make that work worse or less artistic. If you removed the things in our lives we get artistic enrichment from that were created to sell, it would be a pretty stark landscape. I see a lot of people who generally haven't done artistic things meaningfully grappling with the "what is art" question for the first time, and making a bunch of sweeping declarations that make them feel better about riding this wave. If you're someone who has put a bunch of years, educational dollars, and effort into becoming an artists, some group of software developers "explaining" to you what "real art" is can be pretty infuriating. I was a developer for a decade-- I know this hubris from both sides. It helps when you're plowing into a new problem space to make it better with code, but when you start using those generalizations to deem someone and their life work as worthy or not, it's obnoxious, counterproductive, and generally completely inaccurate.
- eightysixfour 3y ago
  > There was a time in history where you COULD create real art and make a decent living out of it. Source? The “starving artist” trope has existed a lot longer than the tech conglomerates.
bemusedthrow75 3y ago
Are you saying people who make "true art" should not be doing it for reward, or should not be as interested in money as non-artists? This is enormously reductive and is quite a modern idea. Most artists in history have made art for gain. It is a bold strategy to suggest that Nick Cave is confused by ideas of income and art. I don't care who you are: on this topic, Cave is almost 100% certainly better informed than you (or me).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- hellothere1337 3y ago
  Maybe Nick Cave should stop using computers too since they simplify the "true creation process". Or just disregard tools altogether and return to his destiny as denoted by nominative determinism.
  - wheelerof4te 3y ago
    The difference is huge. ChatGPT is not a tool. It is a creation designed to replace usage of tools to build products, with already finished products.
    - hellothere1337 3y ago
      Havent had a single interaction with ChatGPT where I didnt have to refine its answer. And I'm talking about simple programming topics not making real art or grammy award winning songs.
  - bemusedthrow75 3y ago
    Maybe this is a strawman argument unworthy of serious discussion.
- LastTrain 3y ago
  All kinds of markets have been upturned by technology, what makes music more special?

chrisweekly 3y ago

Random tangent - your comment reminded me about one of my all-time favorite domain names (the site's decent too, but I'm focused on the name). https://we-make-money-not-art.com/ https://we-make-money-not-art.com/

vouaobrasil 3y ago

The problem is, society is set up now so that the ONLY thing people CAN do is go after money. It was pushed hard in that direction by tech companies like Google, Microsoft, and Facebook because they wanted to maximize pure short-term profit by sucking life out of people. There was a time in history where you COULD create real art and make a decent living out of it. Now, AI has set up the ultimate PRISONER'S DILEMMA (game theory) situation where everyone needs to jump on the frenetic race ot the bottom to get their work recognized.

poopbutt7 3y ago
> There was a time in history where you COULD create real art and make a decent living out of it. Honest question, is that actually true? Historically, professional art always struck me as the domain of the rich, the starving artist, or the person taking commissions for the rich.
- pphysch 3y ago
  Sorta. Being a small time musician was a sizeable industry before the invention of the playback device. But still, it was commodity "art". The restauranteur wanted you to play the classics, not your creative original "nonsense".
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  Well, as a case in point: people can make money from YouTube and writing books now...that may indeed be a thing of the past if a person is not willing to use AI. But even if not, some people were definitely able to make money out of being an artist in the past, like people who painted other people's portraits. AND, if you read about the history of photography, some people were definitely able to make money out of taking people's portraits. That was still the case until advanced technology came around. But I do agree with your point: not everyone was able to do so.
  - eightysixfour 3y ago
    > AND, if you read about the history of photography, some people were definitely able to make money out of taking people's portraits. That was still the case until advanced technology came around. People still make money from taking people’s portraits… and those people took money from the portrait artists who used to travel and paint portraits. Artists almost always reject technology that makes what they do a commodity, which makes sense, but the reality is that art that lasts is usually something which comes into existence when the previous art gets commoditized. IMO, when the artists freak out it is because we have made a new technology that is actually disruptive.
- RetroTechie 3y ago
  There have been times in history (middle ages? Renessance?) where some artists were sponsored by rich person. Rich person for whatever reason, thinking it worthwhile to pay for artists' expenses. Or house them, buy their works etc. So that artist could create art. Modern day equivalent would be Patreon. But back then, usually 1, maybe a few sponsors. Or 1 rich dude sponsoring a small ensemble of artists. Just for... dunno. 'Social credit' / personal glory? Art lover? Bragging rights? Some kind of platonic or romantic relation between artist & sponsor? To leave something behind?
- chefandy 3y ago
  You can currently. You've always been able to. I have a friend that is a workaday oil painter. He went to college for oil painting, got good at painting seaside vistas, and sells them steadily. There are also all manor of other commercial artists. Concept artists, illustrators, graphic designers, animators, composers, musical instrumentalists... they are artists who make a living from being artists. They get artistic satisfaction from their work just like a developer gets creative satisfaction from writing code for a living. They put their heart and soul into the things they create even if it might end up making them, or even other people profit. Art doesn't have to be some magical personal journey completely divorced from the prospect of money to be art. I'll bet that nearly every single musical artist you like made the majority of their work to sell it and make money. That does not make that work worse or less artistic. If you removed the things in our lives we get artistic enrichment from that were created to sell, it would be a pretty stark landscape. I see a lot of people who generally haven't done artistic things meaningfully grappling with the "what is art" question for the first time, and making a bunch of sweeping declarations that make them feel better about riding this wave. If you're someone who has put a bunch of years, educational dollars, and effort into becoming an artists, some group of software developers "explaining" to you what "real art" is can be pretty infuriating. I was a developer for a decade-- I know this hubris from both sides. It helps when you're plowing into a new problem space to make it better with code, but when you start using those generalizations to deem someone and their life work as worthy or not, it's obnoxious, counterproductive, and generally completely inaccurate.
eightysixfour 3y ago
> There was a time in history where you COULD create real art and make a decent living out of it. Source? The “starving artist” trope has existed a lot longer than the tech conglomerates.

bemusedthrow75 3y ago

Are you saying people who make "true art" should not be doing it for reward, or should not be as interested in money as non-artists? This is enormously reductive and is quite a modern idea. Most artists in history have made art for gain. It is a bold strategy to suggest that Nick Cave is confused by ideas of income and art. I don't care who you are: on this topic, Cave is almost 100% certainly better informed than you (or me).

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hellothere1337 3y ago
Maybe Nick Cave should stop using computers too since they simplify the "true creation process". Or just disregard tools altogether and return to his destiny as denoted by nominative determinism.
- wheelerof4te 3y ago
  The difference is huge. ChatGPT is not a tool. It is a creation designed to replace usage of tools to build products, with already finished products.
  - hellothere1337 3y ago
    Havent had a single interaction with ChatGPT where I didnt have to refine its answer. And I'm talking about simple programming topics not making real art or grammy award winning songs.
- bemusedthrow75 3y ago
  Maybe this is a strawman argument unworthy of serious discussion.
LastTrain 3y ago
All kinds of markets have been upturned by technology, what makes music more special?