4 ms·

You could argue that in art it is folly to worry about authenticity and the real shame is when a masterful “fake” suddenly loses all its value when you find out

You could argue that in art it is folly to worry about authenticity and the real shame is when a masterful “fake” suddenly loses all its value when you find out it wasn’t painted or recorded by the person you thought it was. Edit: I am torn about how I feel on the matter but here’s a story worth sharing: I stayed up all night the day before the release of a much-awaited book in a series to read, leaked blurry jpeg by leaked blurry jpeg, hundreds of pages of the book that had just appeared online (I also went out and bought a copy the next day). While reading it, I knew there was no guarantee it was “real” and it could have been an elaborate hoax but the quality of the storytelling was such that I didn’t care (at least in the moment) if it was fan fiction or the real deal: it was good and I wouldn’t have regretted my time or enjoyed what I had read any less if it turned out to be a “fake.”

wpietri 3y ago
I could argue that, but it would be wrong. For me, art is about human connection. When I look at a work, I'm interested not just in the surface layer of the image, but what the work evokes in me and what was in the mind and context of its creator. If what I'm getting is just a synthetic, semi-random découpé, then that is lost. Similarly, looking at randomly generated maps can be fun, but it's a pretty shallow fun unless there's a real territory represented there. That said, it can also be interesting to look at the machinery that's generating it, in the same way I enjoy videos of how things get made. But it's a different kind of interest and engages different parts of my mind.
- mc32 3y ago
  To me it's the basic, "does a a tree falling in a forest with no one around to hear it make a sound?" Perception vs reality.
  - arcticfox 3y ago
    I don't really get the connection between the scenarios - and trying to think through it I just ran into one more realization of how LLMs have changed things. If I was sure a human wrote this I'd probably put some more effort to see things from that perspective, maybe it's a good way to think about it. But unfortunately now that this type of comment can be the rambling of an LLM, I don't want to put in the effort when it could simply be a mechanical fever dream...
- jnovek 3y ago
  “For me, art is about human connection.” I find the story of a human who makes an excellent fake pretty fascinating. There are noteworthy examples of forgery-as-art throughout history. I think art, as a concept, is a big enough space to house both things.
  - viciousvoxel 3y ago
    In fact, there's a museum of forgeries in Vienna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_Art_Fakes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_Art_Fakes)
  - wpietri 3y ago
    Sure, I am also very interested in forgers. I'm also interested in the machinery of what's currently getting labeled as AI. But I'm not interested in having one confused for the others.
- hypeit 3y ago
  > I could argue that, but it would be wrong. You wouldn't be wrong, you would just be post-modern. As a post-modernist viewer, I decide the context that I want to place media in.
  - SiempreViernes 3y ago
    Pretty sure the post-modern thinkers still care about authorship credit though, which is what we're discussing.
    - hypeit 3y ago
      I would argue that's not the case. The entire concept of "reality" is left to the individual in post-modern thought. I think eliminating the notion of authorship would be a solidly post-modern position to take.
      - wpietri 3y ago
        Do you have a citation for that? I've seen that as a cartoon of postmodernism, but I don't think I've ever seen a postmodernist scholar claim that.
        hypeit 3y ago
        > Postmodernism rejects the possibility of unmediated reality or objectively-rational knowledge, asserting that all interpretations are contingent on the perspective from which they are made;[5] claims to objective fact are dismissed as naive realism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism
        SiempreViernes 3y ago
        When reality is dependent on who is speaking, authorship seems to be even more important!
- bitvoid 3y ago
  > If what I'm getting is just a synthetic, semi-random découpé, then that is lost. It certainly comes down to perception, interpretation, and a blind assumption though, right? Before generative AI, the blind assumption was that some human made a piece of art. That might be changing now, but if you didn't know (and couldn't know) a piece was artificial, feelings may still be evoked and you might still infer some meaning from it. With that said, not all art need be about human connection. I still enjoy mindless dubstep music on occasion despite not caring one bit about the artist or any meaning behind it (if any even exists beyond "it sounds cool"). The only value there is my enjoyment of it, but then again, I think enjoyment is the most valuable aspect of any piece.
- ComputerGuru 3y ago
  > When I look at a work, I'm interested not just in the surface layer of the image, but what the work evokes in me and what was in the mind and context of its creator. Let’s put AI aside for a minute, then. When a suspected {Van Gogh, Vermeer, Picasso, etc} is found to actually be from a temporally coincident painter, perhaps one of his pupils, why can you no longer do that?
kevinventullo 3y ago
I sympathize with this argument to some extent, but also would also warn that it conflicts with how many people consume art, to the point where they will respond almost hostilely.
JohnFen 3y ago
For me, the value of art is in the communication between the artist and myself. If I don't care about the artist, the art has little meaning to me. In the case of music, it transforms art into just a sequence of interesting noises.
- hotnfresh 3y ago
  Yep. A body of work reveals bits and pieces of some real, human perspective and life and mind that evolves and moves through the world between each work, adding even more richness to it. A new work from an artist I like isn’t just exciting because I get more of a thing I like (that gets dull after a while) but because I’m excited about what they want to show me and tell me this time. How’s their work changed? How does it reflect on their prior work? What’s on their mind this, or last, year? Et c. I don’t really care about having some equivalent “conversation” with an LLM.
ethbr1 3y ago
So much of art's value is in originality, and what separates originality is first vs rest. There are likely thousands of people who can paint extremely high quality Monet-alikes, but they weren't there at the beginning of the impressionist movement. Granted, there's also name weight and limited supply due to creator death, but that "first!" can't be ignored. The artistic-economic tangle around originality wasn't something I'd thought about deeply until I saw some of Warhol's "X of Y" prints in person. Because he used an inexact process, there are subtle differences from frame to frame, which to me begged the question of whether a specific selection of frames and composition of them together was sufficient to re-establish a unique, original artistic work.
- ComputerGuru 3y ago
  I have no firm position on the matter but I am nevertheless intrigued by the debate so I’ll posit a question: let’s grant the originality is certainly important. Hypothetically: Hitchcock releases his first masterful suspense film. It rightfully gets and deserves all praise. His compatriot releases a “knock off” and Hitchcock simultaneously releases a second film along the lines of his first. How do you measure originality here in the context of these latter two movies, neither of which was “the first” in its niche?
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    I'd further tighten the scenario a bit before opining, while hopefully staying true to what you're asking. Let's imagine Hitchcock's compatriot releases a film that is Hitchcock-esque in every way it can be (camera, lighting, themes, sound... the whole package), while featuring a novel plot. Then let's say Hitchcock also releases an equally-equivalent film to his first work. There is no non-plot innovation in either work, and the plot is as similar as can be while remaining distinct. What are the values these works could likely command? To me... I think the Hitchcock work would be more valuable, by virtue of his name, which in turn originated its value from his first masterful and original work. His compatriot's film would be valuable. After all, Hitchcock's original work was acclaimed, appreciated, and popular, so it stands to a reason an extremely similar work would be as well. But I can't see it approaching the value of Hitchcock's second, despite them being functionally identical artistic works. It's instead discounted by the lack of Hitchcock's name, itself valuable from the link to his first, original work. Interesting thought exercise! The follow-up would be what would happen if the market were flooded with first-alike films, either from Hitchcock or his compatriot!
gumby 3y ago
A lot of people care about authenticity, but I'm with the crowd that couldn't care less. A book once owned by Issac Newton vs a used paperback with the same text are the same to me. A copy of a famous print vs one of the prints actualy made by the artist (or by someone in her studio!): I wouldn't pay extra for that. Really nice music by someone who likes the same famous musician as I do? Great! I'm not denying the appeal of "authenticity" but I can't for the life of me understand it.
esafak 3y ago
In certain modern arts (esp. the visual ones) the connection between the art and the artist is valuable in itself. The creation is considered primarily in relation to its creator. It is curious why some arts are more susceptible to this thinking than others. I think it is a consequence of maturity; when technique is exhausted, the art seeks development in other avenues.

wpietri 3y ago

I could argue that, but it would be wrong. For me, art is about human connection. When I look at a work, I'm interested not just in the surface layer of the image, but what the work evokes in me and what was in the mind and context of its creator. If what I'm getting is just a synthetic, semi-random découpé, then that is lost. Similarly, looking at randomly generated maps can be fun, but it's a pretty shallow fun unless there's a real territory represented there. That said, it can also be interesting to look at the machinery that's generating it, in the same way I enjoy videos of how things get made. But it's a different kind of interest and engages different parts of my mind.

mc32 3y ago
To me it's the basic, "does a a tree falling in a forest with no one around to hear it make a sound?" Perception vs reality.
- arcticfox 3y ago
  I don't really get the connection between the scenarios - and trying to think through it I just ran into one more realization of how LLMs have changed things. If I was sure a human wrote this I'd probably put some more effort to see things from that perspective, maybe it's a good way to think about it. But unfortunately now that this type of comment can be the rambling of an LLM, I don't want to put in the effort when it could simply be a mechanical fever dream...
jnovek 3y ago
“For me, art is about human connection.” I find the story of a human who makes an excellent fake pretty fascinating. There are noteworthy examples of forgery-as-art throughout history. I think art, as a concept, is a big enough space to house both things.
- viciousvoxel 3y ago
  In fact, there's a museum of forgeries in Vienna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_Art_Fakes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_Art_Fakes)
- wpietri 3y ago
  Sure, I am also very interested in forgers. I'm also interested in the machinery of what's currently getting labeled as AI. But I'm not interested in having one confused for the others.
hypeit 3y ago
> I could argue that, but it would be wrong. You wouldn't be wrong, you would just be post-modern. As a post-modernist viewer, I decide the context that I want to place media in.
- SiempreViernes 3y ago
  Pretty sure the post-modern thinkers still care about authorship credit though, which is what we're discussing.
  - hypeit 3y ago
    I would argue that's not the case. The entire concept of "reality" is left to the individual in post-modern thought. I think eliminating the notion of authorship would be a solidly post-modern position to take.
    - wpietri 3y ago
      Do you have a citation for that? I've seen that as a cartoon of postmodernism, but I don't think I've ever seen a postmodernist scholar claim that.
      - hypeit 3y ago
        > Postmodernism rejects the possibility of unmediated reality or objectively-rational knowledge, asserting that all interpretations are contingent on the perspective from which they are made;[5] claims to objective fact are dismissed as naive realism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism
        SiempreViernes 3y ago
        When reality is dependent on who is speaking, authorship seems to be even more important!
bitvoid 3y ago
> If what I'm getting is just a synthetic, semi-random découpé, then that is lost. It certainly comes down to perception, interpretation, and a blind assumption though, right? Before generative AI, the blind assumption was that some human made a piece of art. That might be changing now, but if you didn't know (and couldn't know) a piece was artificial, feelings may still be evoked and you might still infer some meaning from it. With that said, not all art need be about human connection. I still enjoy mindless dubstep music on occasion despite not caring one bit about the artist or any meaning behind it (if any even exists beyond "it sounds cool"). The only value there is my enjoyment of it, but then again, I think enjoyment is the most valuable aspect of any piece.
ComputerGuru 3y ago
> When I look at a work, I'm interested not just in the surface layer of the image, but what the work evokes in me and what was in the mind and context of its creator. Let’s put AI aside for a minute, then. When a suspected {Van Gogh, Vermeer, Picasso, etc} is found to actually be from a temporally coincident painter, perhaps one of his pupils, why can you no longer do that?

kevinventullo 3y ago

I sympathize with this argument to some extent, but also would also warn that it conflicts with how many people consume art, to the point where they will respond almost hostilely.

JohnFen 3y ago

For me, the value of art is in the communication between the artist and myself. If I don't care about the artist, the art has little meaning to me. In the case of music, it transforms art into just a sequence of interesting noises.

hotnfresh 3y ago
Yep. A body of work reveals bits and pieces of some real, human perspective and life and mind that evolves and moves through the world between each work, adding even more richness to it. A new work from an artist I like isn’t just exciting because I get more of a thing I like (that gets dull after a while) but because I’m excited about what they want to show me and tell me this time. How’s their work changed? How does it reflect on their prior work? What’s on their mind this, or last, year? Et c. I don’t really care about having some equivalent “conversation” with an LLM.

ethbr1 3y ago

So much of art's value is in originality, and what separates originality is first vs rest. There are likely thousands of people who can paint extremely high quality Monet-alikes, but they weren't there at the beginning of the impressionist movement. Granted, there's also name weight and limited supply due to creator death, but that "first!" can't be ignored. The artistic-economic tangle around originality wasn't something I'd thought about deeply until I saw some of Warhol's "X of Y" prints in person. Because he used an inexact process, there are subtle differences from frame to frame, which to me begged the question of whether a specific selection of frames and composition of them together was sufficient to re-establish a unique, original artistic work.

ComputerGuru 3y ago
I have no firm position on the matter but I am nevertheless intrigued by the debate so I’ll posit a question: let’s grant the originality is certainly important. Hypothetically: Hitchcock releases his first masterful suspense film. It rightfully gets and deserves all praise. His compatriot releases a “knock off” and Hitchcock simultaneously releases a second film along the lines of his first. How do you measure originality here in the context of these latter two movies, neither of which was “the first” in its niche?
- ethbr1 3y ago
  I'd further tighten the scenario a bit before opining, while hopefully staying true to what you're asking. Let's imagine Hitchcock's compatriot releases a film that is Hitchcock-esque in every way it can be (camera, lighting, themes, sound... the whole package), while featuring a novel plot. Then let's say Hitchcock also releases an equally-equivalent film to his first work. There is no non-plot innovation in either work, and the plot is as similar as can be while remaining distinct. What are the values these works could likely command? To me... I think the Hitchcock work would be more valuable, by virtue of his name, which in turn originated its value from his first masterful and original work. His compatriot's film would be valuable. After all, Hitchcock's original work was acclaimed, appreciated, and popular, so it stands to a reason an extremely similar work would be as well. But I can't see it approaching the value of Hitchcock's second, despite them being functionally identical artistic works. It's instead discounted by the lack of Hitchcock's name, itself valuable from the link to his first, original work. Interesting thought exercise! The follow-up would be what would happen if the market were flooded with first-alike films, either from Hitchcock or his compatriot!

gumby 3y ago

A lot of people care about authenticity, but I'm with the crowd that couldn't care less. A book once owned by Issac Newton vs a used paperback with the same text are the same to me. A copy of a famous print vs one of the prints actualy made by the artist (or by someone in her studio!): I wouldn't pay extra for that. Really nice music by someone who likes the same famous musician as I do? Great! I'm not denying the appeal of "authenticity" but I can't for the life of me understand it.

esafak 3y ago

In certain modern arts (esp. the visual ones) the connection between the art and the artist is valuable in itself. The creation is considered primarily in relation to its creator. It is curious why some arts are more susceptible to this thinking than others. I think it is a consequence of maturity; when technique is exhausted, the art seeks development in other avenues.