4 ms·

Artists who make it usually have a legend, a story to tell or be told by their friends, associates, agents, publishers, gallerists, etc. That story has a human

Artists who make it usually have a legend, a story to tell or be told by their friends, associates, agents, publishers, gallerists, etc. That story has a human dimension that touches the rest of us and we somehow connect to it. Van Gogh cut of his ear, we still keep talking about it and wondering why? There is nothing AI can tell us about itself, its "art". The artistic struggle with AI is not about expressing your vision on a canvas in a way that makes others feel what you want them to feel but about forcing it to generate something it is incapable of generating or programmed not to generate. We got to the point where we are given crayons programmed to not draw the things others do not want them to draw or to draw HR-approved version of what the artist wants to draw. The future is now and it's shit.

latexr 2y ago
Using van Gogh as an example of “artists who make it” is insane. Which I guess is appropriate, because he was literally crazy. He suffered from psychotic episodes and delusions and died from suicide, depressed and in poverty. That’s the opposite of “making it”. It’s zero consolation that people like his work now, he never even knew.
- surfingdino 2y ago
  > Using van Gogh as an example of “artists who make it” is insane. So is building a tool that will only generate "approved" art. We need to be able to express our idea, feelings, our perception of the world in ways that do not fit corporate standards of text, audio, or visual communication. It's part of being human.
  - latexr 2y ago
    > So is building a tool that will only generate "approved" art. And so is eating ice cream with your forehead. Are we just doing non sequiturs now? I didn’t defend image generation tools in the slightest. > We need to be able to express our idea, feelings, our perception of the world in ways that do not fit corporate standards of text, audio, or visual communication. I agree. My point started and ended with “van Gogh in an awful example when talking about artist who ‘made it’”. That’s it. There is nothing in there to be extrapolated to AI or any other subject.
  - bongodongobob 2y ago
    So don't use the tool or make your own. You don't get to tell people what to use or like.

latexr 2y ago

Using van Gogh as an example of “artists who make it” is insane. Which I guess is appropriate, because he was literally crazy. He suffered from psychotic episodes and delusions and died from suicide, depressed and in poverty. That’s the opposite of “making it”. It’s zero consolation that people like his work now, he never even knew.

surfingdino 2y ago
> Using van Gogh as an example of “artists who make it” is insane. So is building a tool that will only generate "approved" art. We need to be able to express our idea, feelings, our perception of the world in ways that do not fit corporate standards of text, audio, or visual communication. It's part of being human.
- latexr 2y ago
  > So is building a tool that will only generate "approved" art. And so is eating ice cream with your forehead. Are we just doing non sequiturs now? I didn’t defend image generation tools in the slightest. > We need to be able to express our idea, feelings, our perception of the world in ways that do not fit corporate standards of text, audio, or visual communication. I agree. My point started and ended with “van Gogh in an awful example when talking about artist who ‘made it’”. That’s it. There is nothing in there to be extrapolated to AI or any other subject.
- bongodongobob 2y ago
  So don't use the tool or make your own. You don't get to tell people what to use or like.