4 ms·

I would really like an objective explanation of why this attitude "that the whole point of art is the process of making it" is anything but pretentiousness in i

by ilaksh 2y ago

I would really like an objective explanation of why this attitude "that the whole point of art is the process of making it" is anything but pretentiousness in it's purest form. Surely the actual artifact itself has some value? And even if one supposes that a key part of the value is self-exploration (which I disagree with generally because that presupposes an excessive level of self-importance), then being able to iterate more easily by leveraging AI art can be a huge advantage for many artists. This is not to say that actual fundamental skills like drawing ability etc. aren't valuable. And it will be hard to develop them if you rely entirely on AI, especially while learning. But I don't see how it is logically necessary at all to completely exclude AI. To me, this is a rationalization for disliking AI because it displaces humans to some degree or another. I think that is a fair reaction, but the rationale is nonsense. I predict that the number of people who start to resent AI will increase dramatically over the coming few decades. Especially if we can't improve the structure of society to be less centered around exploiting labor.

dingnuts 2y ago
The point of art for the artist is expression. The point for the audience is to gain something through shared experience with the artist. AI outputs are not created by a conscious agent experiencing affect, and its audience shares an experience with no one. It's not compelling, and isn't art.
- nelsondev 2y ago
  The audience member can share the experience with the person sitting beside them. Doesn’t have to be shared with the artist.
- Philpax 2y ago
  > AI outputs are not created by a conscious agent experiencing affect Who is controlling the AI and driving it to specific outputs? The void?
aidenn0 2y ago
> I would really like an objective explanation of why this attitude "that the whole point of art is the process of making it" is anything but pretentiousness in it's purest form. It's not necessarily pretentiousness (though it's definitely pretentiousness adjacent), but a view from the point-of-view of an artist. I say it's adjacent to pretentiousness because I think implicit in the entire article is the assumption that creation is superior to consumption (and also the assumption that art created just to pay the bills is inferior to art created for its own sake[1]). 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potboiler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potboiler
- Miraste 2y ago
  Creation is superior to consumption in basically every value system ever constructed. That doesn't seem like a controversial axiom. Certainly it's widely believed on HN.
  - aidenn0 2y ago
    Possibly after you started your reply, I edited my comment to add that it also assumes that creation specifically for paying the bills is inferior to creation for its own sake. This may be also not super controversial, but it is adjacent to "popular things aren't good" which is definitely pretentious.
- 8note 2y ago
  i dont think you need to go so far as to say more important, just that it is a part. ai art is purely consumption, or if there is a production part, its from the artists who were ripped off as part of training and reselling their work through the image generator
dfltr 2y ago
“So what," the Chelgrian asked, "is the point of me or anybody else writing a symphony, or anything else?" The avatar raised its brows in surprise. "Well, for one thing, you do it, it's you who gets the feeling of achievement." "Ignoring the subjective. What would be the point for those listening to it?" "They'd know it was one of their own species, not a Mind, who created it." "Ignoring that, too; suppose they weren't told it was by an AI, or didn't care." "If they hadn't been told then the comparison isn't complete; information is being concealed. If they don't care, then they're unlike any group of humans I've ever encountered." "But if you can—" "Ziller, are you concerned that Minds—AIs, if you like—can create, or even just appear to create, original works of art?" "Frankly, when they're the sort of original works of art that I create, yes." "Ziller, it doesn't matter. You have to think like a mountain climber." "Oh, do I?" "Yes. Some people take days, sweat buckets, endure pain and cold and risk injury and—in some cases—permanent death to achieve the summit of a mountain only to discover there a party of their peers freshly arrived by aircraft and enjoying a light picnic." "If I was one of those climbers I'd be pretty damned annoyed." "Well, it is considered rather impolite to land an aircraft on a summit which people are at that moment struggling up to the hard way, but it can and does happen. Good manners indicate that the picnic ought to be shared and that those who arrived by aircraft express awe and respect for the accomplishment of the climbers. "The point, of course, is that the people who spent days and sweated buckets could also have taken an aircraft to the summit if all they'd wanted was to absorb the view. It is the struggle that they crave. The sense of achievement is produced by the route to and from the peak, not by the peak itself. It is just the fold between the pages." The avatar hesitated. It put its head a little to one side and narrowed its eyes. "How far do I have to take this analogy, Cr. Ziller?” - Iain M. Banks, Look to Windward
- ilaksh 2y ago
  That's a great quote and explanation of why the process of making art is important for those who participate in it. However, it does not claim that the _entire point of art_ is that process, which is what I am refuting. I think it's important that artists keep doing actual "traditional" art and grow in the process if they have any motivation to do so. But I feel strongly that asserting that AI art or art that hasn't involved some arduous process, doesn't have any value, is nonsense. Because that means that enjoyment or communication from art is not just much less important than the development of the artist, but worthless. It's kind of a classist or elitist and self-aggrandizing view.
tommilburn 2y ago
> I would really like an objective explanation of why this attitude "that the whole point of art is the process of making it" is anything but pretentiousness in it's purest form. i think that's a problem - i am no philosopher or art historian, but i truly can't think of "objective" truths of any kind when i think about art, the process of making art, or the process of engaging with art. it's nice to make art. i play around with synthesizers and it... makes me feel more like a human being, i guess? when i record music or do amateur photography i've actualized myself somehow. something that wouldn't have existed otherwise now exists because of my actions, and that's enjoyable to experience. i imagine one could argue "you still created something that wouldn't have existed when you prompt an AI!" but it just doesn't feel the same, and i struggle to explain why > And even if one supposes that a key part of the value is self-exploration i think a lot of value is the context of the art itself - picasso going insane, the protests leading up to the tank man photo, aphex twin's cheetah, jesse krimes being in prison, whatever. maybe this is just me, but when i go to museums the extra information in the labels or audio descriptions is where i find most of the joy and fascination that makes the artworks meaningful to me. AI art feels contextless > Surely the actual artifact itself has some value? genuinely - have you encountered AI-generated art that you find valuable? that you tell other people about or have kept a copy of for yourself somehow?
- parpfish 2y ago
  > i think a lot of value is the context of the art itself I agree. The enjoyment I get out of a good piece of art isn’t just the piece of art itself, it’s that experiencing the art is a way to kind of connect your mind with the human that made it. If part of the art resonates with me, it’s nice to know that there was another person that felt the same way. If the art is a technical marvel, so can think about the genius and skill of the creator. AI art doesn’t have any of that and I have to conclude that people who talk about enjoying AI art to the same level as human-made art just never bothered to connect with human art on that deeper level
  - ilaksh 2y ago
    Is the deeper connection to art just about the fact that there was another person who felt something, or is it about what the art is communicating/representing? I would argue that the real value is in what feeling or information is actually being communicated, not what person or process was on the other end.
ls612 2y ago
You are exactly right, the artists are deploying all their rhetoric skills they learned in university to try to avoid becoming the next horse drawn carriage drivers.
numpad0 2y ago
To me, this is a rationalization for disliking AI because it displaces humans to some degree or another. I think that is a fair reaction, but the rationale is nonsense. People just hates AI generated images. Why can't the framing be this simple? AI images and users gets filtered out everywhere, closing into an edgy echo chamber groups, and rarely, if ever, for such "it displaces humans" philosophical arguments. AI generated data just evokes negativity, are low quality, and are unsalvageable, and there are little to no prospects of that improving through cooperation because AI-leaning people have ran around setting so many bridges on fire, so its potentials are all but ignored. If anything, I'd expect the resentment will subside over the next decade, as generation techniques mature and barrier to entry for amateurs exponentially rise. I think we are already seeing signs of such guild moat forming in code generation LLMs.
schwartzworld 2y ago
Most artists create art that nobody cares about. This is just reality. You can make music, and likely nobody will listen to it. You can write a book, and probably nobody will read it. You have to create for yourself and if you’re extremely lucky someone else will care, but probably not. AI art is a cute trick, but it makes this point even more true. Why would you care about a picture I drew when you could generate 100 of them in minutes and way better as well? The fact that you can put a coin in the vending machine and get a picture or song or novel completely devalues the end product. What remains is the process of creativity, of choosing a medium and exploring the boundaries of what it can do. I saw a Picasso exhibit that showed all the studies and sketches he’d done in preparation for a piece. That process IS the creation of the art. The final picture isn’t even that interesting. If someone feels fulfilled generating images, good for them, I guess. To me it seems like a cheap fix and a trick that we will all eventually grow tired of.
- numpad0 2y ago
  > Most artists create art that nobody cares about. Except, in this age of social media, artists can harvest impressions and optimize for clicks. Which they do. I guess most parts of the world hasn't gotten to that point, nor will for years to come.
  - schwartzworld 2y ago
    There’s always been commercial artists who create for the market. It’s nothing new.

by ilaksh 2y ago

dingnuts 2y ago

The point of art for the artist is expression. The point for the audience is to gain something through shared experience with the artist. AI outputs are not created by a conscious agent experiencing affect, and its audience shares an experience with no one. It's not compelling, and isn't art.

nelsondev 2y ago
The audience member can share the experience with the person sitting beside them. Doesn’t have to be shared with the artist.
Philpax 2y ago
> AI outputs are not created by a conscious agent experiencing affect Who is controlling the AI and driving it to specific outputs? The void?

aidenn0 2y ago

> I would really like an objective explanation of why this attitude "that the whole point of art is the process of making it" is anything but pretentiousness in it's purest form. It's not necessarily pretentiousness (though it's definitely pretentiousness adjacent), but a view from the point-of-view of an artist. I say it's adjacent to pretentiousness because I think implicit in the entire article is the assumption that creation is superior to consumption (and also the assumption that art created just to pay the bills is inferior to art created for its own sake[1]). 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potboiler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potboiler

Miraste 2y ago
Creation is superior to consumption in basically every value system ever constructed. That doesn't seem like a controversial axiom. Certainly it's widely believed on HN.
- aidenn0 2y ago
  Possibly after you started your reply, I edited my comment to add that it also assumes that creation specifically for paying the bills is inferior to creation for its own sake. This may be also not super controversial, but it is adjacent to "popular things aren't good" which is definitely pretentious.
8note 2y ago
i dont think you need to go so far as to say more important, just that it is a part. ai art is purely consumption, or if there is a production part, its from the artists who were ripped off as part of training and reselling their work through the image generator

dfltr 2y ago

“So what," the Chelgrian asked, "is the point of me or anybody else writing a symphony, or anything else?" The avatar raised its brows in surprise. "Well, for one thing, you do it, it's you who gets the feeling of achievement." "Ignoring the subjective. What would be the point for those listening to it?" "They'd know it was one of their own species, not a Mind, who created it." "Ignoring that, too; suppose they weren't told it was by an AI, or didn't care." "If they hadn't been told then the comparison isn't complete; information is being concealed. If they don't care, then they're unlike any group of humans I've ever encountered." "But if you can—" "Ziller, are you concerned that Minds—AIs, if you like—can create, or even just appear to create, original works of art?" "Frankly, when they're the sort of original works of art that I create, yes." "Ziller, it doesn't matter. You have to think like a mountain climber." "Oh, do I?" "Yes. Some people take days, sweat buckets, endure pain and cold and risk injury and—in some cases—permanent death to achieve the summit of a mountain only to discover there a party of their peers freshly arrived by aircraft and enjoying a light picnic." "If I was one of those climbers I'd be pretty damned annoyed." "Well, it is considered rather impolite to land an aircraft on a summit which people are at that moment struggling up to the hard way, but it can and does happen. Good manners indicate that the picnic ought to be shared and that those who arrived by aircraft express awe and respect for the accomplishment of the climbers. "The point, of course, is that the people who spent days and sweated buckets could also have taken an aircraft to the summit if all they'd wanted was to absorb the view. It is the struggle that they crave. The sense of achievement is produced by the route to and from the peak, not by the peak itself. It is just the fold between the pages." The avatar hesitated. It put its head a little to one side and narrowed its eyes. "How far do I have to take this analogy, Cr. Ziller?” - Iain M. Banks, Look to Windward

ilaksh 2y ago
That's a great quote and explanation of why the process of making art is important for those who participate in it. However, it does not claim that the _entire point of art_ is that process, which is what I am refuting. I think it's important that artists keep doing actual "traditional" art and grow in the process if they have any motivation to do so. But I feel strongly that asserting that AI art or art that hasn't involved some arduous process, doesn't have any value, is nonsense. Because that means that enjoyment or communication from art is not just much less important than the development of the artist, but worthless. It's kind of a classist or elitist and self-aggrandizing view.

tommilburn 2y ago

> I would really like an objective explanation of why this attitude "that the whole point of art is the process of making it" is anything but pretentiousness in it's purest form. i think that's a problem - i am no philosopher or art historian, but i truly can't think of "objective" truths of any kind when i think about art, the process of making art, or the process of engaging with art. it's nice to make art. i play around with synthesizers and it... makes me feel more like a human being, i guess? when i record music or do amateur photography i've actualized myself somehow. something that wouldn't have existed otherwise now exists because of my actions, and that's enjoyable to experience. i imagine one could argue "you still created something that wouldn't have existed when you prompt an AI!" but it just doesn't feel the same, and i struggle to explain why > And even if one supposes that a key part of the value is self-exploration i think a lot of value is the context of the art itself - picasso going insane, the protests leading up to the tank man photo, aphex twin's cheetah, jesse krimes being in prison, whatever. maybe this is just me, but when i go to museums the extra information in the labels or audio descriptions is where i find most of the joy and fascination that makes the artworks meaningful to me. AI art feels contextless > Surely the actual artifact itself has some value? genuinely - have you encountered AI-generated art that you find valuable? that you tell other people about or have kept a copy of for yourself somehow?

parpfish 2y ago
> i think a lot of value is the context of the art itself I agree. The enjoyment I get out of a good piece of art isn’t just the piece of art itself, it’s that experiencing the art is a way to kind of connect your mind with the human that made it. If part of the art resonates with me, it’s nice to know that there was another person that felt the same way. If the art is a technical marvel, so can think about the genius and skill of the creator. AI art doesn’t have any of that and I have to conclude that people who talk about enjoying AI art to the same level as human-made art just never bothered to connect with human art on that deeper level
- ilaksh 2y ago
  Is the deeper connection to art just about the fact that there was another person who felt something, or is it about what the art is communicating/representing? I would argue that the real value is in what feeling or information is actually being communicated, not what person or process was on the other end.

ls612 2y ago

You are exactly right, the artists are deploying all their rhetoric skills they learned in university to try to avoid becoming the next horse drawn carriage drivers.

numpad0 2y ago

To me, this is a rationalization for disliking AI because it displaces humans to some degree or another. I think that is a fair reaction, but the rationale is nonsense. People just hates AI generated images. Why can't the framing be this simple? AI images and users gets filtered out everywhere, closing into an edgy echo chamber groups, and rarely, if ever, for such "it displaces humans" philosophical arguments. AI generated data just evokes negativity, are low quality, and are unsalvageable, and there are little to no prospects of that improving through cooperation because AI-leaning people have ran around setting so many bridges on fire, so its potentials are all but ignored. If anything, I'd expect the resentment will subside over the next decade, as generation techniques mature and barrier to entry for amateurs exponentially rise. I think we are already seeing signs of such guild moat forming in code generation LLMs.

schwartzworld 2y ago

Most artists create art that nobody cares about. This is just reality. You can make music, and likely nobody will listen to it. You can write a book, and probably nobody will read it. You have to create for yourself and if you’re extremely lucky someone else will care, but probably not. AI art is a cute trick, but it makes this point even more true. Why would you care about a picture I drew when you could generate 100 of them in minutes and way better as well? The fact that you can put a coin in the vending machine and get a picture or song or novel completely devalues the end product. What remains is the process of creativity, of choosing a medium and exploring the boundaries of what it can do. I saw a Picasso exhibit that showed all the studies and sketches he’d done in preparation for a piece. That process IS the creation of the art. The final picture isn’t even that interesting. If someone feels fulfilled generating images, good for them, I guess. To me it seems like a cheap fix and a trick that we will all eventually grow tired of.

numpad0 2y ago
> Most artists create art that nobody cares about. Except, in this age of social media, artists can harvest impressions and optimize for clicks. Which they do. I guess most parts of the world hasn't gotten to that point, nor will for years to come.
- schwartzworld 2y ago
  There’s always been commercial artists who create for the market. It’s nothing new.