3 ms·

When I was in art school I walked into the studio and this dude was doing his thing... his thing was re-creating this image he found in some book. I thought "wh

by neom 2y ago

When I was in art school I walked into the studio and this dude was doing his thing... his thing was re-creating this image he found in some book. I thought "what a fucking cheater" and shook my head. Well I came second to him on that assignment, so I went to the dean of our art school and I said "Chris committed plagiarism and his work should be removed from the salon" and explained - Dean looked at me like I was crazy and said "the most creative things simply hide the source of their creativity, good artists know that, get out of my office". I don't know what your definition of art is, but after art school I realized it's simply "anything that isn't science" This is exactly about tools, tools and the fact that people with no artistic ability have relied on them heavily, it's not my problem or the problem of OpenAI that people are just bad at art, but people are indeed bad at art, and it's always people who blabber on about the tools. Oh yeah, and while I'm at it, I don't believe in copyright, so there is that too.

greentxt 2y ago
But doesn't economics matter somewhat? You don't seem to acknowledge supply/demand; just talented and untalented craftsmen which you assume exist in eternal ratio that cannot fluctaute with supply and demand or market forces. Reality encompases both money and art.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- neom 2y ago
  The reality is that most artists need to engage with economic situations to survive and continue making art. I would say I think it's important to recognize "art" is wide and means lots of things to lots of people. For example I would put gfx in a "creative science" more than a "creative art" - for example. Never the less, the reality is that most artists need to engage with economic realities to survive and continue making art, if you blame the tool, you're not a very good artist. you raise a good point about supply and demand, it's something I've seen reshape creative fields multiple times over my career, I've consistently found that the artists who thrive are the ones who adapt their tools while maintaining their creative vision, rather than letting the tools define their art.
  - greentxt 2y ago
    Jeff Koonz thrives, invents tools to produce new works, and will not be replaced by an LLM. Art is wide, and it should not be reduced to a few Koonz'.
    - neom 2y ago
      I actually specifically did well-ish in art also because I invented my own tools, if you look at the Cinevate Brevis, those ideas came out of my program. The image was soft, it leaked light, you got CA like crazy, awful tool, but I managed to create some amazing images with it and people really loved my art, I never cared that the existing tools didn't cater to my art, I didn't care my tool sucked, my art was my art, it's art! I sold a lot of commercial work too using that tool, but to me that wasn't my art, maybe I'm an artist doing that work, but that wasn't my art. Jeff didn't say well I can't make my art fuck the existing tools, he made his own. But I was never going to be economically comfortable doing art, I was never a good enough artist, hence I switched to tech. Being an artist is hard, and just because someone fancy themself an artist, doesn't mean they are.

by neom 2y ago

greentxt 2y ago

But doesn't economics matter somewhat? You don't seem to acknowledge supply/demand; just talented and untalented craftsmen which you assume exist in eternal ratio that cannot fluctaute with supply and demand or market forces. Reality encompases both money and art.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
neom 2y ago
The reality is that most artists need to engage with economic situations to survive and continue making art. I would say I think it's important to recognize "art" is wide and means lots of things to lots of people. For example I would put gfx in a "creative science" more than a "creative art" - for example. Never the less, the reality is that most artists need to engage with economic realities to survive and continue making art, if you blame the tool, you're not a very good artist. you raise a good point about supply and demand, it's something I've seen reshape creative fields multiple times over my career, I've consistently found that the artists who thrive are the ones who adapt their tools while maintaining their creative vision, rather than letting the tools define their art.
- greentxt 2y ago
  Jeff Koonz thrives, invents tools to produce new works, and will not be replaced by an LLM. Art is wide, and it should not be reduced to a few Koonz'.
  - neom 2y ago
    I actually specifically did well-ish in art also because I invented my own tools, if you look at the Cinevate Brevis, those ideas came out of my program. The image was soft, it leaked light, you got CA like crazy, awful tool, but I managed to create some amazing images with it and people really loved my art, I never cared that the existing tools didn't cater to my art, I didn't care my tool sucked, my art was my art, it's art! I sold a lot of commercial work too using that tool, but to me that wasn't my art, maybe I'm an artist doing that work, but that wasn't my art. Jeff didn't say well I can't make my art fuck the existing tools, he made his own. But I was never going to be economically comfortable doing art, I was never a good enough artist, hence I switched to tech. Being an artist is hard, and just because someone fancy themself an artist, doesn't mean they are.