3 ms·

I agree with this. There are drawbacks to being a skilled (trained/practiced) musician. You specialize in one instrument, and tend to have your creativity guid

I agree with this. There are drawbacks to being a skilled (trained/practiced) musician. You specialize in one instrument, and tend to have your creativity guided by its strengths/weaknesses. I think that soon, some very accomplished musicians will learn to leverage tools like Suno, but they aren't in the majority yet. We're still in the "vibe-coding" phase of AI music generation. We saw this happen with CG. When it started, engineers did most of the creating, and we got less-than-stellar results[0]. Then, CG became its own community and vocation, and true artists started to dominate. Some of the CG art that I see nowadays, is every bit as impressive as the Great Masters. We'll see that, when AI music generation comes into its own. It's not there, yet. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTP2RUD_cL0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTP2RUD_cL0

otabdeveloper4 1y ago
> will learn to leverage tools like Suno Suno isn't a tool. Tools are characterized by precision and a steep learning curve, and "AI" is nothing like.
southernplaces7 1y ago
>Some of the CG art that I see nowadays, is every bit as impressive as the Great Masters. Really? Except the minor part in which a great master spent months to years creating one of his works, instead of a literally mindless digital system putting it together (in digital, no pigments here) instantly. The technology is impressive, sure, but I see nothing artistically impressive about it, or emotionally satisfying about the utter lack of world and life of creation it lacks.
- ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
  This is not something I feel like arguing about. We’ll never agree. I’m an artist (the old-fashioned kind). That’s where I come from, so my viewpoint is colored by my own experience and training.
  - southernplaces7 1y ago
    If you're an actual artist, who's taken the time to paint and learn its intricacies, yet you're still just as impressed by an automated CG rendering of a work in Old Master style vs. one really done by a dedicated human hand, then you either hate the thing you learned because something about it frustrated you, or you have no clue about forming qualitative measurements of skill. Also, "old-fashioned"? This to imply that someone rendering painterly visuals in seconds with AI is some new kind of artist? If so, then no, what they do isn't art to begin with. That at least requires an act of effortful creation.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
      It might be enlightening to find out a bit about the process of creating CGI; especially 3D scenes. Many works can definitely take over a year. I spent some time, making CG art, and found it to be very difficult; but that was also back before some of the new tools were available. Apps like Procreate, with Apple Pencil and iPad Pro, are game-changers. They don't remove the need for a trained artist, though. But really, some of the very best stuff, comes quickly, from skilled hands. Van Gogh used to spit out paintings at a furious pace (and barely made enough to live on. Their value didn't really show, until long after his death).
      - southernplaces7 1y ago
        I fail to see how you're disagreeing with me if you say this, or maybe we're at mixed signals. I'm specifically arguing against being impressed by a visual of some kind that was sludged out automatically by an LLM, my argument isn't against digital art by itself (I know how hard CGI can be, and there's nothing to be dismissed about it because it doesn't directly use physical materials), or against artists who refine their craft to such a point that they can create visual marvels in no time. Both of those require effort. They require a combination of effort with learning, exploring and to some extent also talent I'd say. Briefly instructing an image model to imitate an Old Master and having it do so in seconds fulfills none of those needs, and at least to me there's nothing impressive about it as soon as I know how it was created (yes, there is a distinction there even if at first glance at a photo of a real old master and an AI-rendered imitation, it might be hard to note a difference) The latter is not art, and the people who churn it out with their LLM of choice are not artists, at least not if that's their only qualification for professing to be such.

otabdeveloper4 1y ago

> will learn to leverage tools like Suno Suno isn't a tool. Tools are characterized by precision and a steep learning curve, and "AI" is nothing like.

southernplaces7 1y ago

>Some of the CG art that I see nowadays, is every bit as impressive as the Great Masters. Really? Except the minor part in which a great master spent months to years creating one of his works, instead of a literally mindless digital system putting it together (in digital, no pigments here) instantly. The technology is impressive, sure, but I see nothing artistically impressive about it, or emotionally satisfying about the utter lack of world and life of creation it lacks.

ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
This is not something I feel like arguing about. We’ll never agree. I’m an artist (the old-fashioned kind). That’s where I come from, so my viewpoint is colored by my own experience and training.
- southernplaces7 1y ago
  If you're an actual artist, who's taken the time to paint and learn its intricacies, yet you're still just as impressed by an automated CG rendering of a work in Old Master style vs. one really done by a dedicated human hand, then you either hate the thing you learned because something about it frustrated you, or you have no clue about forming qualitative measurements of skill. Also, "old-fashioned"? This to imply that someone rendering painterly visuals in seconds with AI is some new kind of artist? If so, then no, what they do isn't art to begin with. That at least requires an act of effortful creation.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
    It might be enlightening to find out a bit about the process of creating CGI; especially 3D scenes. Many works can definitely take over a year. I spent some time, making CG art, and found it to be very difficult; but that was also back before some of the new tools were available. Apps like Procreate, with Apple Pencil and iPad Pro, are game-changers. They don't remove the need for a trained artist, though. But really, some of the very best stuff, comes quickly, from skilled hands. Van Gogh used to spit out paintings at a furious pace (and barely made enough to live on. Their value didn't really show, until long after his death).
    - southernplaces7 1y ago
      I fail to see how you're disagreeing with me if you say this, or maybe we're at mixed signals. I'm specifically arguing against being impressed by a visual of some kind that was sludged out automatically by an LLM, my argument isn't against digital art by itself (I know how hard CGI can be, and there's nothing to be dismissed about it because it doesn't directly use physical materials), or against artists who refine their craft to such a point that they can create visual marvels in no time. Both of those require effort. They require a combination of effort with learning, exploring and to some extent also talent I'd say. Briefly instructing an image model to imitate an Old Master and having it do so in seconds fulfills none of those needs, and at least to me there's nothing impressive about it as soon as I know how it was created (yes, there is a distinction there even if at first glance at a photo of a real old master and an AI-rendered imitation, it might be hard to note a difference) The latter is not art, and the people who churn it out with their LLM of choice are not artists, at least not if that's their only qualification for professing to be such.