3 ms·

"With today’s tools — including AI — it’s no longer necessary for artists to learn a craft. What matters is the content, the idea. It doesn’t matter what tools

"With today’s tools — including AI — it’s no longer necessary for artists to learn a craft. What matters is the content, the idea. It doesn’t matter what tools you use if you achieve it.” The word "art" etymologically derives from older words meaning "skill" or "craft." Doing stuff that doesn't require skill or craft is not art by definition, even if it looks like it. You're not an artist if you do this. But it's okay. Artists throughout history have always lived with the rest of the world being apathetic to art and confusing making copies of things with the artistic process. This age is no different, except copies can be made easier and faster. That being said, it sounds like we're really close to me being able to type in a description of something and receive an AI-generated sculpture of it, hopefully with a 3D preview. Awesome, but we're also seeing some really disturbing authoritarian trends lately, and we're likely going to see a lot of ideas get labelled as harmful and blocked from being used by AI tools. So I don't see this leading to any type of utopia for anyone other than the owners of these technologies.

schwartzworld 1y ago
If the art is wholly ai, I agree with you, you are no artist. Similarly, if you outsourced 100% of the creative act to hired help, I would say the same. But most people can’t do everything. How would you view art where the artist relies on AI for the pieces they can’t do? If I play guitar but an ai wrote the drum part, is that art? What if I write the book but ai made the illustrations?
- RiverCrochet 1y ago
  > How would you view art where the artist relies on AI for the pieces they can’t do? If, for example: - an artist creates an image, - 40% of the image is the work of the artist, - 60% of the image is from an AI then: - the image is 40% a work of art. - the art resides in the 40% of the work that the artist did. - the majority of the image (51%) is not art. Drumming presents an interesting perspective because we've had mechanical/synthesized drum sounds in pop and other music for a few decades now. But you can still tell when tracks have a lazy drum programmer that programmed one 16-step pattern in a drum machine (or worse used a stock pattern) and kept it repeating through the whole song. That is less art than the intricate DnB or breakcore tracks with lots of changes and interaction with other layers of the song.

schwartzworld 1y ago

If the art is wholly ai, I agree with you, you are no artist. Similarly, if you outsourced 100% of the creative act to hired help, I would say the same. But most people can’t do everything. How would you view art where the artist relies on AI for the pieces they can’t do? If I play guitar but an ai wrote the drum part, is that art? What if I write the book but ai made the illustrations?

RiverCrochet 1y ago
> How would you view art where the artist relies on AI for the pieces they can’t do? If, for example: - an artist creates an image, - 40% of the image is the work of the artist, - 60% of the image is from an AI then: - the image is 40% a work of art. - the art resides in the 40% of the work that the artist did. - the majority of the image (51%) is not art. Drumming presents an interesting perspective because we've had mechanical/synthesized drum sounds in pop and other music for a few decades now. But you can still tell when tracks have a lazy drum programmer that programmed one 16-step pattern in a drum machine (or worse used a stock pattern) and kept it repeating through the whole song. That is less art than the intricate DnB or breakcore tracks with lots of changes and interaction with other layers of the song.