5 ms·

One thing that will take longer to be automated away is certainly art (in the broader sense of the word art). As I work with a lot of independent artists (most

One thing that will take longer to be automated away is certainly art (in the broader sense of the word art). As I work with a lot of independent artists (mostly musicians) b/c of my startup BandHub, I can feel how this is the profession of the future - not automatable away. Everyone has something to say - and there is a huge long tail of potential ( niche? ) audiences. Things like Patreon are really cool. I wonder how we can really make it work for anyone, anywhere in the world.

ItendToDisagree 13y ago
I agree fully. One factor of being an artist though, is that through the ages there isn't much difference between being a starving artist, and a starving artist. The Arts (with a capital A), rarely get a very large slice of the pie, and the artists even less of that pie generally. It really has only been in the past century (or less) that artists have been able to accumulate great wealth for the most part. There are notable exceptions, but the idea of "art" being big business-- with non-artists pushing the business side-- is a pretty recent development. We can't automate away the arts (yet) but it may not be a great solution for making enough to feed a family of 4. It will likely always be hard to be an artist.
tomp 13y ago
> One thing that will take longer to be automated away is certainly art (in the broader sense of the word art). This is maybe true for creation of art, but the most profitable aspect of art, distribution, has been completely automated a long time ago (for most categories). The only thing keeping most of the industry alive is politics, not lack of technological progress.
jotm 13y ago
There was a tool long ago called N-Gen or N-Generate that made some pretty cool digital art. It never got out of alpha but I used it for wallpapers - it's weird that I can't find it anywhere, but my point is that art can easily be automated, it's just that "art" also includes the human creators and their reputation, which accounts for most of the high price on various paintings and stuff. Van Gogh's paintings would be very cheap if they didn't have his name attached to them. http://netart.org.uy/workshop/softart.htm http://netart.org.uy/workshop/softart.htm - only mention of N-Generate I could find...
- wavefunction 13y ago
  >>Van Gogh's paintings would be very cheap if they didn't have his name attached to them. I suggest you discuss Van Gogh with an actual fine artist. I did recently with a coworker and they amazed me with their description of progression of his "style." The artist made the point that his works are the result of his unique brain chemistry, the same that chemistry that caused all his personal problems. I don't see how your claim is defensible.
  - jotm 13y ago
    Would they be as highly regarded if they didn't have his name and personal problems/history attached to them? Like if they were in a gallery credited to "an unknown artist" next to Picasso's paintings?
    - wavefunction 13y ago
      I guess you mean mass acclaim? A piece of art only has that value to me that matches the change it engenders in me. It is either worth "something" (don't want to say worthless) or it is priceless, there's no real continuum for me if that makes sense.
jiggy2011 13y ago
The problem is that most artists , even relatively good ones make close to 0. There is already more music in the world than any person has time to listen to, so most people just give up and go with whatever is popular , rather than trying to find a specific niche to follow.
patrickk 13y ago
You would be amazed what's possible. I remember being dumbfounded upon learning that a guy wrote an algorithm that could mimic the style of Johannes Sebastian Bach so well, that classical music experts praised the musical output, until they learned it was generated by a computer. Suddenly, the music had no "soul", a wispy, intangible adjective. Further reading : http://www.computermusicjournal.org/reviews/29-1/handelman-cope.html http://www.computermusicjournal.org/reviews/29-1/handelman-c...

ItendToDisagree 13y ago

I agree fully. One factor of being an artist though, is that through the ages there isn't much difference between being a starving artist, and a starving artist. The Arts (with a capital A), rarely get a very large slice of the pie, and the artists even less of that pie generally. It really has only been in the past century (or less) that artists have been able to accumulate great wealth for the most part. There are notable exceptions, but the idea of "art" being big business-- with non-artists pushing the business side-- is a pretty recent development. We can't automate away the arts (yet) but it may not be a great solution for making enough to feed a family of 4. It will likely always be hard to be an artist.

tomp 13y ago

> One thing that will take longer to be automated away is certainly art (in the broader sense of the word art). This is maybe true for creation of art, but the most profitable aspect of art, distribution, has been completely automated a long time ago (for most categories). The only thing keeping most of the industry alive is politics, not lack of technological progress.

jotm 13y ago

There was a tool long ago called N-Gen or N-Generate that made some pretty cool digital art. It never got out of alpha but I used it for wallpapers - it's weird that I can't find it anywhere, but my point is that art can easily be automated, it's just that "art" also includes the human creators and their reputation, which accounts for most of the high price on various paintings and stuff. Van Gogh's paintings would be very cheap if they didn't have his name attached to them. http://netart.org.uy/workshop/softart.htm http://netart.org.uy/workshop/softart.htm - only mention of N-Generate I could find...

wavefunction 13y ago
>>Van Gogh's paintings would be very cheap if they didn't have his name attached to them. I suggest you discuss Van Gogh with an actual fine artist. I did recently with a coworker and they amazed me with their description of progression of his "style." The artist made the point that his works are the result of his unique brain chemistry, the same that chemistry that caused all his personal problems. I don't see how your claim is defensible.
- jotm 13y ago
  Would they be as highly regarded if they didn't have his name and personal problems/history attached to them? Like if they were in a gallery credited to "an unknown artist" next to Picasso's paintings?
  - wavefunction 13y ago
    I guess you mean mass acclaim? A piece of art only has that value to me that matches the change it engenders in me. It is either worth "something" (don't want to say worthless) or it is priceless, there's no real continuum for me if that makes sense.

jiggy2011 13y ago

The problem is that most artists , even relatively good ones make close to 0. There is already more music in the world than any person has time to listen to, so most people just give up and go with whatever is popular , rather than trying to find a specific niche to follow.

patrickk 13y ago

You would be amazed what's possible. I remember being dumbfounded upon learning that a guy wrote an algorithm that could mimic the style of Johannes Sebastian Bach so well, that classical music experts praised the musical output, until they learned it was generated by a computer. Suddenly, the music had no "soul", a wispy, intangible adjective. Further reading : http://www.computermusicjournal.org/reviews/29-1/handelman-cope.html http://www.computermusicjournal.org/reviews/29-1/handelman-c...