Basically you are saying is that. . . .Whether somethig is "ART" is about the Marketing and advertisement. IF you can sell a bottle of piss with a crucifix in it . .. its Art If you can't its disgusting The Story as you frame it . .. is merely selling .. marketing .. . .to an extent "the con" The arguments about the "brushstrokes' etc were made about Photography. Photoshop. Etc IMO Art is really not about "the artist' IT's about what the product invokes in the person consuming it. Eating McDonalds does not invoke the same feeling as being in a Ma and Pop Shop. There for Ma and Pop shops are a move valuable experience for me. I have seen some incredible AWE INSPIRING AI Art .. . The one about the States for instance are Marvelous to me By the same token I have seen some complete Crap that was human made . . . . Alot Jackson Pollock's stuff does NOTHING for me . . .except maybe confusion but Geiger touches my imagination Art is about the consumer not the Artist . . .that is my humble opinion Rocket River
Why is selling something to you that is of interests to you a "con"? Confused as to why you try to distill a subject into it's most base form. (thereby ultimately missing the point) Humans like stories. It's why Hollywood is a thing. So people like art that has a story, that is bigger than the brush strokes on the canvas. Then oddly, you make the following statement: Everything I speak to is about the consumer, not the artist. Yet you somehow take issue with what I said?
In short, AI art is art. The reason artists hate it is because it will potentially put them out of a job one day. It's cheaper and potentially better than what human artists can manage....and it's likely to only get better. It's a situation where ALMOST everyone wins. Art itself wins due to more art existing, normal people win due to more art existing and being more available. Artists lose in the short term, but I think eventually they'll evolve and use AI as just another tool.
Art with substance doesn't need a back story. It speaks for itself. This has always been the case for the best art and music in history. The need for stories behind art is definitely more of a consumer need and a modern one at that. Part of the reason is that the arts have evolved rapidly in the past few centuries and completely alienated the majority of people in the process. This is the fault of a mixture of our failing education system and commercialism. You keep using the word selling to illustrate the artist and consumer connection. I suggest you explore that connection without commerce involved. Money is never a good indicator for art. Most art that sells in the present typically doesn’t last. The best art often doesn’t sell and is overlooked until much later in the future. That is a very common theme through art and music history.
No one (good anyway) becomes an artist to make money. If an artist truly has a problem with AI, it’s likely more their own insecurities in not being able to say anything meaningful or original.
Except why is the Ma and Pop shop a better experience than McDonalds? Maybe it’s because Ma and pop but more time and care into the food they are making therefore experience of it is better. Great art should also reflect the care that is put in to it. The Sistine Chapel might not be such great art without the effort that Michaelangelo put into it. That is the point about issues like brushstrokes is that is the effort and care that is out into the creative process by the artists. You might not feel you care about that but that you’ve already stated you like the Ma and Pop shot more than McDonald’s shows that you do appreciate that effort.
How do you qualify what is better? Like with the example with a dinner is one where the meal is made from scratch and hand made better than fast food? They might both be nutritionally the same but I think most people would prefer a meal made from scratch where a skilled cook has out the time and effort into it than reheating a meal made in a factory.
However - the effort means nothing if the result is sh*t The Results HAVE to be good enough . . .. to pass Same Burger from McDonalds and Ma and Pa . .. I'd opt for Ma and Pa - Unless it was enormously more expensive Rocket River
Of course and there are made from scratch meals that are awful but that is what it means to be a chef. Cooking is a skill like painting that takes time and effort to master.
That is a fantastic question. There's two levels to it, objective and subjective. On an objective level, you can point to the skill of the person or thing that created the art, is it technically sound? Did they accurately do what they intended to do? On a subjective level, it's all about personal preference. What I personally like will be different than what you like based on thousands of reasons. If the artist is tuned in to what people like, they are more likely to create art that people subjectively enjoy. So, that's the basics I'm rolling with for the sake of this conversation. From an objective standpoint, the skill of a sufficiently advanced machine will likely be superior to that of a human. The AI is likely to win that category every time, maybe not now, but once they become sufficiently advanced. When it comes to the subjective, I think with time a sufficiently advanced AI would be able to predict what people would like, everything that people would like, significantly better than a human as well. Once those two boxes are checked, I'd say that it is "better". I think it's only a matter of time really.
I think that's the thing about Ma and Pa shops though, the quality is all over the place. You might get something amazing, you might get trash. A LOT of people stick to chains when they are in areas they don't know for exactly that reason. Sometimes you are adventurous and you'll try out the random hole in the wall and hope for the best, other times, you don't feel like leaving the evening up to chance and you just end up at Chilli's or Denny's. The food is mediocre, but it is reliably mediocre. You know EXACTLY what you are getting every time. For example, back forever ago when I joined the Army, I headed off for basic, but there was some weird weather nonsense and our group didn't make all the way to Fort Leonard Wood the day we were supposed to. Instead, we spent the night on the outskirts of St Louis. For the last night before basic, where did we go get our final meal? Did we gamble on a hole in the wall? Nope. We piled into a random ass Denny's to grub some mediocre crap that we knew most likely wasn't going to get us food poisoning.
Yes this is a subjective debate and qualifying art based on precision and realism yes an AI will defeat a human everytime. To me the question is how much is the process important in the creation of art. I believe it is something that affects how you think about art and what kind of art you create. As stated this has been a debate in design circles for decades regarding the use of CAD versus hand drawing and building models by hand. Yes the computers allow us to create fantastic and wonderful looking structures faster. The problem is that because we can create very powerful and compelling images the rigor of design is lost. So in architecture a frequent complaint is that while buildings look more visually interesting they aren't designed as well. Just to stress I'm not saying we should ban AI art. The genie is out of the bottle on this and this is the new reality that artists and designers have to deal with. I agree it can be used as a new tool for art like how point and shoot cameras have greatly expanded photography. I think we still need to consider though the craft of creating art. I hope that AI created art doesn't replace that and there still are people who actually paint and sculpt just like there are still craft brewers and chefs.
I couldn't disagree more. Sorry. But let's not lose sight of the point of this post. All I'm saying is these are additional reasons why AI can't replace artists. Not sure why that is controversial. But to respond, the "best art and music" is nearly always associated with a famous artist. True, perhaps the artist became famous by an early hit, but from that point forward, all their art has the benefit of their name associated with it. It is nearly impossible to tell the story of a piece of art without also knowing something about the artist themselves. Why is that bad? Even if the artist never achieved fame but was a one hit wonder, that's still kinda cool. Secondly, it is literally impossible to separate value from art. Tell me one piece of famous art that has no value. Waiting. You hear all the time about the latest piece that went for millions at auction. That Banana Taped To Wall fetched over 100k. You simply cannot speak of art independently of value. Museums that house artwork, may say a piece is priceless but then they charge admission and/or then "rent" their art to other museums for traveling exhibits. So even that art has a price. Musicians? Puhlease. It's all about record sales, concerts, and merchandise. Being a musician is a career, aka, earn money. Again, why is that bad? To be clear, it's not mandatory that good art makes money nor is it mandatory about the public interest or back story. But all in all, those two concepts are very very hard to separate. Rarely does art "stand on it's own". Maybe you can provide an example?
There is so much wrong here I don't even know where to start. I'm sorry man this is a waste of time for me and I feel sorry for you if your understanding of art and music is really that limited. Honestly makes me feel bad for society.
