AI ART: Art or Not?

Nope, not saying that is wholy how I view art. Just saying these are two factors to go into art. Not sure why you have a hard time with that.

But again, provide me a single example where the artist's narrative and the value is irrelevant. Just give me a single example.

 

I agree a backstory for a piece is not necessary. An excellent understanding of composition, color use,..., and use of lighting goes a long way. That said sometimes the substance is the backstory, the context of the work, and a very important aspect of the art itself. It is the driving force for some.

 

Absolutely true. Knowing and understanding context is crucial in both art and music. To someone who understands art or music and its entire history, it becomes apparent that a lot of the context is imbedded in the art or music itself. Context is key in great art and a fundamental understanding of the past is essential to understanding or creating "good' modern art. Words and stories are unnecessary imo in a lot of works (not all of course) and often times are used to get grants or market something. This has been my direct experience at least. I'd rather the public come to their own conclusions.

 

I can provide infinite artists with no narrative if that is what you are asking. What era are we talking about?

How long do you think the concept of a "single" or "hit" has been in our history? It is extremely myopic to think that musicians and artists always had publicists, managers and "fame" in the way we see it today. Bach is arguably the greatest musical mind of all time and what is his backstory exactly? Did he have fame? Most of his work was discovered by Felix Mendelssohn like 200 years after his death. Why did he make more pieces of music than days he lived on earth if most of that work gave him no money in return? His advancements in counterpoint changed how we understand and interact with music and has deep ramifications on our collective subconscious hundreds of years later. Or you can look at his work from purely a mathematical standpoint and start to see an extremely deep logic behind every work. The context is in the work itself. As I said before, great art is usually ahead of its time but money doesn't necessarily come with notoriety. Bach was never a platinum selling artist. Does anyone remember the popular music of Bach's time? Is Cardi B inherently better art because it sells?

Lets go back a few hundred more years. You can find a narrative in Palestrina's work by first understanding that a motet is a contrapuntal puzzle. With proper context and I need to clarify, the context is in the history of the art form itself, you can start to understand the meaning of the golden ratio in music and how it doesn't differ from that in the paintings at that time. It is mathematically the same ratio. It is exactly the same in Michelangelo or Rembrandt neither of which need a story to justify their work. These ways of thinking were directly tied to a time in history. In this way, art can speak more broadly about a group of people, or a time period, not just an individual. The same can be said for the distinct qualities behind the periods of expressionism or pointillism or gesturalism. It isn't truly about one person. Why was music and art so integral to life in West Africa for thousands of years? Were they wrong to not view art as a pathway to fame or money? The art in African culture was specifically oriented around community and ritual. There was no "I" in art. Did it not have value? What is the value of culture?

Lets explore some present day scenarios - Arnold Schoenberg created a new mathematical system using a purely serialist approach to music. This came around the same time as advancements in physics from Einstein. The same thing happened with Bach and Isaac Newton. Schoenberg's breakthrough allowed for an absence of tonal centers in music. The contrapuntal and mathematical relationships between notes fundamentally changed and led to a new way of understanding music and an opening of the floodgates if you will to new possibilities in harmony. Schoenberg is still ahead of his time 80ish years later but gave way to modern geniuses like Webern, Elliot Carter and Milton Babbitt to name a few. None of these artists were interested in becoming musicians to sell records. They treated music as a science with the intention of progressing artistic thought. These ideas from almost a century ago are still too hard for the general public to grasp but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a very tangible meaning and genius behind the approach. Most artists in the 1800's seem to be too radical for people still. You have to know that there are institutions all over the world actively working to progress the art form regardless of what is popular in the current time. To these people music is not about selling records. People indeed treat music as a science and why would you not? The understanding of Pythagorus' conception of the distance between intervals helped Kepler to literally launch rockets into space. If you run wave forms over each other using the harmonic series, those wave forms perfectly overlap each other. It is quite literally understanding an aspect of physics. You don't need to know the background of any of these people to hear their music and realize it is something different but without context in the artistic and historical sense you won't truly understand it or the meaning of their contributions. It really has nothing to do with the individual and his story though. Are scientists primarily trying to sell something? Picasso expounded on cubism as a direct response to the past. It is literally the meaning of post modernism. Miles Davis did the same exact thing in the 1960's with his second quintet. I sincerely hope you don't need a backstory to understand that in the work itself. With a proper understanding of art history it is quite obvious.

 

Continued.....

There is a famous picture of John Coltrane in Einstein's office. Coltrane was known for his activism but that is not what made his art great. Coltrane found a way to impose geometrical shapes into music. He was influenced by music theorists of the time, namely Slonimsky. Slonismky was not interested in selling records. The perfect triangle of 3 tonal centers working seamlessly together again changed how we conceive of music forever. These ideas still have not caught up to the general public. Great art can change our entire conception of something. Literally change the way we view reality. That, to me at least, is far more valuable of an indicator than what sells. All of the greatest jazz musicians of the 21st century were expounding on a language going centuries deep in both Africa and Europe. Slaves literally encoded their history into "second line" music without getting lynched for playing African music. Brazilians did the same thing in martial arts. Societies collectively find ways to keep their culture alive. Where is the individuality in that? What is the value of risking your life to preserve your culture? How can one even have proper context for jazz without understanding the basis or vehicle for improvisation. You can't start to hear what's actually going on without a proper knowledge of how the harmonic progressions function and the relationship between that and the artist. It is an individual's take on a history that builds upon itself but that history must be understood and the basic elements must be heard and understood otherwise jazz sounds quite arbitrary when in fact it is highly logical. This again is context revealed within the art itself. That is why critics are the ones who establish "fame" in the fine arts because they are at least equipped to understand the message embedded in the work of the artist. Its not about what is most popular or what sells and even at the height of fine art, it leads many "famous" artists to poverty and obscurity. Most artists would prefer to let audiences come to their own conclusion and I know that from years of experience. The more you say the more possibilities are cut off to the consumer's experience. It is an interactive process between artist and consumer, not so much a publicity campaign or telling someone what to think. That is not what art is. A good artist gives his life for the pursuit of deep truths within himself much the same way a monk searches for god from within. It is only after these profound realizations and a deep understanding of the history of the art form that consumers begin to see those truths in themselves. It is much like looking into a mirror and that should be a personal and sacred experience for an art consumer. Art is a way of proving the connectivity between everyone and everything on earth and the shared revelations that the relentless pursuit of truth leads to everyone involved.

People are so far removed from culture, especially in the United States. The idea that the value of art is intrinsically linked to monetary gain is almost uniquely an American perspective. Van Gogh was not discovered in his lifetime yet he continued to paint. It is foolish to think that the value of his work is based off a story that he cut his ear off. The value of his work is linked directly to the cannon of art history and what came before him. The value is embedded in the art itself and you shouldn't need a story to understand that. Why did Charles Bukowski not sell a single thing he wrote for the majority of his life? Why did he keep writing despite living in poverty? What made Olivier Messiaen write music in a concentration camp? To sell records? If he were alive, I'd highly doubt he'd want his music to be associated with any of that because his work has a deeper meaning than how or where he wrote it. What makes Keith Jarrett a genius? He has no backstory. Why did Elliot Carter write music into his 100's in age? For money? Some of these people are living and do not have the "fame" of Nikki Minaj. During the time of Beethoven, no one remembers the popular musicians in those days. No one remembers the famous minstrels in the time of Josquin either. They don't last and I highly doubt Miley Cyrus will either. The fallacy is expecting the "best" art to be what people like when it has been proven for centuries that people ostracize genius and the context in a purely artistic and historical sense is completely lacking in the general public. If I asked you to name one artist that is regarded as a genius from the last two decades who would that be? And I don't mean the public's definition of someone that sounds "good" or painted something "beautiful". Art isn't about only things that are pleasing. There are too many great artists to count in this era, possibly more than ever before yet their work pale's in comparison financially to NFT's or stripper turned singers. This is really nothing new in the history of the world. I don't think the monetary value of an artist is of importance, and it would be quite arrogant to not assume our many institutions around the world focusing on art, might not have something valid and tangible to say regarding what art is "good." It seldom ever has to do with what sells. I could give more examples than I have time for and I'm only scratching the surface. I suggest you read Milton Babbitt's article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Cares_if_You_Listen as a starting point.

 

If you wish to look at good music in terms of definition, microtonality has a far greater definition than any other music. Instead of using a standard 12 notes, there are near infinite amount of frequencies between each note. These have been carefully studied and categorized allowing for much greater definition and possibility in harmonic and contrapuntal sequences. This is borrowed in part from Indian culture and thought. People generally hate it and it doesn’t sell. Those who listen to a lot of microtonal music eventually ascribe it to being similar to seeing a color tv vs black and white or Super Nintendo to the first Xbox. They have a truly hard time going back. Because it is at first jarring or different to people they reject it even though it is quite literally music in better definition. It reminds me of Plato’s story of the men in the cave. It takes an even deeper understanding of math and theory to create microtonal music. American geniuses like Ben Johnston lived in obscurity but were intensely devoted to music anyway and pioneered these ideas. Some of my best friends are composers in the microtonal field. Why would they devote all of their time to this field with no hope of making money? In this particular instance it is music in better definition the same way 1440p has more lines and spaces than 720p. Regardless of my own views (I actually find it to be a little perverse at times and really isn't my thing) objectively there is no denying that it has much more by way of optionality and depth. It is not only an example of radical ideas not gelling with what people are conditioned to like or perceive as good but the role of an artist in dismantling these conventions. This has happened over centuries as great art shatters our pre conceived ideas about the world and how we were conditioned. Most people believed Beethoven was noise. It takes time for people to catch up with visionary artists because their work transcends the time period they live in. In this regard the people pioneering new ideas in art could care less about merchandise and record sales. Performances in the United States is all about making money that is why orchestras don't play anything even remotely modern. You have to go to Europe for that which is in part why there is a mass exodus of the best artists in this country to Europe over the past decade and more. Artists in this country are severely under funded moreso than any other civilized country and people here are culturally lost. How sad is it that our best leave so that they can be performed in other countries? Explain to me why microtonal music is a quickly growing field in academic circles and intelligent musicians around the world if there are virtually no record sales, merchandise and very little by way of concerts?

 

Holy wall of text, batman.

 

I was pretty impressed with the early AI art features, this was stated, but it'll eventually allow people who aren't artistic to have some input/involvement in creating something unique, and it could allow actual artists to come up with ideas to create their own new works etc etc.

 

If only I was as passionate about the subject as I was on drafting Paolo Banchero. What should I do next Bitcoin?

 

His backstory is he is a household name centuries after his death. To use a modern term, he's the GOAT. To this day, people pay money to hear his work performed. Was that his motivation at the time? Dunno. Doesn't matter. The greatest works of art often transcend the artist themselves, but the lore of the artist cannot be ignored.

You seem to have some idealized view of art as if it's some divine gift.

But let's just go with the divine theme, the Sistine Chapel fresco, Michelangelo was paid for that job.

I'm guessing you are thinking that the artist's intentions are essential into this. Nope. Many artists gain notoriety after their death, which is part of the backstory. Art is art in all it's forms and however it gets to us is how it should be appreciated. back on theme, it's why I would have trouble with AI art ...but perhaps one day an AI art project will happen that is fascinating in it's how it came to be as well as the amazement of the piece itself.

I'm guessing my description here is entirely unsatisfactory for you.

Just take Van Gough. The museum in Amsterdam is one that I enjoyed the most. It's constructed in a way that walks you through all his art in chronological fashion and talks about him and the context around the art more than the art itself. Oh, and I paid $ to get in there. Just sayin.

 

This is amazing. (honestly, it's better to view at the link)

THIS FILM DOES NOT EXIST

Images generated by Midjourney, with Johnny Darrell

Frank Pavich is the director of “Jodorowsky’s Dune,” a documentary about the Chilean filmmaker Alejandro Jodorowsky’s attempt to film a version of “Dune” in the mid-1970s.

I was recently shown some frames from a film that I had never heard of: Alejandro Jodorowsky’s 1976 version of “Tron.” The sets were incredible. The actors, unfamiliar to me, looked fantastic in their roles. The costumes and lighting worked together perfectly. The images glowed with an extravagant and psychedelic sensibility that felt distinctly Jodorowskian.

However, Mr. Jodorowsky, the visionary Chilean filmmaker, never tried to make “Tron.” I’m not even sure he knows what “Tron” is. And Disney’s original “Tron” was released in 1982. So what 1970s film were these gorgeous stills from? Who were these neon-suited actors? And how did I — the director of the documentary “Jodorowsky’s Dune,” having spent two and a half years interviewing and working with Alejandro to tell the story of his famously unfinished film — not know about this?

The truth is that these weren’t stills from a long-lost movie. They weren’t photos at all. These evocative, well-composed and tonally immaculate images were generated in seconds with the magic of artificial intelligence.


During the filming of my documentary, Alejandro told me about the Greek-Armenian philosopher and mystic George Gurdjieff. He taught that we are born without a soul and that our task in life is to help our soul to grow and develop: Souls aren’t born; they’re earned. Every single day, Alejandro creates. He writes, he draws, he paints. He works on his soul through art. Next month he’ll turn 94, and he’s preparing to direct a new film. He’s a man in perpetual creative motion.

I first met Alejandro in 2010, when I approached him about filming a documentary on his mid-1970s attempt to make a feature film version of Frank Herbert’s sci-fi novel “Dune.” My interest wasn’t in the story of the young noble Paul Atreides, the desert planet Arrakis or the mind-altering spice called melange. I wanted to find out why the mysterious and guru-like director chose to follow up his 1970 acid western “El Topo” (the very first midnight movie) and 1973 scandalous and hallucinogenic “The Holy Mountain” with an attempt to make the most colossal science-fiction film of all time.


After adapting the novel into a screenplay, he worked for two years with a team of artists — his “spiritual warriors”: the British illustrator Chris Foss, who helped him design his striped spaceships; the Swiss artist H.R. Giger, whose dark style would help him create the home planet of the film’s villains; the American special effects innovator Dan O’Bannon; and, of course, Jean Giraud, France’s greatest comics artist, who would help Alejandro design the costumes, as well as draw the more than 3,000 storyboard sketches needed to visualize this epic tale.

The cast would have included Mick Jagger, Orson Welles, Salvador Dalí and Alejandro’s 12-year-old son, Brontis, in the lead role. The soundtrack would have been composed and recorded by Pink Floyd.

He wanted “Dune” to be more than a movie. It was to be a prophet! It was to change the world! And it was not to be. You’ve never seen the film because it was never completed.


Alejandro Jodorowsky in 1969, during a visit to the actor Dennis Hopper’s house in Taos, N.M. Lisa Law/Edition One Gallery
The project ended once Alejandro presented his massive compendium of artwork to the Hollywood studios. They turned it down out of fear or shortsightedness or simply because they could not comprehend what he was trying to do. Or maybe it was because he refused to submit to the practical limits of the two-hour film, threatening that his “Dune” would be as long as 20 hours.

He was never given the chance to shoot even a single frame of “Dune.” There’s no unused footage that we can look at and dismiss because of campy acting or poor special effects. It will forever be the greatest film never made, because it exists solely in our imaginations.

Just because you cannot watch Alejandro’s “Dune” doesn’t mean it didn’t change the world. This unfilmed film’s influence on our culture is nothing short of astounding. Specific ideas and images from the “Dune” art bible have escaped into the world. They can be experienced in movies such as “Blade Runner,” “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” “Prometheus,” “The Terminator” and even the original “Star Wars.” His “Dune” does not exist, yet it’s all around us.



It took Alejandro and his team two years of pure analog struggle to create his “Dune” — pencil on paper, paint on canvas, inventing the practical effects required to deliver his onscreen spectacle.

 

...continued



It’s different with A.I. No struggle was involved in creating these images of “Jodorowsky’s Tron.” It didn’t require any special skills or extensive direction from Johnny Darrell, the Canadian director who made these pictures with an A.I. program called Midjourney. A simple prompt is all it took. A few words — in this case, slight variations on “production still from 1976 of Alejandro Jodorowsky’s Tron” — followed by under a minute of waiting, and a computer deep in the racks of a data center somewhere, sifting through the numbers encoded into its memory banks associated with the words “Tron” and “Jodorowsky.”




I’m still trying to wrap my mind around it all. There seems to be a correlation between how Alejandro’s work was absorbed and referred to by subsequent filmmakers and how his work was ingested and metabolized by computer programming. But these two things are not the same. I want to say that influence is not the same thing as algorithm. But looking at these images, how can I be sure?

It’s hard to find many shortcomings in the software. It can’t render text. And like many painters and sculptors throughout history, it has trouble getting hands right. I’m nitpicking here. The model contains multitudes. It has scanned the collected works of thousands upon thousands of photographers, painters and cinematographers. It has a deep library of styles and a facility with all kinds of image-making techniques at its digital fingertips. The technology is jaw-dropping. And it concerns me greatly.

How artificial intelligence programs create images



MACHINE LEARNING

A.I. programs that generate images, like Midjourney, train on data sets of billions of images with descriptive text captions. They look at the relationship of each image to its caption, as well as similarities from image to image and description to description, building a compressed model that is able to associate from words to pictures.

To what extent do these rapidly generated images contain creativity? And from what source is that creativity emerging? Has Alejandro been robbed? Is the training of this A.I. model the greatest art heist in history? How much of art-making is theft, anyway?

On the one hand, the software gives you a kind of turbocharged pastiche. But there’s still some fresh splendor in that imitation. It’s succeeding at one of filmmaking’s main jobs: transporting you to another time, to another world. If A.I.s were eligible for the Academy Awards, I’d vote for “Jodorowsky’s Tron” for best A.I. costume design just for dreaming up such outrageous retro sci-fi hats and helmets.







If, as Mr. Gurdjieff taught, creation leads to the development of one’s soul, whose soul is being developed here?

Nothing in this software seems controllable in the pixel-precise way artists use digital tools like Photoshop. When Mr. Darrell generated these images, he didn’t choose the colors, the framing or what the characters would be doing. He also didn’t determine some of the other choices that the A.I. program assimilated from 1970s science fiction: the seemingly all-white cast and the vintage gender roles. Whatever he might have had in his mind’s eye was not what he was going to get. He needed to state his prompt cleanly and clearly. But the creativity bubbled out of the machine.

In exploring more of Mr. Darrell’s A.I. experimentation, I saw some still images that he made for an occult motorcycle flick called “The Snakes Are the Devil.” They were incredible. So full of mystery and depth. I wanted to watch this movie.




A still from the imaginary 1969 biker movie “The Snakes Are the Devil.” Midjourney, with Johnny Darrell
I promptly went to IMDb to search it out. But no such luck. Hmmmmm. I went back to his images, one of which was a lobby card. I noted the lead actor’s name, Jay Clennan, and returned to IMDb. No such actor exists.

I couldn’t find anything because there was no film. There was no actor. There was no anything. These images were another A.I. creation. And I had known that right from the start. Yet still, I hoped that somehow it was real. I’m still annoyed at Mr. Darrell for making me want what I cannot have.







That’s how powerful it is to allow A.I. to generate pictures of films or other art objects you wish could exist. It’s like watching a magic show. Going in, you know it will all be illusions and sleight of hand. But during the show, your suspension of disbelief kicks in. Your heart wants to believe it’s real, and it gets your brain to go along for the ride. Life is more fun that way.

What will it mean when directors, concept artists and film students can see with their imaginations, when they can paint using all the digitally archived visual material of human civilization? When our culture starts to be influenced by scenes, sets and images from old films that never existed or that haven’t yet even been imagined?

I have a feeling we’re all about to find out.

 

Too manny words.

 

https://twitter.com/CryptoTea_/status/1614047053457276929?s=20&t=knTCPm2nD9Sw7JM24oy0og

 

Trump's follow-up book: "The AI Art of the Deal" .

An excerpt:

"Folks...AI has been blowing minds. Is your mind blown? I look out at the landscape of the AI and how it affects my business practices. Folks...AI is engrained in my very fiber. I don't know what it stands for. But, I know what it means. Money! Money! Money! It's a wonderful thing and I'm going to explain how you can make AI work for you...whether it's a start-up or existing business. And, you will be much more profitable after my changes when done right. MUCH MORE! Let's get started!"

 

It's art, but it can never replace human art where our experiences, our flaws, strengths, emotions are put into it and can provide an experience beyond just appreciating art at face value. Context of the creation and message is not there, so that is lost. But to claim it's not art is a bit silly. I do get that artists are upset about this and beyond just marveling at the possibilities of AI art and some images, as art I personally will have a hard time appreciating it. The only positive is it can force us to appreciate artists more as well as maybe re-asses how we value the story / meaning behind art. In the end it's up to the consumer to make of art what he or she will. So nobody can tell someone what is art and what isn't art in the first place. Even something not intended as art can be considered art. For example, I think certain female bodily forms are a work of art.

 

A lot of the work on this page gets at my concern over AI art. The images of The Jadorowsky Troy are very compelling but my understanding of Jadorowsky is they he very much has a sense of intentionality and is design. In this case the “creators” told the AI to create something that would like of Jadorowsky directed Tron. They then left it to the AI to crunch tons of images of Tron and Jadorowsky images to coming them. That is visually interesting but part of art is intentionality where the artist makes very deliberate choices about the construction of the image.

For example when I visited Hobbiton one of the surprises was how much architectural detail there is on the Hobbit holes. I remarked on this as just seeing the movies a lot of this detail is lost. The tour guide said that this wasn’t an accident but they Jackson had gone through a lot of sketches and architectural drawings and it was deliberate. The detail of Hobbiton want just Jackson telling an AI or some woodworkers create English looking Hobbit holes but he had a very specific vision down to the window trim of what they should look like.

So with the AI art I could tell it to create a concept that I have and it produces a compelling image but does that make me an artists if I haven’t engaged in the process of creating it?

To give another example from pop culture. In Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. There is a machine that analyzes your tastes buds and nutritional requirements and creates a drink that meets your needs. Arthur Dent uses it to try to get a cup of tea. What he ends up is something that is almost exactly completely not like tea. The problem there is that while the AI can access tons of information and combine it into something that does meet then initial request there isn’t the intentional steps of the process, the actual craft.

 

My initial feeling was that Jackson just allowed the craftsman to do a lot on their own. According to the guide that wasn't the case and Jackson had a hand in almost everthing including the concept sketches. That Jackson didn't actually do the wood working himself doesn't mean he wasn't involved or had a high degree of intentionality. Anymore than as an architect because I don't build the building myself doesn't mean there isn't a high degree of intentionality in the design, infact on the drawings legally I have to say that I was very involved in the design process.

That isn't the same thing as what was described about the creation of the Tron images. There it sounds like someone just gave a verbal concept and then the AI decided how to combine previous data to create the images that we see. It sounds like the person who gave the verbal concept was even surprised by what they got. That's not intentionality but a happy accident.