The other point to consider is that art isn't just consumed; it's also produced. Does art serve any purpose for the artist?
I think most of us would say yes. It's a form of self-expression and self-discovery, helping us process difficult experiences in our lives and put them into words or brushstrokes or music. It brings catharsis. And one important factor is that the *struggle* to produce art is where much of this value comes from. If I had ChatGPT write my story using my characters and my ideas, it's true that the stuff on the page would be guided by me and capture my ideas. But I doubt it would give me the space for reflection I desperately need.
I also think you're short-changing art by saying it only matters for its beauty or entertainment value. Because for me, art is communication. I have often felt that I know my favorite authors better than I know some of my friends. If AI took over, whose soul am I searching out at that point?
While I agree with everything you’ve said from a consumer point of view, my (visual) artist friends complain how AI is actually ripping of their hard work by “stealing” their style and transforming it into something they don’t get paid for. And especially since most consumers don’t care who made what, I do get their concern.
The Mongolian Throat Singer is awesome! Thanks for widening my musical horizon by bringing attention to his art in your post. One thing I noticed about the 3 musical examples you posted was that the two which included video of the human performers carried much more emotional resonance. I think you might possibly experience something similar if you compared the James Wheeler photo with the experience of standing in front of a full-size Rothko in a gallery or museum, rather than comparing one art that is fully integrated with the technology used to make it with another that is completely analogue in its pure form.
Not sure how to concisely formulate this, the other posters have done a better job, but I think the main issue is the human element, and how visible that is, and AI if used as a tool like Photoshop is one thing whereas AI that just takes elements it is "programmed" with and randomly assembles them into an image, while fun, is not taking on the elements of human self-expression, self-discovery, and communication of emotions or ideas.
This was such a fun and persuasive article! I agree that ChatGPT and DALL-E will become useful tools for humans, much like photoshop is for designers, PowerPoint is for speech-givers, and autotune is for pop stars who can’t sing in tune (or are using the robotic sound for a particular effect). They are not the existential threat they’re made out to be, and I honestly don’t understand the dire prognostications.
Incidentally, that Mongolian musician is amazing and shares similarities, in my opinion, with Ian Anderson, for the way they both vocalize with and through their instruments. Very cool! (Although I confess I didn’t listen to the whole Anderson clip.)
Hm. I’m not opposed to saying that AI generated art is art, but (as some other comments mention), I think a huge aspect of the consumption and enjoyment of art is the knowledge of the human creativity behind it. The part where you imagine the artist poring over each brushstroke, making each decision. Considering what their thought process was and what they are choosing to emphasize or de emphasize.
In my dining room we have a photo displayed that was taken locally by an artist we don’t know. When we have friends over, a common conversation starter is, “Oh, is that our city? Where was that taken from?” And then we get to talk about what hill or what side of which road the photographer must have been on to get that image. And what time of day would the lighting have been like that? What month of the year would the hills have been that color? So much of what makes art interesting is the human part of it.
I actually enjoyed reading the thoughtful comments and exchange of view points, more than the original article itself. In one sense, may be it's the same as who created the art/article or comments, matters less, as long as there is good food for thought..
The other point to consider is that art isn't just consumed; it's also produced. Does art serve any purpose for the artist?
I think most of us would say yes. It's a form of self-expression and self-discovery, helping us process difficult experiences in our lives and put them into words or brushstrokes or music. It brings catharsis. And one important factor is that the *struggle* to produce art is where much of this value comes from. If I had ChatGPT write my story using my characters and my ideas, it's true that the stuff on the page would be guided by me and capture my ideas. But I doubt it would give me the space for reflection I desperately need.
I also think you're short-changing art by saying it only matters for its beauty or entertainment value. Because for me, art is communication. I have often felt that I know my favorite authors better than I know some of my friends. If AI took over, whose soul am I searching out at that point?
While I agree with everything you’ve said from a consumer point of view, my (visual) artist friends complain how AI is actually ripping of their hard work by “stealing” their style and transforming it into something they don’t get paid for. And especially since most consumers don’t care who made what, I do get their concern.
What a twist at the end!!!!! Great thoughts.
Also I haven’t seen the old Galactica but I’m pretty sure the new one is better.
The Mongolian Throat Singer is awesome! Thanks for widening my musical horizon by bringing attention to his art in your post. One thing I noticed about the 3 musical examples you posted was that the two which included video of the human performers carried much more emotional resonance. I think you might possibly experience something similar if you compared the James Wheeler photo with the experience of standing in front of a full-size Rothko in a gallery or museum, rather than comparing one art that is fully integrated with the technology used to make it with another that is completely analogue in its pure form.
Not sure how to concisely formulate this, the other posters have done a better job, but I think the main issue is the human element, and how visible that is, and AI if used as a tool like Photoshop is one thing whereas AI that just takes elements it is "programmed" with and randomly assembles them into an image, while fun, is not taking on the elements of human self-expression, self-discovery, and communication of emotions or ideas.
This was such a fun and persuasive article! I agree that ChatGPT and DALL-E will become useful tools for humans, much like photoshop is for designers, PowerPoint is for speech-givers, and autotune is for pop stars who can’t sing in tune (or are using the robotic sound for a particular effect). They are not the existential threat they’re made out to be, and I honestly don’t understand the dire prognostications.
Incidentally, that Mongolian musician is amazing and shares similarities, in my opinion, with Ian Anderson, for the way they both vocalize with and through their instruments. Very cool! (Although I confess I didn’t listen to the whole Anderson clip.)
For me, art and creativity driven by humility. Which is more often than not, found less in human hands and more in the natural world.
Incidentally, I did not watch the entire Tull video.
Hm. I’m not opposed to saying that AI generated art is art, but (as some other comments mention), I think a huge aspect of the consumption and enjoyment of art is the knowledge of the human creativity behind it. The part where you imagine the artist poring over each brushstroke, making each decision. Considering what their thought process was and what they are choosing to emphasize or de emphasize.
In my dining room we have a photo displayed that was taken locally by an artist we don’t know. When we have friends over, a common conversation starter is, “Oh, is that our city? Where was that taken from?” And then we get to talk about what hill or what side of which road the photographer must have been on to get that image. And what time of day would the lighting have been like that? What month of the year would the hills have been that color? So much of what makes art interesting is the human part of it.
I actually enjoyed reading the thoughtful comments and exchange of view points, more than the original article itself. In one sense, may be it's the same as who created the art/article or comments, matters less, as long as there is good food for thought..