I disagree. None of this is a noble mission to provide “art” for the masses, and real art isn’t precious because it’s “scarce”. Art is one of the most human endeavors, and it’s everywhere. Art can be precious and personal and stunning, but it is far from scarce. What these people are churning out is product. They see art as something others could provide to them, and usually for a cost. Now they are sloppifying our world, if not from a sense of resentment for being “gatekept” art their whole lives, then for a sense that they get to “feel” like artists, even though they already were and what they’re doing is the antithesis of art. They just lack the ability to realize it.
To be clear, my point is that art isn’t just the work used to illustrate media or put up in museums. A doodle on a napkin is art. A silly rhyme thought up and told to no one is art. The way we organize our lives is art. Art is expression and we as humans are always expressing ourselves. That is something generated content can never be.
Another perspective for you to consider coming from someone who works in product development in a completely different field. I don’t have good skill in visual arts (I play a couple instruments though) but I personally consider good product design/engineering as a sort of art like thing. To me the distinction comes down to motive and passion. I recently saw someone contrast artists from performers where an artist is self motivated to create their art wheras a performer primarily seeks an audience adapting their “product” to maximize profit. A designer that’s focused on making a product to solve people’s problems is a good thing. People that make products solely for the purpose of extracting the most money out of customers are the problem. In my experience most people who have to work for a level living try to do good, even in demeaning clock punching type jobs.
I recently saw someone contrast artists from performers where an artist is self motivated to create their art wheras a performer primarily seeks an audience adapting their “product” to maximize profit.
This would mean Picasso was a performer rather than an artist*, which is fine with me.
*Picasso didn’t invent the style he is known for, he merely adopted it because it was a money maker.
With all due respecf, gtfo with this reductionist rhetoric. Picasso was a skilled artist. Trying to equate him with hacks that punch a sentence into a prompt to crate their artificial art is sad.
No need to get wound up. It’s interesting that you are equating performers with hacks, thus prompting your own emotional response. Do you understand why your brain did that?
It is true that Picasso didn’t come up with the style he is known for and he merely adopted it because it was popular and would sell paintings. It is also true that he was a bit of a self promoter and tended to “forget” to give attribution of other people’s works. In an AI training framing you would probably call this stealing(many have).
In any event, he pretty much industrialized his “art” from the 1950’s through the 1970’s. His career was more of a brand and business machine than a quest for the sublime. Many people fall prey to such marketing.
Picasso was a user of people, either for their connections, their adoration, their artistic style or what they could do for his business. I recommend reading Life with Picasso and Web of Genius both by Francoise Gilot.
And none if of that is relevant to the point that he was still an artist. He didn’t have someone else make his art for him like the hacks that use prompts do. So your little infodump history lesson about Picasso was entirely irrelevant and a waste of your time.
Do you know why your brain did that?
Picasso physically created his art by his own hand. He didn’t rely on someone or something else to do it for him. It’s originality is only brought up as a decease by AI using hacks that want to think they are artists. So again… get the fuck out with this bullshit.
I wouldn’t agree with the above comments assessment either. I don’t know enough about Picasso to say which bucket I’d put him in (also the world is grey, he might be in both buckets). To me it’s more about the motivation for creating the art, was it strictly profit motive (performer) or did he make it for pretty much any other reason (artist)? An artist can make a painting just because they themselves think it looks nice or because they want to share it with others.
I’m a big proponent of drawing inspiration from others and building upon it. I doubt whoever Picasso pulled the art style from was the first person to put paint onto a canvas.
Yeah… Most of the AI tech people seem to be doomers who want to not only control value, but be in charge of how value is defined. Actually believing these people are really utilitarian altruists is just taking people like Sam Bankman-Fried for their own words. “Yeah dude, just give me all the money and power and then I will totally stop being a psychopath and solve all the problems, just give it to me first bro”.
I disagree. None of this is a noble mission to provide “art” for the masses, and real art isn’t precious because it’s “scarce”. Art is one of the most human endeavors, and it’s everywhere. Art can be precious and personal and stunning, but it is far from scarce. What these people are churning out is product. They see art as something others could provide to them, and usually for a cost. Now they are sloppifying our world, if not from a sense of resentment for being “gatekept” art their whole lives, then for a sense that they get to “feel” like artists, even though they already were and what they’re doing is the antithesis of art. They just lack the ability to realize it.
yeah i was thinking we already live (or are well on our way to) in a post art scarcity world
To be clear, my point is that art isn’t just the work used to illustrate media or put up in museums. A doodle on a napkin is art. A silly rhyme thought up and told to no one is art. The way we organize our lives is art. Art is expression and we as humans are always expressing ourselves. That is something generated content can never be.
Another perspective for you to consider coming from someone who works in product development in a completely different field. I don’t have good skill in visual arts (I play a couple instruments though) but I personally consider good product design/engineering as a sort of art like thing. To me the distinction comes down to motive and passion. I recently saw someone contrast artists from performers where an artist is self motivated to create their art wheras a performer primarily seeks an audience adapting their “product” to maximize profit. A designer that’s focused on making a product to solve people’s problems is a good thing. People that make products solely for the purpose of extracting the most money out of customers are the problem. In my experience most people who have to work for a
levelliving try to do good, even in demeaning clock punching type jobs.This would mean Picasso was a performer rather than an artist*, which is fine with me.
*Picasso didn’t invent the style he is known for, he merely adopted it because it was a money maker.
With all due respecf, gtfo with this reductionist rhetoric. Picasso was a skilled artist. Trying to equate him with hacks that punch a sentence into a prompt to crate their artificial art is sad.
No need to get wound up. It’s interesting that you are equating performers with hacks, thus prompting your own emotional response. Do you understand why your brain did that?
It is true that Picasso didn’t come up with the style he is known for and he merely adopted it because it was popular and would sell paintings. It is also true that he was a bit of a self promoter and tended to “forget” to give attribution of other people’s works. In an AI training framing you would probably call this stealing(many have).
In any event, he pretty much industrialized his “art” from the 1950’s through the 1970’s. His career was more of a brand and business machine than a quest for the sublime. Many people fall prey to such marketing.
Picasso was a user of people, either for their connections, their adoration, their artistic style or what they could do for his business. I recommend reading Life with Picasso and Web of Genius both by Francoise Gilot.
And none if of that is relevant to the point that he was still an artist. He didn’t have someone else make his art for him like the hacks that use prompts do. So your little infodump history lesson about Picasso was entirely irrelevant and a waste of your time.
Do you know why your brain did that?
Picasso physically created his art by his own hand. He didn’t rely on someone or something else to do it for him. It’s originality is only brought up as a decease by AI using hacks that want to think they are artists. So again… get the fuck out with this bullshit.
I wouldn’t agree with the above comments assessment either. I don’t know enough about Picasso to say which bucket I’d put him in (also the world is grey, he might be in both buckets). To me it’s more about the motivation for creating the art, was it strictly profit motive (performer) or did he make it for pretty much any other reason (artist)? An artist can make a painting just because they themselves think it looks nice or because they want to share it with others.
I’m a big proponent of drawing inspiration from others and building upon it. I doubt whoever Picasso pulled the art style from was the first person to put paint onto a canvas.
It doesn’t matter his motivation. What matters is he learned how to paint. He is a skilled artists. Not a hack.
That’s also fair. I’m just making up definitions, you can form your own opinions.
I’m not making up definitions. I’m stating a fact.
Yeah… Most of the AI tech people seem to be doomers who want to not only control value, but be in charge of how value is defined. Actually believing these people are really utilitarian altruists is just taking people like Sam Bankman-Fried for their own words. “Yeah dude, just give me all the money and power and then I will totally stop being a psychopath and solve all the problems, just give it to me first bro”.