This issue exists in art and I want to push back a little. There has always been automation in art even at the most micro level.
Take for example (an extreme example) the paintbrush. Do you care where each bristle lands? No of course not. The bristles land randomly on the canvas, but it’s controlled chaos. The cumulative effect of many bristles landing on a canvas is a general feel or texture. This is an extreme example, but the more you learn about art the more you notice just how much art works via unintentional processes like this. This is why the Trickster Gods, Hermes for example, are both the Gods of art (lyre, communication, storytelling) and the Gods of randomness/fortune.
We used to assume that we could trust the creative to make their own decisions about how much randomness/automation was needed. The quality of the result was proof of the value of a process: when Max Ernst used frottage (rubbing paper over textured surfaces) to create interesting surrealist art, we retroactively re-evaluated frottage as a tool with artistic value, despite its randomness/unintentionality.
But now we’re in a time where people are doing the exact opposite: they find a creative result that they value, but they retroactively devalue it if it’s not created by a process that they consider artistic. Coincidentally, these same people think the most “artistic” process is the most intentional one. They’re rejecting any element of creativity that’s systemic, and therefore rejecting any element of creativity that has a complexity that rivals nature (nature being the most systemic and unintentional art.)
The end result is that the creative has to hide their process. They lie about how they make their art, and gatekeep the most valuable secrets. Their audiences become prey for creative predators. They idolize the art because they see it as something they can’t make, but the truth is there’s always a method by which the creative is cheating. It’s accessible to everyone.
In my opinion, the value of art cant be the quality of the output it must be the intention of the artist.
There are plenty of times in which people will prefer the technically inferior or less aesthetically pleasing output because of the story accompanying it. Different people select different intention to value, some select for the intention to create an accurate depiction of a beautiful landscape, some select for the intention to create a blurry smudge of a landscape.
I can appreciate the art piece made my someone who only has access to a pencil and their imagination more than someone who has access to adobe CC and the internet because its not about the output to me its about the intention and the story.
Saying I made this drawing implies that you at least sat down and had the intention to draw the thing. Then revealing that you actually used AI to generate it changes the baseline assumption and forces people to re-evaluate it. So its not "finding a creative result that they value, but they retroactively devaluing it if it’s not created by a process that they consider artistic
Man this approach and philosophy about art baffles me because the greatest and most moving works of art to me couldn’t possibly be created by an LLM. For example “Electric Fan (Feel It Motherfuckers): Only Unclaimed Item from the Stephen Earabino Estate”, which is the only item remaining when the artists lover (Stephen Earabino) died of AIDS and his family threw out everything he ever owned leaving just the box fan. It’s just a box fan but there’s so much loss and pain in that installation. Same as “"Untitled" (Portrait of Ross in L.A.) ", which is just a pile of colorful candy that audience members are welcome to take from, whose original weight is the ideal weight of a Ross who diminished and died of AIDS.
There’s no gatekeeping in the processes of these works, no secrecy, not even really whatever you’re talking about. These works would in fact be utterly diminished by being produced by an LLM because they’re trying to capture the stories of real, existing people who had real, painful experiences. I have no empathy with a machine but I have all the empathy of a man who loved a man whose family hated him so much when he died they wouldn’t even leave his lover with anything more than a box fan and so he decided to declare the box fan to be art.
What you’re talking about is found object art so I’m confused. These objects are not created by the artist at all. In fact, they were created in a factory by machines. You’re responding to the story behind it, which is also something a LLM could’ve created. I understand if you’d feel betrayed if someone put a found object piece in a museum with a fake story created by an LLM, but let’s not pretend like a LLM is not capable of doing exactly that and getting the exact same response out of you provided that they can convince you it’s real. You might be tempted to argue that what’s real matters and what’s not doesn’t, but now you’re just stuck having to figure out what the hell is real or not. A lot of human biography is arguably fake already. I fw found object art in general, but let’s be clear: found object art is a great example of exactly what I’m talking about. It argues that art doesn’t need to be handmade with intention by an artist. Instead, it can be a random object, created by an environmental process that the artist has little control over
I think IMO art is about conveying human ideas/emotions that’s beyond words. So it’s more about what the artist intentionally or unintentionally brought into the piece. With AI “art”, it’s just filling noise into the original prompt. In that case, why don’t you just show me the prompt instead of the noisy lossy “art” piece?
> Coincidentally, these same people think the most “artistic” process is the most intentional one.
While people do think like this, it misses the point.
Yes, all forms of art is FULL of randomness and people copying each other. The thing that makes it special is that it took people going out and living and having experiences to create it. They have to actively absorb prior art, learn about it, analyze it, generally be influenced by it. You have to seek out paints, clay, musical instruments, etc etc and at least somewhat learn how to use them. It's not about being difficult to do (although it's certainly impressive but not part of the emotional takeaway), but everyone's process is different and their experiences go into what they create. When I see a photograph of a tree, I think: "Someone went to where that tree is!" and that's part of the feeling and excitement of a really artful photo.
Now, someone who has only ever heard the term "free jazz" can sit in their parents' basement and type out "make me a free jazz song" and shit out the result onto the internet. It's really not the same thing at all.
Yea I definitely agree that AI has definitely a problem with spam, and that spam is effecting the art world negatively
AI bros: "You're gatekeeping because you think the result isn't art!"
Rest of the world: "No, we're gatekeeping because we think the result isn't good."
If someone can cajole their LLM to emit something worthwhile, e.g. Terence Tao's LLM generated proofs, people will be happy to acknowledge it. Most people are incapable of that and no number of protestations of gatekeeping can cover up the unoriginality and poor quality of their LLM results.
What concerns me is how easily the “rest of the world” is changing their opinions about what’s good. If the result isn’t good, then it isn’t good, sure. But in my experience there’s a large contingent of people, especially the youth, that are more reactionary about AI than they are interested in creativity. Their idea of creative value is inherently tied to self-expression and individualism, which AI and systems-based creative processes are threatening. When they don’t understand the philosophical case for non-individualistic/systems-based creative processes, they can’t differentiate between computer assisted creativity and computer assisted slop
The reality is there is very little non-individualistic art (algorithmic, AI generated etc) that has much qualitative merit. Art for the most part has always been the expression of an individual, even art tightly bound to a cultural context.
>The reality is there is very little non-individualistic art (algorithmic, AI generated etc) that has much qualitative merit
Big opinions there. A large amount of art that you think comes from individual expression is often not. There are countless examples of artists that secretly used algorithmic processes. A great example is Vermeer: https://youtu.be/94pCNUu6qFY?si=M6UQ-XuHNtoj2-3a.
This is what I mean about how this individualistic philosophy of creativity actually just results in artistic gatekeeping and manipulation of the audience
It’s very common for artists to add on individual expression narratives at the end of the process just so they can market the art, and the reality is that the individualism was never there to begin with. It’s just manipulation and advertising, and it sucks because the success of advertising like this actually undermines the quality of the art world. Because audiences are so susceptible to advertising narratives, artists are forced to spend more time on advertising more than art
> Art for the most part has always been the expression of an individual, even art tightly bound to a cultural context.
This is also not true. This idea mostly comes from the Romantic period. Modern day versions of it are often really just referencing a single book from the 1930s called The Principles of Art by a guy named R.G. Collingwood. It’s a very recent way of seeing art. Historically, art was connected to religion, and therefore thought to be valuable because it was universal rather than individualistic and personal
Well aware of Hockney's work related to the use of technology in art, but there's a difference between producing purely algorithmic work and using a specific technique. Vermeer's style and work is still uniquely his.
> Historically, art was connected to religion, and therefore thought to be valuable because it was universal rather than individualistic and personal
If that were actually the case, we wouldn't be able to identify the style of individual artists and artisans, and yet we can of course, regardless of their intent. Giotto's only intent may have been to glorify god in his work, but of course, inevitably, his work is also a reflection of who he was.
This is precisely why AI art is so hideous and anti-humanistic - it can never been a singular reflection of the individual.
> Do you care where each bristle lands?
Sometimes you do, which is why there’s not only a single type of brush in a studio. You want something very controllable if you’re doing lineart with ink.
Even with digital painting, there’s a lot of fussing with the brush engine. There’s even a market for selling presets.