A world where AI art is interesting to people is the same world as one where robotic bartenders or baristas are seen as cool - one where people forget the entire point is that on the other end is a human!
I need to find the exact quote from Jacques Maritain, but his gist is that art is rooted in a particular time and place. And, that the process of art changes and refines the artist. It is rooted in the physical. I believe that art comes from blood flow: in our brains and hands, eyes and ears, etc. When the blood stops flowing, there’s no life and hence no art. It’s fine that computers can make art-like things. But these are best appreciated as art-derivatives that can only be generated from massive amounts of electricity through tons of metallic products and refined minerals. Very impressive, but only in terms as an incredibly expensive derivative of work that originated from blood flow that occurred in a particular time and place in the context of human relationships. In this way, AI art is both dirt-cheap (produced with little direct effort and with no human relationships required!) as well as insanely expensive (just think of the resources and labor expended to build and maintain the system).
Great piece! I thought it interesting that you brought up the concept of art as conversation here. I don't disagree that is an important part of the art experience, but it is not the central feature IMO. I could imagine a future in which AI is sufficiently intelligent to produce text, sounds, or images with some kind of intent that could engage in a conversation like that - or at least attempt to convey some level of meaning. For me, the concept of art as conversation misses the mark. Remember, the earliest art we know of (cave art) was generally done in places where the artist would not have realistically thought anyone would ever see it. It was done to create an effect in the artist herself or himself, or among their close community. The speculation is that cave art was a sort of magic, a creative act intended to bring success in the hunt (i.e. this picture of us killing a saber toothed tiger will make it so we really do kill one on our hunt tomorrow). In this light, the question isn't weather AI art is good or bad or if it is in conversation with us, but would AI every create anything like art if we didn't tell it to in the first place. Art requires agency. So far, all I see in AI is pattern recognition and predictive ability, which is super cool technically, but not art.
Perhaps I am most grateful for this particular piece, i am often painting “cats in trees” and rarely am i there to see the man with his daughters charmed by them. It is a bit of magic in that something perhaps will happen but i don't know what it will be. Thank you for adding to my imagination of what could be each time i attempt to communicate without knowing who i am specifically talking with. There is a loneliness in the disconnect that is not entirely unwelcome but can smother hope. Your words fan the flame. Thank You.
AI-generated art feels, to me, like part of a larger trend away from creation towards curation. Writing a snippet of funny, original text that makes someone laugh is a challenge. One can much more easily just repost/retweet/amplify someone else’s funny text and get partial credit for having the good sense to find it funny.
Painting takes time and material and physical motion. Pants accrue paint splotches. Sometimes you literally watch paint dry. Typing the words “abstract painting in the style of Gerhard Richter” takes almost no effort or even real intent (it can be done on a whim before one could even consider not doing it). From there, one may scrutinize the results, tweak the prompt, even digitally manipulate the final image, but the act is more curative than creative.
AI art feels like more images for the sake of more images, but a lack of images is not the problem that we face. If anything, our problem is a system that makes it increasingly difficult for individuals to enjoy the processes artistic creation and appreciation.
I just read Rob Horning’s post on “Emotional Infiltration” and see that you’re both discussing AI and intent. He makes a point that there’s an objective of AI creators to take all it gathers about you to preempt your needs and intentions in order to fill a desire you didn’t know you had. His examples of Only Fans finding the individuals most likely to be susceptible to chatbots, or to religious sermons generated to a given person’s present circumstances, as a way for AI to be in the right place at the right time with a certain degree of relevancy. Enhanced, of course, by however much isolation from actual human contact the digital realm is able to secure.
With regards to serving up art, I can imagine an anticipation of one’s digital footprint, their habits and time resources, life circumstances, and any other gathered tidbits, to mix novelty, relevancy, and spontaneity to give you that cat in an oak tree. But, you might say, you were out on a walk with your kids, and that’s not either in the digital realm OR isolated from human contact!
What happens when AR glasses are introduced and muddle digital and lived experiences? When your eyes and the orientation/movement of your body are the data inputs in place of your keyboard and mouse/track pad? Where and how you spend your time and the specific circumstances of a given moment are up for grabs?
I’d really like to think that weathered cat in the tree is the proof in the art pudding, human contact truly made, but I get a chill considering human being’s thirst for novelty and what they’re willing to sacrifice to those ends. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that those simple walks could be populated with Instagram, share-worthy aesthetics. While novelty is crucial in cultural evolution, it seems we inevitably end up with those coin-op machines in the bathroom serving up some erotic oriented package with fine print saying “for novelty purposes only.”
A world where AI art is interesting to people is the same world as one where robotic bartenders or baristas are seen as cool - one where people forget the entire point is that on the other end is a human!
I need to find the exact quote from Jacques Maritain, but his gist is that art is rooted in a particular time and place. And, that the process of art changes and refines the artist. It is rooted in the physical. I believe that art comes from blood flow: in our brains and hands, eyes and ears, etc. When the blood stops flowing, there’s no life and hence no art. It’s fine that computers can make art-like things. But these are best appreciated as art-derivatives that can only be generated from massive amounts of electricity through tons of metallic products and refined minerals. Very impressive, but only in terms as an incredibly expensive derivative of work that originated from blood flow that occurred in a particular time and place in the context of human relationships. In this way, AI art is both dirt-cheap (produced with little direct effort and with no human relationships required!) as well as insanely expensive (just think of the resources and labor expended to build and maintain the system).
Great piece! I thought it interesting that you brought up the concept of art as conversation here. I don't disagree that is an important part of the art experience, but it is not the central feature IMO. I could imagine a future in which AI is sufficiently intelligent to produce text, sounds, or images with some kind of intent that could engage in a conversation like that - or at least attempt to convey some level of meaning. For me, the concept of art as conversation misses the mark. Remember, the earliest art we know of (cave art) was generally done in places where the artist would not have realistically thought anyone would ever see it. It was done to create an effect in the artist herself or himself, or among their close community. The speculation is that cave art was a sort of magic, a creative act intended to bring success in the hunt (i.e. this picture of us killing a saber toothed tiger will make it so we really do kill one on our hunt tomorrow). In this light, the question isn't weather AI art is good or bad or if it is in conversation with us, but would AI every create anything like art if we didn't tell it to in the first place. Art requires agency. So far, all I see in AI is pattern recognition and predictive ability, which is super cool technically, but not art.
Perhaps I am most grateful for this particular piece, i am often painting “cats in trees” and rarely am i there to see the man with his daughters charmed by them. It is a bit of magic in that something perhaps will happen but i don't know what it will be. Thank you for adding to my imagination of what could be each time i attempt to communicate without knowing who i am specifically talking with. There is a loneliness in the disconnect that is not entirely unwelcome but can smother hope. Your words fan the flame. Thank You.
AI-generated art feels, to me, like part of a larger trend away from creation towards curation. Writing a snippet of funny, original text that makes someone laugh is a challenge. One can much more easily just repost/retweet/amplify someone else’s funny text and get partial credit for having the good sense to find it funny.
Painting takes time and material and physical motion. Pants accrue paint splotches. Sometimes you literally watch paint dry. Typing the words “abstract painting in the style of Gerhard Richter” takes almost no effort or even real intent (it can be done on a whim before one could even consider not doing it). From there, one may scrutinize the results, tweak the prompt, even digitally manipulate the final image, but the act is more curative than creative.
AI art feels like more images for the sake of more images, but a lack of images is not the problem that we face. If anything, our problem is a system that makes it increasingly difficult for individuals to enjoy the processes artistic creation and appreciation.
I just read Rob Horning’s post on “Emotional Infiltration” and see that you’re both discussing AI and intent. He makes a point that there’s an objective of AI creators to take all it gathers about you to preempt your needs and intentions in order to fill a desire you didn’t know you had. His examples of Only Fans finding the individuals most likely to be susceptible to chatbots, or to religious sermons generated to a given person’s present circumstances, as a way for AI to be in the right place at the right time with a certain degree of relevancy. Enhanced, of course, by however much isolation from actual human contact the digital realm is able to secure.
With regards to serving up art, I can imagine an anticipation of one’s digital footprint, their habits and time resources, life circumstances, and any other gathered tidbits, to mix novelty, relevancy, and spontaneity to give you that cat in an oak tree. But, you might say, you were out on a walk with your kids, and that’s not either in the digital realm OR isolated from human contact!
What happens when AR glasses are introduced and muddle digital and lived experiences? When your eyes and the orientation/movement of your body are the data inputs in place of your keyboard and mouse/track pad? Where and how you spend your time and the specific circumstances of a given moment are up for grabs?
I’d really like to think that weathered cat in the tree is the proof in the art pudding, human contact truly made, but I get a chill considering human being’s thirst for novelty and what they’re willing to sacrifice to those ends. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that those simple walks could be populated with Instagram, share-worthy aesthetics. While novelty is crucial in cultural evolution, it seems we inevitably end up with those coin-op machines in the bathroom serving up some erotic oriented package with fine print saying “for novelty purposes only.”
Resist the enclosure of the human psyche indeed.