| ▲ | rileymat2 3 hours ago |
| But maybe you can get good at the more important "taste" part first and to a higher degree, and not the mechanical part. Old time artists (think Rembrandt) used to have make paint by hand, a consuming process, and partially poisonous. Modern artists, it's my understanding largely save all this part by buying it in tubes, giving them time or more important things. |
|
| ▲ | rubikscube09 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It's debatable depending on who you're talking to whether taste is more "important" than execution/the mechanical part (I think calling it the mechanical part is a little misleading because that suggests one is brainlessly implementing a fixed algorithm). Maybe for the manager/CEO types who have a grand pie in the sky vision that they need an army to implement "taste" is more important. But I think for the artist themselves being able to spawn something into existence with their own labor is a large part of the experience. Yes, we'll have lots more art for people to enjoy, but fewer artists. |
|
| ▲ | 0c3ca83 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Taste is essentially a set of heuristics for what has worked for you and the people you learned from, and how the details of your current situation feed into it. You could argue that AI has almost nothing but taste. For humans, taste is learned through friction against the details of your problem, and finding what ends up sliding smoothly through the details of the medium you're working in. For AI, it's the same, but it comes from the details of the training data. We've automated taste well enough for most production needs, and its only going to get better over time. If you don't think it'll be good enough for artistic needs too, you're placing a pretty hard bet against AI. "Taste is all that's left" is pure cope. Taste is one of the first things where humans become useless. |
| |
| ▲ | card_zero 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > You could argue that AI has almost nothing but taste But then you could argue that it has nothing but trained taste, and isn't creative. Then somebody could ask what you mean by that, and you could throw up your hands and say "I don't know", which is the decent thing to do, because none of us know, but it means something. It isn't about the merits of the output, except that there are some creative outputs that it won't produce. But we can't formally describe those, because they're creative. They're all different, they have different qualities, there's no formula, and you don't get there by training. Once you "get there" you have to get there again, which is to say, keep being creative. This process can be mediated by actually daubing actual paint around. | |
| ▲ | jplusequalt 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >We've automated taste well enough for most production needs, and its only going to get better over time. If you don't think it'll be good enough for artistic needs too, you're placing a pretty hard bet against AI. It's not about placing bets on the ability of AI. "Taste" can also include the human behind the piece. For example, I love listening to black metal. My "taste" as a consumer of black metal includes sombre atmospheres, oppressive walls of noise, dissonant, angular rhythmic guitar sections, etc. But my "taste" in black metal extends to the artists behind the music. Black metal has a huge issue with racism and white supremacy. There is a lot of sonically interesting music made by hateful individuals in the black metal scene that I don't listen to because the artists values are antithetical to my own. In a similar manner, art made primarily through generative AI may technically resemble art that normally matches my "taste", but I find myself wholly uninterested in it because the artists behind it have values that are antithetical to my own. PS: I'm not trying to say "AI artists = nazis". I'm trying to say that your own motivations and world view behind the art you create influence whether I'll engage with it or not. | | |
| ▲ | 0c3ca83 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, that's fair. But at least if judged purely on output, human taste is no moat. So, if we're going to preserve human art, we either need AI to fail naturally, or we need to explicitly reject it. The same goes for the rest of human creativity. | |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | jplusequalt 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >But maybe you can get good at the more important "taste" part first I keep putting quotes around "taste" because its hard to properly describe. Whatever it is, it seems like a mixture of observing what has worked for others, personal preference, worldview, etc. "Getting good at" taste is therefor hard to quantify. Furthermore, having good "taste" in the art you consume doesn't translate to having good "taste" in the art you create. There exists a gap between the appreciation and application of said "taste", and you need to practice creating a lot of stuff to shorten that gap. And again, these two sides of "taste" are deeply intertwined. The kind of art you consume tends to change as you hone your creative skills and begin to see the technique behind it all, and that in turn influences the kind of art you may wish to create. |
| |
| ▲ | rileymat2 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Being able to rapidly prototype concepts might help people get good at it, in a sort of I know it when I see it and need to explore, kind of way. | | |
| ▲ | 0c3ca83 24 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I encourage you to do an experiment. Get two friends to learn a subject -- one spends 20 hours on it, actually solving problems by hand. One reads AI answers to problems. At the end of those twenty hours, quiz them. Get them to solve a problem. Who do you think will do better? Learning happens when the brain struggles with problems. Trying to shortcut that only prevents learning. | |
| ▲ | card_zero 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Both sides of this are about exploration. Compare with collage: it's a different thing. It's not painting or drawing. It's fast, and it's art, and it depends on and reuses other people's painting and drawing. It's not strictly superior. | |
| ▲ | jplusequalt 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >Being able to rapidly prototype concepts might help people get good at it, Again, it's hard to quantify or validate. One thing I will say is that people can often misinterpret the things that make a certain piece of art work. It's often the little details, or even the absence of detail that make or break it. This is the sort of stuff that requires you to train your eye to notice. For example, Da Vinci is often heralded as a master of the human form and proportions (the Vitruvian man). But many of his later works often eschewed realistic proportions, with his figures often being 10-11 heads tall. This is a subtle detail that influences how a piece feels, and yet most people would completely miss it! |
|
|
|
| ▲ | __bias 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I’m truly so tired of hearing opinions about art from people who don't participate in or practice it |
| |
| ▲ | card_zero an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Here's a general principle: non-participants can have opinions about our thing (whatever thing that is). If they trot out the same naive dumb lines of thought over and over, and we can't put into words why they're wrong, that's a regrettable failure of discussion, but it's nobody's fault, and they should continue with their aggravating droning until we actually get our act together and find something effective to say in reply. | |
| ▲ | alt227 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Art is for everyone and everyone can have an opinion on it. Dont be so elitist. | | |
| ▲ | __bias 16 minutes ago | parent [-] | | A ream of printer paper and 5 fineliners are about $10 and there's tons of online tutorials. Nobody is gatekeeping Art you just refuse to try actually doing it. | | |
| ▲ | orangedog 11 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You are gatekeeping though. The poster you're being disparaging to has created something new, they are producing art even if it doesn't meet your standards. |
|
| |
| ▲ | rileymat2 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes I agree, you should try generating your own custom AI assisted art. You might be surprised by the enjoyment you get out of manifesting a vision in your head that you could not have produced before. | | |
| ▲ | __bias 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No dude I'm good. I respect my peers in art too much to use a machine that was built by stealing from them. | | | |
| ▲ | 0c3ca83 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Please stop trying to shit in our mouths. |
|
|