I find this whole topic fascinating, especially being a writer married to a visual artist. There is something wonderful about being able
to create visual art with words- isn’t that what writers aspire to in our readers’ minds, after all? But agreed, there are the issues that come from automating a process that has previously been done by talented artists in this area.
There is also AI generated writing now- I’m curious about how people feel about that- perhaps it would be fun to have projects where writers illustrated with ai-generated art, and artists created stories for their art with ai-generated writing and put them all together and assess?
You might have a look at 'DALL-E Mini', Simon. It's not as sophisticated as many of the AI that you've mentioned in your writing (and can be the genesis for some nightmare fuel), but it's entirely free and engaging in its way.
Been watching this, conceptually, for awhile now. I think the discussion regarding art or not-art is somewhat ballooned with people concerned with the buying and selling of art and less the actuality of art, because no maker of art should beware losing what is actually beneficial about art to a machine.
If as you prepared to walk up a mountain, you saw a robot go up the mountain, would you no longer do it? Some people, yes. It's called a tram or a cable-car, and they sit on it and whiz up the slope. But other people would understand there is something that cannot be had by mechanistic means and would climb anyway.
But this analogy comes from the perspective of the artist themselves. For consumers of art, the bulk of them appreciate what you, Simon K Jones do: a personal affiliation with the artist and thus a relationship to the piece created. For those who trade in art rarity or in the 'brand of an artist', I could give two fucks whether they're duped by a robot. They probably have plenty of money and likely have built a worldview based on status-qua-name rather than something founded in emotion or affiliation with the world around them. Superficial folk get superficial matter.
That said, if the concern of an illustrator—or even as AI makers get better and better, videographers, writers, blah blah blah—is that they will lose opportunity to 'the robots', I'd ask how they're getting their work in the first place? Most exchange of creative goods has as much to do with the relationship between the person with the desire and the person with the ability to fulffill it, as it does with the quality of the thing made between them.
I think I'm in the 'tool' camp. The pen has grown quite impressive. Gone are the days of mixing our paint in gourds and using our thumbs. (Though turning to gourds and thumbs is often the best way of admitting what art really is).
The effort, regardless, is still the same: 'Explain life as we know it and admit we don't know it well.'
I find this whole topic fascinating, especially being a writer married to a visual artist. There is something wonderful about being able
to create visual art with words- isn’t that what writers aspire to in our readers’ minds, after all? But agreed, there are the issues that come from automating a process that has previously been done by talented artists in this area.
There is also AI generated writing now- I’m curious about how people feel about that- perhaps it would be fun to have projects where writers illustrated with ai-generated art, and artists created stories for their art with ai-generated writing and put them all together and assess?
You might have a look at 'DALL-E Mini', Simon. It's not as sophisticated as many of the AI that you've mentioned in your writing (and can be the genesis for some nightmare fuel), but it's entirely free and engaging in its way.
Been watching this, conceptually, for awhile now. I think the discussion regarding art or not-art is somewhat ballooned with people concerned with the buying and selling of art and less the actuality of art, because no maker of art should beware losing what is actually beneficial about art to a machine.
If as you prepared to walk up a mountain, you saw a robot go up the mountain, would you no longer do it? Some people, yes. It's called a tram or a cable-car, and they sit on it and whiz up the slope. But other people would understand there is something that cannot be had by mechanistic means and would climb anyway.
But this analogy comes from the perspective of the artist themselves. For consumers of art, the bulk of them appreciate what you, Simon K Jones do: a personal affiliation with the artist and thus a relationship to the piece created. For those who trade in art rarity or in the 'brand of an artist', I could give two fucks whether they're duped by a robot. They probably have plenty of money and likely have built a worldview based on status-qua-name rather than something founded in emotion or affiliation with the world around them. Superficial folk get superficial matter.
That said, if the concern of an illustrator—or even as AI makers get better and better, videographers, writers, blah blah blah—is that they will lose opportunity to 'the robots', I'd ask how they're getting their work in the first place? Most exchange of creative goods has as much to do with the relationship between the person with the desire and the person with the ability to fulffill it, as it does with the quality of the thing made between them.
I think I'm in the 'tool' camp. The pen has grown quite impressive. Gone are the days of mixing our paint in gourds and using our thumbs. (Though turning to gourds and thumbs is often the best way of admitting what art really is).
The effort, regardless, is still the same: 'Explain life as we know it and admit we don't know it well.'