A conversation with this acclaimed digital artist about how he incorporates AI into his work, and about the future of creativity in art, film, and photography.
Gary, this is a great piece. Coming to you via Andy Adams's comment on the Substack Writers shoutout thread.
The last video I made was about AI art, and how much I hate it. I posted it and got a lot of backlash -- some of it fair, a lot more of it just calling me an idiot.
This interview made me surprisingly happy -- to see how artists, guided by immense curiosity, are folding AI-generated work into their process and making it their own. To see how human creativity can still shine through.
I still have many concerns that I'm working through for my next video:
1. Some of them have to do with the economics of art, and how adding infinite zero-marginal-cost supply to this industry will hurt artists who eat based on commissioned work.
2. Others have to do with why we as an AI research community have devoted so much energy into building and releasing models that automate parts of the creative process and compete directly with real and brilliant artists.
3. Still others have to do with what it means to make a thing when so much of the specific craft of it is delegated to AI.
But reading this interview made me pause while editing my next video. There's a lot to think about here -- thanks for this work.
Well, newsflash: _all_ AI "art" is bad hotel art. It's unethical and indefensible from a moral point of view, as is rapes real art and artists. And, just as importantly, it looks terrible. All uncanny valley and no purposeful or aesthetic design; just hobgoblin appropriation and literally mindless random theft crammed into what minds are receptive to garbage, like flies on bullshit.
Sorry, it's just a non-starter issue for me. Maybe it'll get better, but it is built on a flawed foundation for art apprehension and appreciation. It's more similar to Soviet-era era photographs where Stalin's enemies were erased. (Here's an article from the mid-80s published in Whole Earth Review that gives some more context to the problem: https://silo.tips/download/42-s-whole-ear-revew-jy-195-by-stewart-brand-kevin-kelly-jay-kinney -- "The End of Photography as Evidence of Anything" is now sort of updated, and might be "the beginning of AI art acceptance as the end of inspiration and creativity" or maybe just "haha look at those stupid people still doing drawing and practice"!
AI is to art as Marvel Comics movies are to Godard or Wenders. It's a waste of time; it's like calling a rhythm machine a composer, or a supermarket aisle with random stuff crashed on the floor a recipe. (And the whole NFT thing is similarly a reach into uselessness, so let's not even get into that can of worms.)
Note to you and Brandon: do try harder. This is not good enough. Have some standards, please! #biggestshitinhumanevolution #smartphoneshavechangednothing
Gary, this is a great piece. Coming to you via Andy Adams's comment on the Substack Writers shoutout thread.
The last video I made was about AI art, and how much I hate it. I posted it and got a lot of backlash -- some of it fair, a lot more of it just calling me an idiot.
This interview made me surprisingly happy -- to see how artists, guided by immense curiosity, are folding AI-generated work into their process and making it their own. To see how human creativity can still shine through.
I still have many concerns that I'm working through for my next video:
1. Some of them have to do with the economics of art, and how adding infinite zero-marginal-cost supply to this industry will hurt artists who eat based on commissioned work.
2. Others have to do with why we as an AI research community have devoted so much energy into building and releasing models that automate parts of the creative process and compete directly with real and brilliant artists.
3. Still others have to do with what it means to make a thing when so much of the specific craft of it is delegated to AI.
But reading this interview made me pause while editing my next video. There's a lot to think about here -- thanks for this work.
A great substantive discussion!
Well, newsflash: _all_ AI "art" is bad hotel art. It's unethical and indefensible from a moral point of view, as is rapes real art and artists. And, just as importantly, it looks terrible. All uncanny valley and no purposeful or aesthetic design; just hobgoblin appropriation and literally mindless random theft crammed into what minds are receptive to garbage, like flies on bullshit.
Sorry, it's just a non-starter issue for me. Maybe it'll get better, but it is built on a flawed foundation for art apprehension and appreciation. It's more similar to Soviet-era era photographs where Stalin's enemies were erased. (Here's an article from the mid-80s published in Whole Earth Review that gives some more context to the problem: https://silo.tips/download/42-s-whole-ear-revew-jy-195-by-stewart-brand-kevin-kelly-jay-kinney -- "The End of Photography as Evidence of Anything" is now sort of updated, and might be "the beginning of AI art acceptance as the end of inspiration and creativity" or maybe just "haha look at those stupid people still doing drawing and practice"!
AI is to art as Marvel Comics movies are to Godard or Wenders. It's a waste of time; it's like calling a rhythm machine a composer, or a supermarket aisle with random stuff crashed on the floor a recipe. (And the whole NFT thing is similarly a reach into uselessness, so let's not even get into that can of worms.)
Note to you and Brandon: do try harder. This is not good enough. Have some standards, please! #biggestshitinhumanevolution #smartphoneshavechangednothing
Thanks.