War and Peas 🧿Oct 24

“I’m an enormously optimistic person about the world in general, but I think the demoralising effect or the humiliating effect that AI will have on us as a species, it will stop us caring about something like the artistic struggle that we will just accept what is fed to us through these things."

Nick Cave

Show threadWar and Peas 🧿Oct 24
https://www.euronews.com/culture/2024/08/13/nick-cave-on-the-unbelievably-disturbing-impact-of-ai-in-music
Nick Cave on the ‘unbelievably disturbing’ impact of AI in music

Nick Cave on AI: “Its intent is to completely sidestep the sort of inconvenience of the artistic struggle, going straight to the commodity, which reflects on us, what we are, as human beings, which is just things that consume stuff.”

euronews
Show threadWar and Peas 🧿Oct 24
"Its intent is to completely sidestep the sort of inconvenience of the artistic struggle, going straight to the commodity, which reflects on us, what we are, as human beings, which is just things that consume stuff.”
Show threadK~Oct 24
@warandpeas People sometime appreciate art for just what's there - but more often people appreciate it for what went into its creation. The skill, passion, feelings, wisdom, novel new ideas, etc... That's why looking at AI works will always feels kind of empty. And there's a risk that being swamped that that stuff devalues 'real' art. (Even aside from all the other moral and monetary problems.)
Show threadSteveJBOct 24
@karadoc @warandpeas Initially, the volume of AI Slop will devalue real art. But eventually, people will seek out art they can watch created and know it's real. But it will be rare, precious, and VERY expensive.
Show threadRainer M KrugOct 24

@SteveJB @karadoc @warandpeas What is art? Is the banana taped to the wall art? Is Beuys art? I do not think we can say what “real” art is.
But there is more: There are different mediums. Delarouche did “Painting is dead” after the Daguerreotypes were introduced (https://siarchives.si.edu/blog/photography-murdered-painting-right). But it did not happen.
One could say AI will become a new medium of art. If a snapshot of an iPhone makes a brilliant picture - and somebody paints it and it looks hypothetical identical (or the other way round), both have their value. Both are art. But different kinds of art. Both have their value, or do not have their value, depending on your perspective.

I am not saying at all that all AI generated images are art - in the same way that I o not say that all painted pictures are art!

So: do not paint (no pun intended) everything with the same brush - both CAN have their value. For all art media there is a lot of rubbish ou there (and particularly for AI at the moment - some probably would say that there is no AI art yet, some probably say there can never be…) but try to judge them in their own merit. Do not compare the Mona Lisa with the duct banana (https://www.npr.org/2024/11/21/nx-s1-5199568/a-duct-taped-banana-sells-for-6-2-million-at-an-art-auction) on the wall.

Photography Murdered Painting, Right?

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="251" caption="Untitled, 1890, by Thomas Smillie, Cyanotype, Smithsonian Institution Archives, Thomas Smillie Collection (Record Unit 95), Image ID: RU95_Box77_0021."][/caption] It’s inevitable. Whenever someone tries to recount or evoke photography’s impact on visual culture when Daguerreotypes were introduced in 1839, a statement attributed to the French history painter, Paul Delaroche (1797-1859), gets dusted off for re-use.

Smithsonian Institution Archives
Show threadsu_liam
@RMKrug @SteveJB @karadoc @warandpeas How very dare you?! This IS art!
Oct 24 at 4:53pmWeb