- This topic has 58 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 2 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
yes, you can program something into a drum machine easily.
But.. if you take all those recordings and build them together in a skillful way to build it into song, you're going to tell me thats not artistic? Nonsense.Same with clay. If you take a random canister of play-doh , open it and roll the play-doh out into whatever shape it is, and proclaim it art, then no, it is not.
...but if you open 100 cans at random, and take the pieces as they are when they come out of the can.And they are not all round, they can be in any shape or deformity. Then pick and choose any of the unique pieces you like, and fit them together any way you envision to create something you had in mind, using the pieces as they are. Now you are gonna say its not art also, because they individual balls were random? Nonsense.Play-do is not clay 🙂
Sure you can make something out of it.
It goes to far to explain the complete process from a lump to a statue, but clay is a differnet material all together.
As I ended, it all depends on what a person considers art. Since that is is a subjective view, there is no definite answer to the question. It varies from person to person.
Having said that, I also used to play drums. I know you can program a machine pretty good, but....if the band decides to go of the trail, it can not react to the change in tempo or style.
When in a band, making music is an interactive thing.When using cubase you are not a musician, but a composer/producer.
But that is just my honest opinionI chose to log in and respond.
A writer may get credit for writing the book and the idea but I doubt the writer of Dune directed the last movie.
The paint exists without me. If the paint was purchased by another then something would still happen. My painting may not happen but is chaos theory art? If I poured it on a different day when the wind blew a bit less and the air was a bit warmer would it be the same. Ive not had a great grasp of philosophy other than a lot if things are pointless.
The other day i took my kids clay and showed her how mixing yellow and blue made green. I now have a green ball of clay and she likes yellow better. Eventually I'm going to mix blue and red.
Rather than discuss/argue/fight about this, why don't we all wait for five years and see where it goes?
Yes, but a composer/producer is still creating art.. its still a skill, and an artform.
He uses the SAME skillset and creative faculties whether the initial sound bits came from an AI in pieces, or from different musicians. The producer didnt create either initial sounds. But he still crafted something that would sound unique and very different if another person did the job.if you split the 2 scenarios into 2 songs, you cant say he did do art on one and not the other when he did the same exact thing for both, simply because the sources were different. He still created art from something with the exact same skills and thought process
If AI can't be "art" then neither is photography.
One view is the photographer is just pressing the shutter button, big deal, while another might say choices about lighting, framing, composition, camera settings, post-processing etc. ie. artist input, makes it an artistic medium.
Either argument could apply to generative AI. Personally I couldn't care less if it is or not.@gts6
I'm responding to an older post here, but it may pertain to the current discussion:>...Its not much different than someone taking a couple of digital music samples and using them in a song.
It's actually different in one important way: With music samples, the *artist* has the final say on the completed work. The samples are an inclusion that can be changed, punched in or out and potted up or down.
In the case of Stable Diffusion, the *algorithm* has the final say...and if you don't like it, you can run it again, make changes and run it yet again, until it approaches something you can live with.
And that algorithm depends on a seed, to bias a PRNG, which provides a noise-base, that everything else is dependent on.
You can bump-up the CFG, you can use img2img, you can use ControlNet, you can add loras, you can change the prompts, you can bump Clip-Skip, you can move to comfy for more control, but in the end, the *algorithm* always has the final say in image generation.
YOU *only* have the final say in *acceptance* of the image.
However, enough of those picayune trivialities.
You know, after thinking about it, utilizing (somewhat) pure logic, you may be on to something here.
In positing that Movies are an art form:
In one rationale, image *acceptance* may be the same as a director saying: "That's a wrap" after several 'takes'.
Directors use actors (sample data) and tell them how to look/perform (prompts) according to a script (your scene idea).
And directors, like James Cameron, are lauded as 'Artists' for their works. So...end of conversation.
If a director's movies are Art, so is your AI generated scene, wouldn't you say?.
It seems logical.
I guess by it's nature AI is incapable of understanding an emotional response, being non-human.
And if the purpose of art is to elicit an emotional reaction then it has no more understanding of art any more than a camera, or a toaster. It can refer to style or antistatic aspects but never purpose or meaning. Albeit it's just a tool like a paintbrush, and a painter doesn't expect his paintbrush to understand the painter or their intention.@Frank21
I think you're on the right track. I look at art from a creator's perspective, as an emotive medium. If it elicits any response from the observer, either good bad or indifferent, that's fine, it's their business.
But the object is to employ an alternate means of expression that isn't as rigid as 'language'. Art should be a means to transcend language, you can 'say' things there are no words for.
Music is a good example, so is a personally forged knife, or a photo of a subject that says more than the picture.
That's why I have issues with generative AI, try as you might to be a creative force, the reigns of creativity and expression are taken from you in the process and replaced with the model limitations and best guesses of the algorithm.
It's not a medium that's conducive to 'voicing' one's aims as a creator.
But it's great for making pictures, not quite so good as copilot for code (I turned it off in VS2022), works great for plagiarizing 'original' papers and does a pretty good job at composing music (actually a 'smart-sampling' monster).
It does produce impressive results, depending on the model and what you're aiming for.
But as always, it only allows you 'in' so far and then takes you out of the loop in the final analysis. As far as definitions of 'Art' go, it doesn't matter, but as a medium of expression, it's limiting at best.
Photography "for me" always walked the fence on art. Taking a picture of a sunset isnt really art. Posing a model, lightning her, selecting the angle, ect.. is the art part. Even the model could be considered making art with knowing how to pose to get the most out of her appearance. Art IMHO is a gray area sometimes.
In 5 years I may not be breathing. I see AI taking over art,3d,film ect... to what extent is not known but probably 80% if not more. Cellphones nearly tanked photograph when everyone has a camera in their pocket. Other than commercial use people share on cellphones. Who really needs a 100 mp image for an ipad or an SLR for vacations.
Same will happen to artist. Why pay for a commission unless youre just to lazy to type a paragraph into a computer. Why hire a team of designers when one guy on a laptop can get AI to do everything. Why post any art online when its easily copied by AI. It won't destroy the field because everyones an artist now but the "real" artists will be condensed greatly.
It will probably take struggling artist to a new level. None of this will affect me yet. I dont see AI stepping into certain portions of the medical field that I'm in before I retire.While photography may or may not be art i enjoyed it. So i see how people can enjoy AI. Can we classify a camera doing the work the same as AI doing the work? Probably not since other than some effects templates its not drawing from a library of billions of other peoples images. Its giving me the image I'm pointing at not something it "thinks" I want.
@Frank22
America has some of, if not most of the best movies ever made.That tune wasn't played by AI. Makes it better IMHO.
You know, ADAM, another thing that occurs to me (and I've mentioned this before), is that after all original expression (art) is supplanted by AI, AI will only have the already-used 'legacy' and newly-generated 'AI-art' from users of AI to draw from as training samples.
At that point, the samples will become recursive, feeding on themselves, like a snake eating it's tail. Instead of 'generative' AI, the eventual result may be 'degenerative' AI.
The TTL for AI diversity will be a function of the rate of decline for original self expression.
Then diversity will stall. 'Sameness' will ensue. Progression will cease. All original expression will have been replaced by an RNG. Of course by that time, we'll all have reached 'singularity', like the Borg, so we won't (won't be able to) care.
But for now, I have to get back to Forge to try out a new lora...can't wait to see what I get this time...maybe it'll be 'Art'... 😉
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
