What about the relationship or relatability between the artist and the consumer? I don’t think that can be automated. People want and need human connection despite what some tech company tries to sell us otherwise. You can emulate a sound and I guess AI can emulate emotions or will be able to but while I don’t care if a sound is emulated I do care if the expression of some emotion is created by an algorithm, it matters to my heart which I put more value in than my ears and I surely can’t be in the minority on that, or at least not yet.
And I wonder do androids dream of electronic music produced goosebumps outside of the metaverse?
This is true. But a fundamental aspect of being an “artist” is being the origin of creativity. AI is invasive to the creativity of an artist. No artist, in the truest sense, would use AI. Designer is not exactly an artist as much as they apply artistic consideration to a project. This is the fuzzy line; is commercial really art or the imitation of art?
If art is created by computers I will no longer find interested in it. Like pop music and pitch correction- I don’t even consider pop music to be music any more than I consider myself a soldier because I play a computer game. If AI corrects my voice I’m not a vocalist. Yet almost every thing we here these days is pitch correct - you must assume so unless you are at the console mixing the show you can’t tell…scary!
That specifically is what I remember best when I was performing frequently. Those improv pieces really fed off the audience and the interaction between performer and crowd was key.
Also what about looking into the lives of artists whose work means something to you, because you want to know more about the person behind the creation, because you care about the art that much that you want to know things like what they like to have for breakfast, what drugs do/or did they use, what sort of childhood trauma did they have that made them the way they are. I feel like most people listen to music in part because they feel a connection to the musician and at the end of the day, despite consuming so much content created by technology, we are still humans looking for answers and comfort from other humans, even if we aren’t sitting face to face with them.
I agree that design is not art - or at least they are ordinarily distinct. However I can’t buy into the idea that ‘No true artist would use AI’ - it’s not even that I think it won’t date well, it’s already dated - artists are using AI to produce works - there are people on this very forum doing exactly that and sharing it here too. Some quite incredible collaborations with AI and human creativity.
That you stop being interested in it doesn’t mean it stops being art. Subjectivity is inherent in art and how people express themselves - deeming anything we don’t like as ‘not real’ is fairly regressive.
You speak of a fundamental aspect of being an artist being that of creativity, which is a key component that the human introduces to a collabroation with an AI. They don’t generate images on their own - and those with little imagination will generate dull images.
Wow it gets weirder! If you run your guitar through a fuzz pedal are you no longer a guitarist?
If I lose my motor functions but can use a computer to assist me in bringing the pictures in my mind to paper, is my art somehow illegitimate?
All I mean to present is a question; if AI creates the art- filters the uninteresting media I create and generates a more interesting piece, who/what is creating the art? Does it matter? And I would say a dull imagination benefits from AI, but how would we be able to tell where one’s imagination ended and AI took over?
And a fuzz pedal is fundamentally different than pitch correction. Give it some thought.
Art is an “expression” so motor function to some degree is required. Just like motor function is required to breathe, it’s also a prerequisite to create. Humility is part it…
Well if the AI does everything then the AI created it - but that’s not how AI assisted image generation tools work - the ‘seed’, the ‘creativity’, the ‘imagination’ comes from a human, all the AI does is execute it - like a pixel labourer. Many commercial artists work with assistants - these ones are just AI’s.
Why does it matter?
Pitch correction is used in many creative ways, just like a fuzz pedal. Or are you restricting the use of pitch correction as an invalidator of art status only when used within specific contexts? Is there a rule book we can peruse? Once you start trying to make rules for what is and isn’t art you’re already sliding down the slippery slope imo.
I think disagreement is an important detail in discourse.
I believe art is real, not virtual. I believe art is natural, not artificial. It’s okay to not share my belief. I’m not.makomg any rules, just presenting an objective perspective; challenging norms…
Funny thing to say…that’s the reason behind this discussion; why it matters…[to you, me, etc.]
Yes, when a tone deaf vocalist is considered a pop icon; when their vocals are pitch perfect dispute a lack of vocal talent. It’s just an observation on how art is sacrificed for entertainment, or convenience for that matter…
You will still be free to make music. You will still be free to play shows.
But you be unable to compete with an AI that can use face scanning, advanced biometrics, emotional interpretations, second by second pulse and blood pressure readings from each individual in the crowd to tailor in real time the exact tempo, melody, volume levels and other musical attributes to make everyone’s listening experience as full and rich as possible.
AI will make the experience like a drug, riding and controlling human emotions from the crowd, providing peak experiences with thousands of tweaks to the musical parameters per second. Humans will seek out this experience and dance to its AI masters whims for hours.
You can still make music. You can still play shows. But you will not be able to compete.
Power tools do not eliminate the need for carpenters. Tractors do not eliminate the need for farmers. Computers do not eliminate the need for calculators.
But a small team of 3 carpenters, with their power tools, eliminates the need for a band of 40 Amish to raise a barn.
A single farmer with his tractor eliminates the need for a team of oxen and plows.
A single worker on her computer eliminates a room full of bean counters with their abacus’s.
AI music will not mean you can’t make music.
Will you be able to keep up and compete with a technology that can effortlessly deliver an ever changing, always fresh, irresistible formula instantaneously to any person at any time for any mood they are in?
I don’t think the discussion is about the importance of identifying AI derived art, is it?
I’m open to discourse but you’re not just presenting an opinion, you’re taking away the achievements of others, and disregarding entire genres of art. It’s pretentious nonsense just like anything else that starts with someone stating that any particular piece of art is not ‘real’.
Edit: But I apologise I’m pulling us further off topic - the point is of course whether AI derived works can be considered art - I respect your opinion that they are not, I just challenge the rationalisation for it is all. I don’t mean to be so passionate but its how this kind of thing intersects with access to art that grates me a bit. There will always be people telling others their art is not worthy, not just of praise but of existing, and I think that’s a shame.
Luckily competition isn’t necessary. AI is just a tool. It doesn’t automatically confer “quality”. The music performance you’re describing sounds like a bad time to me. Listening to a robot try to make the perfect music based on my vital stats sounds so contrived and breathtakingly boring. A very skilled live-performing human pays attention to a million other subtle factors in an audience that an AI would likely miss.
I think as well you can factor in that some people won’t be into it, personally I don’t enjoy a lot of modern computer created content, everything too clean, turned up to 11, like lots of modern movies and music. I just find a lot of it dull and boring, and lacking “imperfection” or soul.
That’s to me why it is so much more of a soulful experience to watch something like a Wallace & Gromet film vs something from Pixar. Catching a thumb print here and there almost imbues an extra sense of magic into the films.
Unlikely. And for every one thing a human might sense, AI will replace each one with thousands of other variables, vastly overwhelming any perceptions a mere human might posses.
You are looking at this as an artist. The AI will be cold, calculated, precise in its ability to provide exactly what the actual individual music consumer is craving. The AI will
Know the individual consumers past history, exactly what they listen to and what they are looking for before the individual even knows it consciously.
You are looking at this from a perspective of creating art. The AI will control and deliver something no human ever could. And humans will consume it incessantly.
Most likely, the venue won’t even have speakers or a sound system. Each person will have their earbuds and AI will be playing tens of thousands of individual performances delivered with mechanical precision to each person.
This is not a judgement or a call in favour or against. It is merely inevitably.
Once you start trying to make rules for what is and isn’t art you’re already sliding down the slippery slope imo.