A thousand iterations are tiring minutia even when it’s editing text instead of dragging a cursor around.
If you’re writing a story, sure. Not when you’re prodding an algorithm to “make the thing”.
As for the examples you provided, I’d categorize the first two as generative in the same vein as the current tech we’re discussing. Like the current tech, it’s impressive, but the skill exhibited in both is solely in the tech, not in artistry. The third is certainly art, though not in the way you’re suggesting. The art is not the “music” itself, but in the process of documenting the event. It’s akin to setting down a camera to record a spider weaving a web, or a plant blooming and ultimately rotting. The artist doesn’t control the subject matter, but they do control how it’s portrayed. That’s art.
Indirect control is still control.
To an extent. Like with the deteriorating tapes or my example of filming nature, the artist lacks control of the subject matter, but they still intimately control the art being created about the subject. In contrast, a prompter is has little-to-no control of any aspect of the content generation. The rng black-box of these algorithms make that impossible. They can endlessly poke and prod at it in attempts to influence it, or iterate through endless random seeds, but, ultimately, the essence of the end result is random noise, not their personal intent.
How the fuck is a description of an image in your mind less intentional control than pointing a camera at a bug?
I’m not talking about what they have imagined. That’s something else entirely. I’m talking about what they end up with, and I’m 100% confident that nobody has ever generated exactly what they imagined. It’s simply impossible. It can be similar/“good enough”, but the process is not controllable enough to produce exactly what the prompter intends. That’s my whole point.
If your definition of artistry is so uptight
Honestly, I think my definition of art is exceptionally broad. It basically asks, “Was there intent?” If yes, it’s most probably art. Hell, I’d even say other animals can meet that singular criteria. But in regards to the demos you mentioned, the creator is deliberately relinquishing control of the end product to a program/algorithm that lacks any intent or purpose. Without that, it’s not art. It’s just…product.
And to clarify, I’m not questioning the skill it takes to make those programs. The technical details are well over my head, but I know enough to appreciate the talent behind it.
Nobody has ever painted exactly what they imagined. Art is not finished; it is abandoned.
There’s so much analog-era art history you’re shitting on, I don’t know where to begin. Readymades? Decoupage? Exquisite corpse?
What in god’s name do you mean by intent if creating an entire program from scratch doesn’t fucking count? Someone conceived of a scene, invented new math tricks to achieve it, and crammed it into a minuscule space - but oh, they didn’t tweak each pixel by hand, so it’s not art. Fuck that.
I entirely reject your assertions on this subject, if you’d look at this thirty-year artistic movement, an anti-commercial collective building on and feeding into each other’s works, and scoff that it’s just… “product.” Eugh! Intolerable nonsense. Special pleading to discount effort you don’t even understand. Crayon on paper, sure, that’s real art - but inventing an impossible effect through months of effort? Nuh uh, because computers.
Nobody has ever painted exactly what they imagined. Art is not finished; it is abandoned.
That’s fair. The finished result is still in the artist’s control, though. Not so with generated content.
Readymades? Decoupage? Exquisite corpse?
All fit my previous descriptions of art.
As for the demoscene, my intent is not too diminish what those people do. You brought up examples which, if I understand the process correctly, simply don’t result in art. Although “product” was perhaps a bad word to use. It wasn’t intended to suggest it’s all commercial. Just meant as a distinction from art with intent.
And, as I said, the direct result of their efforts in the programs they create is impressive. I’m not suggesting otherwise. I’d happily consider that art if one were to suggest it. The process of setting up the mechanism, setting it in motion, and creating something? That’s a big art piece. But the generated results of those programs? Without the rest of it, the result on it’s own is just not art. It’s empty of intent.
You don’t mean things, when you say intent. You’ve latched onto it as an excuse to denigrate works of art, made exclusively by human beings, through immense effort and skill. I have nothing more to ask besides how fucking dare you. Where do you get off, looking at an audiovisual product, expressing a complex scene, evoking desired emotions, and declaring that less than any child’s stick figure?
What in the everloving shit is going through your head, when you say months of effort, by collaborative groups or committed individuals, didn’t have-- a plan, a goal, a-- fucking-- aspiration? What do you think you mean, when you spit the word, intent?
If you’re writing a story, sure. Not when you’re prodding an algorithm to “make the thing”.
As for the examples you provided, I’d categorize the first two as generative in the same vein as the current tech we’re discussing. Like the current tech, it’s impressive, but the skill exhibited in both is solely in the tech, not in artistry. The third is certainly art, though not in the way you’re suggesting. The art is not the “music” itself, but in the process of documenting the event. It’s akin to setting down a camera to record a spider weaving a web, or a plant blooming and ultimately rotting. The artist doesn’t control the subject matter, but they do control how it’s portrayed. That’s art.
To an extent. Like with the deteriorating tapes or my example of filming nature, the artist lacks control of the subject matter, but they still intimately control the art being created about the subject. In contrast, a prompter is has little-to-no control of any aspect of the content generation. The rng black-box of these algorithms make that impossible. They can endlessly poke and prod at it in attempts to influence it, or iterate through endless random seeds, but, ultimately, the essence of the end result is random noise, not their personal intent.
How the fuck is a description of an image in your mind less intentional control than pointing a camera at a bug?
If your definition of artistry is so uptight that the demoscene doesn’t count, there’s a whole army of people with funny accents ready to throw hands.
I’m not talking about what they have imagined. That’s something else entirely. I’m talking about what they end up with, and I’m 100% confident that nobody has ever generated exactly what they imagined. It’s simply impossible. It can be similar/“good enough”, but the process is not controllable enough to produce exactly what the prompter intends. That’s my whole point.
Honestly, I think my definition of art is exceptionally broad. It basically asks, “Was there intent?” If yes, it’s most probably art. Hell, I’d even say other animals can meet that singular criteria. But in regards to the demos you mentioned, the creator is deliberately relinquishing control of the end product to a program/algorithm that lacks any intent or purpose. Without that, it’s not art. It’s just…product.
And to clarify, I’m not questioning the skill it takes to make those programs. The technical details are well over my head, but I know enough to appreciate the talent behind it.
Nobody has ever painted exactly what they imagined. Art is not finished; it is abandoned.
There’s so much analog-era art history you’re shitting on, I don’t know where to begin. Readymades? Decoupage? Exquisite corpse?
What in god’s name do you mean by intent if creating an entire program from scratch doesn’t fucking count? Someone conceived of a scene, invented new math tricks to achieve it, and crammed it into a minuscule space - but oh, they didn’t tweak each pixel by hand, so it’s not art. Fuck that.
I entirely reject your assertions on this subject, if you’d look at this thirty-year artistic movement, an anti-commercial collective building on and feeding into each other’s works, and scoff that it’s just… “product.” Eugh! Intolerable nonsense. Special pleading to discount effort you don’t even understand. Crayon on paper, sure, that’s real art - but inventing an impossible effect through months of effort? Nuh uh, because computers.
That’s fair. The finished result is still in the artist’s control, though. Not so with generated content.
All fit my previous descriptions of art.
As for the demoscene, my intent is not too diminish what those people do. You brought up examples which, if I understand the process correctly, simply don’t result in art. Although “product” was perhaps a bad word to use. It wasn’t intended to suggest it’s all commercial. Just meant as a distinction from art with intent.
And, as I said, the direct result of their efforts in the programs they create is impressive. I’m not suggesting otherwise. I’d happily consider that art if one were to suggest it. The process of setting up the mechanism, setting it in motion, and creating something? That’s a big art piece. But the generated results of those programs? Without the rest of it, the result on it’s own is just not art. It’s empty of intent.
‘I’m not disparaging it, it’s just not art.’
Shut up.
You don’t mean things, when you say intent. You’ve latched onto it as an excuse to denigrate works of art, made exclusively by human beings, through immense effort and skill. I have nothing more to ask besides how fucking dare you. Where do you get off, looking at an audiovisual product, expressing a complex scene, evoking desired emotions, and declaring that less than any child’s stick figure?
What in the everloving shit is going through your head, when you say months of effort, by collaborative groups or committed individuals, didn’t have-- a plan, a goal, a-- fucking-- aspiration? What do you think you mean, when you spit the word, intent?