That's not the line of thinking I was on, at all. I hear you but I was thinking about something else, not the general AI art debate. More about the reaction I suppose, and being forced into a position to take responsibility for someone's gross misrepresentation of your work, for instance. Say one used AI to write jokes for them, and someone didn't find it funny or found it to be offensive, does one still stand by their work and defend it? Probably not. How could they, honestly?
People follow artists, not art. I wasn't talking about images. Talking about artists. Might be able to explain what I'm talking about a little better in an article, with several other scenarios and some not even involving art.
I blame Mary Jane. My thinking hadn't gotten any further than 'getting cancelled for that is ridiculous so let's be equally ridiculous and shift blame to the AI.' I think I get where you're coming from now.
That's a lot of what I was trying to figure out with MidJourney. Is it even your work? I don't know, but I do know I don't feel the same attachment to something made with it compared to say, one of my photos.
It's been a difficult road processing these changes. So many new elements and so many old elements removed; elements that were always difficult to explain in the first place. I'll give you the Mary Jane out though... lol. I'm sure I've used that one a few times myself.
I thought of an analogy just now. If you dressed yourself and someone said you have style, you have style. If someone else dressed you and someone said you have style... ?
Photos are a good one. If someone takes a picture of a mountain, that picture also tells the story of the man standing there.
I'm not anti AI or anything like that. Since it burst onto the scene though, I've been thinking a lot of deep thoughts, trying to figure things out.
Lol, I was hoping you would understand that.
If someone else dressed you, I would say you had a style.
Right! Someone asked me not too long ago why I didn't do personal posts anymore, kinda blew me away. Thought my photos were plenty personal enough, even if I wasn't in them.
Did you ever read Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? I can't quite put my finger on why but trying to figure things out in regards to AI makes me think of the "What is Quality" theme/line of questioning from that.
A style, sure, because it involves someone else. AI isn't sentient. Can mimic a style but has no desire to create its own. The paintbrush can't have style in this context.
Artforms come with that story of the man standing there as well. There's a comedian on stage, but what you don't see in the moment is them sitting at home writing those jokes, fine tuning everything as the show goes on, creating their own style. Had my own experiences here where I'd spend several hours working on art for a post, hit a twenty dollar payday yet get shit from the neighbors because they only saw 100 words there. Blind to the story and effort behind the picture I made. Never took it personally of course. Just knew the experience would be valuable someday.
And no, unfortunately I have not read that so I can't comment on that line of thinking but I did find the audiobook and saved it for later.
AI isn't sentient but I wouldn't be so sure about creating their own style. Don't think they can do that now but it wouldn't surprise me if some smart coder figures out a way to give them a sense of curiosity before too long. Part of what drew me to AI was that mimicry ability, I feel like it would be well suited for détournement, although I'm still trying to nail down how. In that case the mimicking is part and parcel of the art but aside from subversive sorts of uses I'd have to agree that's there's a distinct lack in the style department presently.
Hell, that story is there with AI as well, the art's just in the writing of the prompt rather than the output. Best analogy I can think of is writing a song on a keyboard/piano, you've got to figure out what keys to hit and in what order to be able to get anything of note. I've spent many an hour mucking around without coming up with anything worthy of an upscale.
Definitely had similar experiences with my photography posts here, there's no correlation between what went into something and what people see. Took me a bit before I stopped taking it personally but now it's just kind of amusing. Occasionally the inverse will be true too, people will really be impressed with stuff that I had considered marginal work at best. People are weird...
It's one of my road trip books, it's good for giving you something to ponder on those long drives/hikes. Give me a shout when you finish it, I'm curious to know what you think of it.
The part that troubles me when it comes to AI creating its own style is when senses come into play. It could in theory create an art style not visible to us or a sound we can't hear. But to the AI it thinks it's incredible. It could make something that hurts our eyes or ears, and think it's incredible. If it was creating it for our senses, in a way it would be pandering. It could be intelligent enough to create something that triggers sensations, like hearing and seeing, without there being any sound or sight as well, but that's getting really advanced, yet, possible. And in a way, that's all a bit eerie.
When you think of advanced AI you have to keep in mind it's not human. Can see things we can't, can hear things we can't. It's something else.
Aside from being eerie, why does that trouble you? There's plenty of human created art that is incomprehensible to me, AIs making stuff that I can't perceive or appreciate would seem to just be a continuation of that.
To me one of the most fascinating (non-art related) aspects of AI stems from it being not human. For the first time we have a nonhuman that can communicate with us studying and learning from humans. In a way it's the first anthropology study not biased by human conditioning and biases, I suspect that there's a lot we can learn about ourselves by studying what and how the AI learn from us. Don't think we will be too appreciative of the things we would learn but it could prove enlightening.
When you create art, the meaning of that art is always in the eye of the viewer of that art - you have no control over that.
The moment you explain your created work, it is no longer art, but an instruction on how people should see art, not how they see it.
Explaining art is as useless as trying to explain what life (time, consciousness) is.
So when you frame your art with text, you are already specifying something and narrowing down where no limit is needed.
When I write a poem or a short story, this form of art speaks for itself. True, there is a great demand for why an author wrote exactly what he wrote and why a poet chose the words he chose. However, the only appropriate response would be "read the book" or "feel the poem". It is the same with pictorial or sculptural or any other form of art.
When many people resonate with a particular work of art, they do so because it moves something in them. However, if one is to specify what exactly that is, what happens is that one struggles for explanations and then would say, "I know what time (life, consciousness) is, but if you ask me, I don't know anymore."
So you are keen for art and artist to remain connected, rather than art being considered independently of the artist, you will always have fans or non-fans who comment, for example, because they want to say anything at all to you, but you won't know if your art speaks for itself unless you deny them that opportunity.
Leave them alone with the work and you may get more honest feedback on what you publish as art. If you hang paintings on your wall only because they come from a highly rated artist, but not because you resonate with the work and want it around you or in you, you weaken the message but pamper the messenger.
Of course, it is exceedingly tempting to be hyped as an artist and so anyone who seeks the open stage is an easy victim of their vanity.
You are in a position here where you could publish the visual without the text because you have already acquired a degree of notoriety. Something that many artists wish for. Would you dare to put nothing but the images you create on the line, without any text? Without any assistance to the passing viewer? And if you follow this idea, what thoughts arise?
I see no need in "defending" a piece of art, whether it was created through AI or your mind and hand. Art is there to offend, irritate, please, muse, inspire, anger, make one pause, you name it. If AI is going to produce art in this sense, that it makes humans pause, agree, disagree, offend or please, it fulfills the function but of course, it crushes the humans ego. While one can say, that AI only copies the inputs of human work and creations. In order to outperform it, one has to go offline, I suppose. ...
So in other words, the moment one prompts an image into creation using words and explanations, as one does to generate an image, they've stripped away those elements you speak of.
The artform seen above depends on both words and images combined to make one.
I'm not sure how long you've been following my work but rarely does it ever come with an explanation of any kind. In the comment section at times I might point out some missed details, since so much is hidden intentionally as part of my style, but for the most part nothing was ever explained in the way you're suggesting even while being surrounded by words, leading to several over the years able to process the words and art individually and independently.
You're suggesting the people who've enjoyed my work over the years are dishonest and you're insulting their integrity. You need to know there's more to this world than the box you seem to want everyone to fit inside of.
And there is a time and place to defend the arts. That's why it's normal for a heckler to be kicked out of a comedy show, for instance. Other times organizations with an agenda apply "meanings" as you say, which are actually gross misrepresentations specifically designed to put pressure on the artists so they stop, aka censorship and cancel culture. That's when you defend your work. It's happened countless times in history, touching on all artforms, and it's even happened to me, so I speak from experience. Maybe you don't see a need, and maybe that's because you missed the point or "meaning" behind my words, and applied your own.
If you look closely at AI and how it's taking shape, you'll notice how it's already developing a standardized form of groupthink. And I don't just mean images. The words might sound perfect and the images might appear crisp but the actual freedom to be creative is stunted.
I've experimented myself, running some old writing through the machine, and the first thing it did was remove all the jokes.
Sure it is the art piece that is being defended and not rather the freedom of artistic expression? Since art can take on many meanings and, as I said, is a matter of interpretation on the part of the viewer, it can be offensive, displeasing, provocative etc.
This is probably what falls under the censorship of a nanny state that wants to keep everything under its control and therefore censors art or encourages institutions to act as gatekeepers of what ought to be said (through art) and what ought not to be said.
I agree with you that artistic freedom should not be subject to censorship, because otherwise it is no longer art but the predictable fulfilment of certain zeitgeists and the wishes of authorities. Whether I violate the integrity of any of your followers or commenters, I leave to those who read my comment, they are surely old enough to complain themselves, should it be so and therefore probably do not need your intercession.
Apparently I have offended yours.
I have visited your blog from time to time and never found an art publication as pure material without a text. If you think that would leave the viewer uninfluenced, I won't stop you. To what extent that happens, I make no assumption. I just have asked you if you can imagine to publish your art without a frame of text.
The fact that I could miss the punk of your words, so be it, is no cardinal offence and neither is adding my own. What is the big deal? In fact, I could say, for example, that I find your art totally stupid and pointless, or that I find something great in it, and you wouldn't have to defend yourself in either case, because there's nothing to defend in that regard.
Does anyone react in a way that you perceive as negative feedback? And wouldn't that be a compliment rather than an insult, for example?
In the past we've talked. You're fond of twisting things out of shape. You make communication difficult. You're asking me to do things your way. I don't want to.
I'm not offended or insulted with negative feedback. I feel like you're just gaslighting. It's well documented as I've said numerous times the people who don't like your work outnumber those who do by a huge margin and that just comes with the territory. You're sitting here acting like I don't know what I got myself into. I'm not offended. You're annoying, but that's fine, because I've taken a lot of flak over the years anyway. Maybe you don't see it under my posts a lot, but it's there.
Nearly 1000 posts here. Some of which are just art and no words. My approach over the years isn't on rails. The words surrounding the art in some cases are not framing the art, in some cases the art is adding to the words, in some cases it's adding confusion, completely void of suggestions, opening the door to a wide array of potential thoughts inside the minds of those taking it all in, and I haven't even covered everything.
Take a look at this post for example. The writing is a story about me golfing, delivered in a creative way. The images were produced before I even went on that trip, had nothing to do with golf when they were produced, and came combined with words about other things when they were originally released. But in that case you can see how they can apply to the story about golf. I could take those same images, write a story about something else totally not about golf, and they'd fit.
And why put me in a position to have to explain things while in the same breath claiming they should not be explained. Maybe you just don't get it, and that's perfectly fine. "Unpure?" The art I'm producing is more than just images. It's a combination of things and that's how I like to do it. And I'm not telling people to do what I do either, claiming if they don't they won't receive an authentic response, because that would be total bullshit. They do their thing and that's fine.
People will come along and be assholes. So what? I even joked about it in the post above, which from build up to breakdown, wasn't intended to be taken seriously. Calling something like this stupid and pointless for instance, would kind of be stupid and pointless, because stupid and pointless are some of the elements making it entertaining. It's also riddled with self-deprecating humor.
That's right. You don't have to like my twists. Of course, to me, they make sense.
It's obvious, you can do or not do what you like. After all, I can't let you do anything I would like; conversely, you can't do it to me either.
You can't presume that I know anything about what you have well documented.
Well, in fact I don't know what you have gotten yourself into, how would I know that? My statements reflected my own views.
HaHa! It's true, I was annoying. Depending on how you talk to each other, it can be refreshing, but also tiring.
Such is life, to take in a lot of flak. You're truly not the only one who has something to take in.
As I said, I don't have the power to tell you what to do. I provoked you. I experience provocation as annoying or irritating, yet it is also a trigger to take it as an opportunity to ask myself if there is something to it. If not, then not. And if there is, I feel challenged, something that can certainly contribute to one's development.
Now I know your answer. Since it is obvious bullshit for you, there is nothing more to say.
I wouldn't touch on something I see as bullshit, myself.
You do your thing. Bye.
Does it make sense to tell something like a comic publisher to get rid of the words, put their work in a gallery, and have people come try to figure out what they're saying, in order to get a genuine response? Would that be a reasonable "dare?"
You're saying I'm cutting people off from the full experience, yet if you looked, you can see them enjoying that full experience you describe under my posts, and me having fun with it, often.
I wouldn't call it being provoked. A lot of people don't get what I'm doing. A lot of people have said I'm not getting a genuine response for whatever reason they feel like cooking up that day. It gets old. It's always nonsense and it always insults the integrity of people enjoying my stuff, which is uncalled for. Tired of trying to explain as well, and I never want to. Take a lot of flak and still enjoy what I do. If I just put a picture up and said nothing, on this platform, people would find a way to pissed off about that, too. And I have no desire to follow some kind of traditional approach to being an artist in order to be accepted and fit in with a crowd. That's really no different than the aforementioned standardized AI groupthink, in my mind.
Unfortunately I'm left feeling like you ignored most of what I said and focused on the one time I used the word, "bullshit," which in that context meant I'd be an asshole if I went around telling people how to run their businesses.
Have a nice day.
So you're saying that because people like your stuff, I already have the power to violate their integrity because I provocatively stated that honest responses to your publications are not self-evident?
That means, by implication, that people who comment here always do so honestly, understandingly and authentically? If that were so, you'd probably be the only one on the planet whose audience is capable of such a thing. LOL
Isn't it the aim and desire of art to be inappropriate and if it is, I would think that the audience would also exhibit such inappropriateness.
If the combination of text and image is your kind of performance, I agree that the possibility is very likely that I do not understand it as you yourself understand it.
The example you gave me (golf game) caused me no connection between your visuals and your story. So you expect that here is a connection between what I see in the images contained therein and your golf course episode, I can only say there is none. I found the story entertaining and it could have stood alone, without the images at all.
In other words, I criticised for being confronted with too much information in this kind of performance and you can of course say that's my problem. But you could also react completely differently and ask yourself if you could possibly reduce your performance and the abundance of information, for example.
If you arbitrarily connect images with stories the whole thing rather gets an additional jumbled character for me, the statements increase in the measure that the text increases in mass and weaken the visual (my opinion, not more).
I do not exclude the possibility that others like me do not perceive the connection between text and image as a unity, but separately.
If you think I have violated anyone's integrity, you seem to have a prior knowledge of these "others", i.e. how quickly someone sees theirs violated. Whether someone does that or peels an egg on it is for the one who wants to say it to say.
You said that it was fine if I didn't understand. What now? Is not understanding and suggesting something else too much of an imposition for you? Since I have already admitted that I have no power to demand that you produce art that I can understand, this point should be adequately covered. After all, it would be too funny if I stood up and told you, "Do it differently! Do it the way I like it!" and then expect you to do exactly that.
What if you don't do it? Well, nothing, there is no consequence whatsoever in relation to you and me.
For my part, I can say that what you call flaks, provocative statements about what I said or did are the salt in the soup of my life. After all, the annoying ones, the ones giving me contra, have always been the ones who either taught me to listen better, sharpen my arguments or otherwise gain some insight. I haven't necessarily thanked them for it, of course, but have been annoyed with them, had to look at my bruised ego first, etc. - but am free to decide at any time whether it is just hot air or has some substance I want to be interested in.
I would have been more surprised if things were different between you and me. Whether you say bullshit or hot air or violate integrity makes little difference.
Of course, they would. And why wouldn't they? Is being "pissed off" something to be avoided?
Your channel is highly frequented. That means you get all kinds of reactions. Would you like it better not to receive pissed off reactions?
Sure, it is only tiresome to debate? To me, it seems, that you also like it.
I can't judge that for the AI applications that already exist. I just read in various places that most publicly available AI is still too dumb to impress. We'll see where the development goes. It is likely to improve and it amounts to much of what is currently produced by humans (especially online, text and image creation or research) will be done by AI in the future. I don't approve of that, but I don't see how it can be prevented. (Though I often use deepl.com which is an AI driven translation app, and it's excellent).
Except that humans themselves create extraordinary works and reach or get the attention of a human audience. Which I'm sure will just be the famous exceptions again.
LOL, how humourless. Paradoxes are another thing that an AI certainly can't "grasp" as they are probably very difficult (if not impossible) to program, much like humour.
As I already said to the gentleman above, my line of thinking, which you are also responding to, wasn't about the general AI art debate. Though it's an interesting conversation, having that discussion is not what I'm interested in at this moment in time. You've responded twice to one comment, disrupting the flow of the conversation as well, making this more difficult than it needs to be.
Have a nice day.