It even weirder. ABBA is touring again but not in person but as their “digital avatars.”
The mainstream music industry is no longer releasing recordings to make money. They are releasing recordings as loss leaders, to help promote live performances, which is where most of the money is now. It is an almost entirely reversed paradigm.
The mainstream music industry is no longer releasing recordings to make money. They are releasing recordings as loss leaders, to help promote live performances, which is where most of the money is now. It is an almost entirely reversed paradigm.
It even weirder. ABBA is touring again but not in person but as their “digital avatars.”
Elvis is still "virtually"performing in Vegas. Local museums are giving virtual exhibitions of all kind of art works, Egyptian tombs, etc. You won't find me buying tickets to any of that, nor to any venue showing Ai art. Isn't that what Hollywood has been doing better from a long time anyway? - and I can't stand even that. Fire the robot computer and find a real cameraman again.
I don't think you get it. AI is not a tool, as it thinks for itself.
And I'm in the group that thinks AI is just another set of tools to use in creating things.
I don't think you get it. AI is not a tool, as it thinks for itself.
My walter-ego.
View attachment 341896
I am sorry that this went over your head. You might want to reread what I posted and its point.
I don't think you get it. AI is not a tool, as it thinks for itself.
^This. What we’re calling “artificial intelligence” is not. It’s a Large Language Model that pieces together bits of data which, according to the parameters it has seem, to it, to be related. It’s a very fast, very slick search engine that can produce output formatted as text, images, sounds, etc.The AI programs are not yet sentient.
That AI can generate electronic files displayable as a pattern of marks on a monitor screen has nothing to do with photography. AI could do all this on a planet where there is no light.
But there is an opportunity for art and associated fame for an accomplished artist. The art will be the act of curation, selection, and arrangement of the AI generated markings.
As in present day abstract art the patterns of marks need not reference anything external or in the real world.
Rather the work will reference the internal psyche of the artist which could be very interesting. Or not.
There are no rules for art. If you like to see, or want to have it, that’s one definition. If lots of people feel the same way, that’s another. If art galleries think it’s important, that’s a third. Competitions have their own rules. And investors have other ideas about what is collectible.
I wonder which is more important: who did it and how, or what effect the image (or whatever) has on you the viewer? If it’s the latter, then AI art may do it just as well or conceivably better. But I think in the end AI products will become rather ‘samey’.
A final thought: lots of folk seem to be concerned that AI images will be passed off as artist-generated images. But the thing AI is best at is recognising patterns. So we should give the task of distinguishing AI art to … AI. Seriously.
it's art if the artist says it is
That AI can generate electronic files displayable as a pattern of marks on a monitor screen has nothing to do with photography. AI could do all this on a planet where there is no light.
But there is an opportunity for art and associated fame for an accomplished artist. The art will be the act of curation, selection, and arrangement of the AI generated markings.
As in present day abstract art the patterns of marks need not reference anything external or in the real world.
Rather the work will reference the internal psyche of the artist which could be very interesting. Or not.
But it's not photography.
Most important issues related to the use of AI will deal with ethics, not aesthetics.
I should have added "economics."
I was at a two-day conference a couple weeks ago about radio and podcast, in which the main subject was AI. It went from AI tools to help you create your podcast (there are some really good ones) to a radio station, RadioGPT (won't give the link, but you can Google it), in which everything, from the music choices to the voices doing news, traffic, and, at times, commentary, are all AI generated. Some voices still sound a tad robotic, but others, especially those cloned from actual voices, are sounding more and more natural, and will totally sound so in a couple of years. Company who built this technology has already started to sell it to actual radio stations in the US.
So, main question associated will all this during the conference wasn't "Is it radio?". Main questions were "is it ethical?" (or when does it stop being ethical, which is more complicated) and "How many people will lose their job?".
So yeah, it will be photography because the main use of AI won't be in art—I suspect number of artists doing fully AI-generated photographic artworks and being successful at it will be minimal. It will be in fashion and advertisement—domains where the notion of ethics can already be at times a bit loose—, and the people losing their jobs will be photographers.
"Art" can mean anything, and therefore might mean nothing at all. But I would hope "photography" would at least have a more specific connotation. A robot being sent into a leaking nuke reactor room with a video camera, or by police into a suspected bomb location, well, that kinda makes sense. But otherwise ....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?