Never once implied that the meaning of art is simple, or stems only from one area of human experience. What I said is that without struggle, it is meaningless. That isn’t to say art is always a struggle, not even close, it certainly gets easier as you hone your craft, whatever that may be. But it is from the struggle against each challenge along the way that the artist grows more resilient, more passionate; it is through that struggle that their personal flair takes shape. And unless you quit, there will always be some new challenge to overcome. Life imitates art or whatever… The difference between advancement in tools throughout history is that it never once took the doing part out of the process of the art, or stripped the artist of their agency with what is to be done after the doing of the art is finished. A chatbot prompter is not creating anything, instead they are paying a company to proliferate the continued theft of actual artists. True creatives aren’t going anywhere. We do what we do because we love the doing. Destination is not everything, it never has been, and for some (I’d wager most) it is the least enjoyable part of the process. Thank you for sharing your opinion, and thank you for entertaining mine.
You kinda did, though. And then repeated it here. Then immediately contradicted it. You are unsuccessfully splitting hairs as if a sweeping absolute has nuance.
Indirect effort is still effort. CGI artists don’t draw the frames that audiences see. “The destination” is rendered by a computer, from their work. It’s obviously more direct than simply describing the scene - but there’s a gradient, not a cutoff. If someone spends a week fighting any tool to get exactly what they want, then it’s not a trivial push-button affair, and the result is a reflection of their desire and experience.
Even for generated art, you can feed in a blurry approximation, or have it modify a finished-looking image. You can photoshop the output and loop it back through. Hell, a generated video could animate a scene you painted on canvas. To insist that’s not just lesser, but utterly disqualified, is not a defensible assertion.
Consider this Neural Viz video. It’s mostly people talking to-camera. You might insist they could’ve done that with real actors… but that’s the thing, this tech can do anything you might do with real actors. Would you suggest that no amount of telling actors what to say and do makes someone an artist? Why is this silly bullshit not art, when a version wiggling GI Joes in front of the camera would be?
I don’t see the contradiction. I do see that there is a fundamental divide between what you and I consider art. As I alluded to in my previous reply, art is the journey. That is my personal take after many years of engaging with many artistic pursuits. If you don’t like my opinion, based on my subjective experience as an artist… I don’t really know what else to say to you. As I keep saying, feel free to hold and exercise you own opinion, based on your own experience.
If that journey is multiple days of fucking with these tools, why does that not count? Why is this the only technology immune to human expression?
I don’t need the constant reminders of what an opinion is - but you might need a refresher on what arguments are. If you give a reason for an opinion, people will often assume that’s why you believe something, and address it in a way that may alter your conclusion.
I’m not sure why you’re so hell bent on changing my opinion on this subject. Could it be that you aren’t so sure of your own opinion, so you’re projecting that uncertainty outward? I don’t feel the need to convince you or anyone of anything. I have simply been sharing where I stand on the subject. I think I should be free to do so without the expectation that I engage wholeheartedly in someone’s desire for debate.
You seem to think opinions are decorative things, having no bearing on reality. Like the topic at hand doesn’t practically impact entire career paths for millions of people. As if the only reason to try to dissuade someone from dismissive absolute rhetoric is if I am somehow swayed by it, and secretly believe the opposite of all the words I’m saying.
Solipsistic time vampire. Why does anyone give a shit where you stand, if you don’t know what it means to stand by it?
I’m sorry, what? How am I a time vampire? This is an open forum. I should be free to share where I stand. Just as you are free to share your standpoint, and attempt to engage in debate. You may not always get what you want in this life, and that’s ok too. It might be that there simply isn’t much debate to be had. Your engagement with these “tools” is directly and actively harming those who provided the data that built them. That is a fact, not opinion. I’m not sure if you consider yourself an artist or a programmer or whatever, but let me ask you this: If you along with several other chatbot prompters were to line up your individual products, would a viewer be able to spot the difference? Would any difference there be specifically attributed to any individual chatbot prompter?
At what point were you engaged in debate? You act bewildered that someone tried to critically examine your assertions. I’ve been asking questions from your opinion. Do you not recognize your own stated beliefs?
That is a fact, not opinion.
Incorrect. Locally running ComfyUI or Ollama neither picks their pockets nor breaks their bones. When these cloud companies crash, local models aren’t going anywhere, and they won’t do psychic damage to someone whose DeviantArt posts were in the training data.
Would any difference there be specifically attributed to any individual chatbot prompter?
In one shot, probably not. After a week of fucking around to pursue a specific idea in each person’s head, almost certainly. Then again, you could have one group of people prompt a hundred images total, and a completely different group each pick their favorite ten, and that non-interactive selection would reveal individual aesthetic internality. Curation is not creation, but it requires identifying a work’s shortcomings, even if you won’t correct them yourself.
Would a demonstrable difference change your conclusion? Like, is this line of questioning relevant, or are we just saying words recreationally?
I find the way you view those whose data built the systems you use pretty interesting. The distaste for artists is palpable. “…won’t do psychic damage to someone who’s DeviantArt posts were in the training data.” How do you view art in general? Is there intrinsic value in the experience for which the piece represents, or is the value of a piece purely the numbers on the pricetag?
Look, I fundamentally do not agree with your thoughts on the matter. That will not change. I also have at no point forced you to respond, you have done that on your own.
Never once implied that the meaning of art is simple, or stems only from one area of human experience. What I said is that without struggle, it is meaningless. That isn’t to say art is always a struggle, not even close, it certainly gets easier as you hone your craft, whatever that may be. But it is from the struggle against each challenge along the way that the artist grows more resilient, more passionate; it is through that struggle that their personal flair takes shape. And unless you quit, there will always be some new challenge to overcome. Life imitates art or whatever… The difference between advancement in tools throughout history is that it never once took the doing part out of the process of the art, or stripped the artist of their agency with what is to be done after the doing of the art is finished. A chatbot prompter is not creating anything, instead they are paying a company to proliferate the continued theft of actual artists. True creatives aren’t going anywhere. We do what we do because we love the doing. Destination is not everything, it never has been, and for some (I’d wager most) it is the least enjoyable part of the process. Thank you for sharing your opinion, and thank you for entertaining mine.
You kinda did, though. And then repeated it here. Then immediately contradicted it. You are unsuccessfully splitting hairs as if a sweeping absolute has nuance.
Indirect effort is still effort. CGI artists don’t draw the frames that audiences see. “The destination” is rendered by a computer, from their work. It’s obviously more direct than simply describing the scene - but there’s a gradient, not a cutoff. If someone spends a week fighting any tool to get exactly what they want, then it’s not a trivial push-button affair, and the result is a reflection of their desire and experience.
Even for generated art, you can feed in a blurry approximation, or have it modify a finished-looking image. You can photoshop the output and loop it back through. Hell, a generated video could animate a scene you painted on canvas. To insist that’s not just lesser, but utterly disqualified, is not a defensible assertion.
Consider this Neural Viz video. It’s mostly people talking to-camera. You might insist they could’ve done that with real actors… but that’s the thing, this tech can do anything you might do with real actors. Would you suggest that no amount of telling actors what to say and do makes someone an artist? Why is this silly bullshit not art, when a version wiggling GI Joes in front of the camera would be?
I don’t see the contradiction. I do see that there is a fundamental divide between what you and I consider art. As I alluded to in my previous reply, art is the journey. That is my personal take after many years of engaging with many artistic pursuits. If you don’t like my opinion, based on my subjective experience as an artist… I don’t really know what else to say to you. As I keep saying, feel free to hold and exercise you own opinion, based on your own experience.
If that journey is multiple days of fucking with these tools, why does that not count? Why is this the only technology immune to human expression?
I don’t need the constant reminders of what an opinion is - but you might need a refresher on what arguments are. If you give a reason for an opinion, people will often assume that’s why you believe something, and address it in a way that may alter your conclusion.
I’m not sure why you’re so hell bent on changing my opinion on this subject. Could it be that you aren’t so sure of your own opinion, so you’re projecting that uncertainty outward? I don’t feel the need to convince you or anyone of anything. I have simply been sharing where I stand on the subject. I think I should be free to do so without the expectation that I engage wholeheartedly in someone’s desire for debate.
Then why are we talking?
You seem to think opinions are decorative things, having no bearing on reality. Like the topic at hand doesn’t practically impact entire career paths for millions of people. As if the only reason to try to dissuade someone from dismissive absolute rhetoric is if I am somehow swayed by it, and secretly believe the opposite of all the words I’m saying.
Solipsistic time vampire. Why does anyone give a shit where you stand, if you don’t know what it means to stand by it?
I’m sorry, what? How am I a time vampire? This is an open forum. I should be free to share where I stand. Just as you are free to share your standpoint, and attempt to engage in debate. You may not always get what you want in this life, and that’s ok too. It might be that there simply isn’t much debate to be had. Your engagement with these “tools” is directly and actively harming those who provided the data that built them. That is a fact, not opinion. I’m not sure if you consider yourself an artist or a programmer or whatever, but let me ask you this: If you along with several other chatbot prompters were to line up your individual products, would a viewer be able to spot the difference? Would any difference there be specifically attributed to any individual chatbot prompter?
At what point were you engaged in debate? You act bewildered that someone tried to critically examine your assertions. I’ve been asking questions from your opinion. Do you not recognize your own stated beliefs?
Incorrect. Locally running ComfyUI or Ollama neither picks their pockets nor breaks their bones. When these cloud companies crash, local models aren’t going anywhere, and they won’t do psychic damage to someone whose DeviantArt posts were in the training data.
In one shot, probably not. After a week of fucking around to pursue a specific idea in each person’s head, almost certainly. Then again, you could have one group of people prompt a hundred images total, and a completely different group each pick their favorite ten, and that non-interactive selection would reveal individual aesthetic internality. Curation is not creation, but it requires identifying a work’s shortcomings, even if you won’t correct them yourself.
Would a demonstrable difference change your conclusion? Like, is this line of questioning relevant, or are we just saying words recreationally?
Huh?
I find the way you view those whose data built the systems you use pretty interesting. The distaste for artists is palpable. “…won’t do psychic damage to someone who’s DeviantArt posts were in the training data.” How do you view art in general? Is there intrinsic value in the experience for which the piece represents, or is the value of a piece purely the numbers on the pricetag?
Look, I fundamentally do not agree with your thoughts on the matter. That will not change. I also have at no point forced you to respond, you have done that on your own.