this kind of question really illustrates techbro level of understanding of art. like damn, it is hopeless.
and some deeper inability to flip it to oneself that results in shit takes like that. 'is whatever that I'm creating that remains unseen - a "wasted work"? should I be stopped from creating "waste work"? is that what I would like?'
Art is also pointless in most cases, but--and I'm sure some will disagree with this--there's a value in the process and in what is produced. Whether it be real or virtual. I think this holds true for the logic circuit guy too.
Also, there's no way to know if someone who posts something online "need's help" so that seems liks a pointless debate to me.
Personally I would draw the line where the tools I'm ultimately relying on to create art don't function at all without having millions of works by other artists baked into them. You can say that's how my brain is doing it anyway—and sure, you might be right to a first approximation—but isn't that the whole point? If I'm not even capable of executing that synthesis in some medium X myself, but rather have to outsource it to a computer program, then I'm more technician than artist.
It's something I don't expect people who have never seriously engaged with an artistic process to understand. Art is interesting when the artist discovered things in creating it, and you are not going to discover much by typing in a few sentences of prompt and maybe touching up the image (or story, or whatever) the model makes for you.
"Cheating" is a loaded and generally unsuitable word based on an infantile understanding of why art matters. The universe doesn't give a shit whether you do it yourself or get a machine to do it for you, and neither do I, really. Modulo speculative impacts on economy and culture, these are obviously useful tools and I don't have any moral issue with people using them. But I will say that if those people are aiming to create art rather than engage in a process of design, then by using these tools in their primary creative workflows they are depriving themselves of a priceless journey. That's why it matters.
It's a bit like sitting in your car at a trailhead and flying a drone out to the end of the trail and back rather than doing the walking yourself. Not only are you potentially ruining the experience for others (see: the recent Clarke's World closure to submissions), you're vastly cheapening it for yourself too. Most people in today's discourse are focusing on the former, but I think the latter is more interesting and important.
I totally agree. I've abandoned lots of crap projects from many arts (both technical and artistic) and almost always went on to start something better. A few times, I've realized it was a mistake and went back to it.
The problem for me is knowing what is crap and what is not. To an outside observer, it's a lot easier to decide subjectively, but it's still hard to tell what the general populace will think.
The only advice I have to offer is: If you're waffling, then it's probably crap. Truly awesome things really, really shine.
Happens to me too -- it's a great way to make new things. However, the "creation" I'd argue happens when you look at the pile of random stuff and generate a new understanding, and decide that it is valuable. The difference between trash and art only exists in the head of the artist. Same thing happens with DALL-E output, really.
It seems that people are afraid to "throw away" work, which means they hold on to things they've built (even when they shouldn't) just because they've invested time in them.
But the throwing-away of work is crucial to building something lasting, similar to editing the photos you show to the world. At the very minimum you gain a better understanding of the problem. The thing you keep probably wouldn't be as good without having done the throw-away work.
This also kinda reminds me of the Picasso Principle [1]:
The famous Pablo Picasso was at a party. A woman
recognized him and approached the Master. She asked,
“Will you create a sketch for me?” Picasso agreed,
and, as he pulled out his sketchpad, asked her for a
subject. “A bird in a tree will do,” she responded.
So Picasso spent about a five minutes doing what
Picasso does on the sketchpad. Finished, he ripped the
sketch off the pad, handed it to the woman and said,
“That will be $10,000.” The woman was floored. “Ten
thousand dollars! Why, it only took you five minutes to
draw that sketch!” To which, Picasso replied, “No,
madam. That sketch took me a lifetime.”
The cant of this article is kind of grossing me out. I don't disagree with the predictions of this, but I reject the notion of people as being "useless" because they can't interface with technology. Such a position is a paperclip maximizer (https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer) of efficiency. There are other worthwhile things.
Are artists useless unless they can produce design? Are "idiot" friends who make us laugh but are generally low-achieving "useless"?
Or just enjoy the process of creation for being the process of creation and accept that you made a thing that doesn't have actual utility to other people just for the sake of making the thing that should be made.
I mean you could hang it on the wall, call it art and move on to making something else. Or not. Good luck.
All my attempts are terrible compared to what I imagined, even if I'm trying to be practical. Some of my attempts work themselves out to be better or different than what I imagined. Its a crapshoot.
There are a lot of creative things I've quit on that I probably shouldn't have. I think in the end we need to embrace and be compassionate with inner noob. Sure, he's not good and he gets odd stares from non-creative people, but in the end he's the guy who blossoms into the guy who everyone dismisses as an "overnight success" or "natural talent." Everyone forgets how incredibly difficult and demoralizing it is to waste time producing sub-par work just for the off-chance that you might get good at something.
I find it interesting that many artists seem to think their creativity was formed in a vacuum, as if the overwhelming mass of any human's output isn't based off of earlier input. The thing we're actually rebelling against here is a perception of outperformance, and maybe to some degree obsolescence, of certain skills. This always happens when there is a quantum leap in the development of tools.
Somehow we have this notion that we can put an idea (a song, a painting, a text, a meme, you name it) out there and by virtue of copyright people will be obliged to pay for it but will not be able to use it in any way. This is not possible, and advancements in tools such as computers and AI generators make this very obvious. You will NEVER be able to prevent people from mimicking your style, your choices, even your content - you can only prevent them from publishing identical copies and claiming them as their own for a while. I think that's all perfectly fine.
If you don't want your idea to become part of the mountain of content that our civilization is built on: don't publish it. Write it down, store it in your cellar, and have your heirs burn it after you die.
Yet another one of those projects which is an incredible achievement and where I find myself wondering if this is a just a total waste of time and creative energy.
This take reads like you've never created anything for the intrinsic joy of creation. Not everything must be utilitarian. Art is still art even if its clumsily made or seen only by the artist.
Most of us do this to feed and clothe ourselves and our families. Its easy to lose sight of the fact that we're often engaged in creative, artistic pursuits. If you were lucky enough to become enchanted by computers before you had to keep a roof over your head you likely stayed up late writing code, tweaking parameters and watching the pixels or the numbers fall out the other end. Late nights driven only by your own curiosity and the joy you felt while doing it. No feature requests, design documents, or stakeholders except yourself.
Of course there is also the code that keeps the planes in the sky and the electricity in the wires, necessary and beautiful in its own right, but that isn't what this is about.
I mean, consider there are a swathe of things I've made for self-development, that aren't released to others since they're incomplete, less usable for others not sharing the same brain, not great quality, etc.
It would weigh on me from an empathetic standpoint to not improve upon them if being released to others, so they're not and that's fine. Much like an artist's practice sketches they're intended for one's own private goals only.
The article isn't really framed like that though and downplays the internet as an inherent audience. Improving something even for just a random other person to enjoy/find utility in isn't inherently attention or money chasing, it's just bridging a gap.
Is the entire entertainment industry a waste of time? Some people create things for their own and other's enjoyment even though it has no "practical" use.
Well for the art example, just because someone could make a piece of art doesn't mean they have any interest in doing so. I could squirt paint randomly on a canvas, but it would be a huge waste of time.
I see such "not really useful" projects much as I do fine art. There's not much measurable use to the world in most painting, sculpture, or music in and of itself - but done well, it brings enjoyment to both the creator and appreciative observers. Count me as an appreciative observer in many such cases.
I don't think this issue is related to creativity. There are plenty of talented creators who choose to waste their time on meaningless stuff because it gives them more fun/fame/money(largely used for meaningless stuff).
And a creator in today's world can waste much more potential than a common man.
and some deeper inability to flip it to oneself that results in shit takes like that. 'is whatever that I'm creating that remains unseen - a "wasted work"? should I be stopped from creating "waste work"? is that what I would like?'
reply