Comment

lovely_reader@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

In a way, sure. What’s unfortunate with such a medium is what a small proportion of the thoughts in the final product are the prompter’s. The machine references countless works that the prompter has no knowledge of, whereas in a medium controlled by the artist, those references (both conscious and subconscious) add meaning to the piece.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Skullgrid@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

In a way, sure.

🤝

What’s unfortunate with such a medium is what a small proportion of the thoughts in the final product are the prompter’s. The machine references countless works that the prompter has no knowledge of, whereas in a medium controlled by the artist, those references (both conscious and subconscious) add meaning to the piece.

Here’s the part where I get mad at people in the thread that say I have no understanding of art (history). There’s been several ways of creating art that have been discussed that have the artist leave aspects to chance. It’s been done by Cage, people using radios in musical performances, introducing animals into artworks, using the brush like an idiot (Pollock) to achieve these things; in more modern mediums, the entire genre of rougelikes rely on chance to have certain things not be completely fixed, and emergent behaviour is a valuable aspect of creating interactive worlds that contain automatons.

Is there too much uncurated content in a Gen-AI work? Depends how much effort the creator put into the work, and what they are trying to do with it. I’m pretty sure for the actual scenario at the heart of the discussion, shitposts and strawberry textured elephants can have a few “happy accidents” without harming the central message… of the strawberry elephant.

source

🤝