Neat. Made me think about my own art. What would it look like to find a paradigmatically different approach to art, like cubism or dadaism or surrealism, in the age of generative AI?
And, now that I think about it, why has there scarcely been an art movement? There have been social movements lately - I can track that, especially in the US where I live - but why the lack of art movements? We're not stagnating, but there's, like, a lack of defining waves of thought among artists, y'know? We're fragmented, and instead of movements we have short-lived trends. I'm not necessarily saying this is an issue, but I am curious. What do you think?
Thanks so much for the comment -- It really makes me think
I do think it's an issue. A symptom of the fact that art is becoming less and less ambitious.
It's not obvious to which degree the so-called artistic movements of history have been artificially simplified and unified by historians.
But you're totally right. It was at least more united than we are today.
And it was more CREATIVE. I don't see anyone trying to find something that'll bring back the glory of art. Unlike before.
It's kind of like Nietzsche's death of god.
AI is a genuine intelligence, that already surpasses us in most surface-level communication skills (whether it be images, language or whatever).
It's likely that in the future it'll also surpass us in non-surface-level skills, of awareness, feeling, understanding of others and so on, purely because of the sheer computation it is able to carry out.
If AI surpasses us in all these ways, if it acquires bodies, looks like us, and is better than us at everything, what will be left of us ?
If you take away from us all the human qualities that we are AWARE of, what's left for us to do ?
Find NEW ONES.
But we have to dig for them. They won't present themselves to us.
The subconscious considered as "what we do not know yet" certainly will have a role. I want to avoid falling into the trap of repeating what Breton was already doing 100 years ago though.
The methods we can use to probe this unconscious must be different from the naive methods they used 100 years ago.
Neat. Made me think about my own art. What would it look like to find a paradigmatically different approach to art, like cubism or dadaism or surrealism, in the age of generative AI?
And, now that I think about it, why has there scarcely been an art movement? There have been social movements lately - I can track that, especially in the US where I live - but why the lack of art movements? We're not stagnating, but there's, like, a lack of defining waves of thought among artists, y'know? We're fragmented, and instead of movements we have short-lived trends. I'm not necessarily saying this is an issue, but I am curious. What do you think?
Thanks so much for the comment -- It really makes me think
I do think it's an issue. A symptom of the fact that art is becoming less and less ambitious.
It's not obvious to which degree the so-called artistic movements of history have been artificially simplified and unified by historians.
But you're totally right. It was at least more united than we are today.
And it was more CREATIVE. I don't see anyone trying to find something that'll bring back the glory of art. Unlike before.
It's kind of like Nietzsche's death of god.
AI is a genuine intelligence, that already surpasses us in most surface-level communication skills (whether it be images, language or whatever).
It's likely that in the future it'll also surpass us in non-surface-level skills, of awareness, feeling, understanding of others and so on, purely because of the sheer computation it is able to carry out.
If AI surpasses us in all these ways, if it acquires bodies, looks like us, and is better than us at everything, what will be left of us ?
If you take away from us all the human qualities that we are AWARE of, what's left for us to do ?
Find NEW ONES.
But we have to dig for them. They won't present themselves to us.
Based on your past stuff, I'd presume the subconscious has a role in this "searching," is that accurate? (Correct me if not so)
The subconscious considered as "what we do not know yet" certainly will have a role. I want to avoid falling into the trap of repeating what Breton was already doing 100 years ago though.
The methods we can use to probe this unconscious must be different from the naive methods they used 100 years ago.
So let's not get stuck in a single direction !