chrisnoessel

chrisnoessel, 5 months ago

@Miniver what? Kids today don't have to plan routes between classes and only use restrooms during classtime to avoid getting the snot kicked out of them? They don't, despite these efforts, run into their tormentors accidentally in the bathroom and have to improvise a bullshit story about why they won't fight them then and there until someone gets bloody? I am very very glad to hear this.

chrisnoessel, 5 months ago

@Miniver Snow? We would have DREAMED of having snow instead of the steaming lava that… etc. etc.

chrisnoessel, 5 months ago (edited 5 months ago)

It feels bad and denigrating for anyone to think of our favorite part—the part we have worked so hard on mastering, the part where all of the problems that are interesting to us lie—as tedium. As something to be automated or “just taken care of” with a shortcut. “Hey! I worked hard on that font,” thinks the arrogant typographer, “but you just want to select it from a list and move on‽” Harumph!

chrisnoessel, 5 months ago (edited 5 months ago)

But just because someone thinks of your beloved part as tedium does not mean other people’s art—even if it uses your part as a labor-saving shortcut—is categorically invalid, any more than my art is categorically invalid because I have taken advantage of shortcuts available to me, or your art is categorically invalid because you have taken advantage of shortcuts available to you. We focus on the parts that are of interest to us and for which we have aptitude.

chrisnoessel, 5 months ago

Sure, people using generative AI are treating other people’s hard won skills—like painting and photography and drawing—as tedium that they would rather have automated; but it does not categorically invalidate what they are doing any more than a writer’s selecting a font does.

chrisnoessel, 5 months ago (edited 5 months ago)

There are plenty of reasons to criticize generative AI. (Like, consent: theoretically the font was purchased or licensed, but the images scraped into a foundation model were almost certainly not.) But “this part of the chain must be treated as sacred to everyone because it’s mine” is not a sound reason. It is narcissism.

chrisnoessel, 5 months ago

@wtrmt Thanks for your reply. I’m not really that interested in defining “art” and “not art” with this argument. Insert “work” if you like. I’m trying to break down the “effort heuristic” argument against generative AI by pointing out that everyone uses some set of shortcuts, that can be framed as demeaning others’ work. It’s for this reason that generative AI output is not categorically invalid because its creators didn’t paint/draw/photograph the thing themselves.

chrisnoessel, 5 months ago

@wtrmt I know a few typographers and font makers who would challenge you to a duel over this. Dismissing something as “technical” does the same thing—privileges the parts you like and devalues other parts—which are likely the result of someone’s hard work and skill.

chrisnoessel, 5 months ago (edited 5 months ago)

@wtrmt That’s an arbitrary place to stop the line of reasoning. Should the violin maker get to dismiss the violinist—who did learn about composing and playing their instrument—because the violinist doesn’t understand the craft of violin making? Should the rosewood farmer get to dismiss the violin maker’s work because the violin maker is unwilling to learn about arborism?

chrisnoessel, 5 months ago (edited 5 months ago)

@wtrmt People make art using a long, long chain of tools. Every part of that chain is something that someone has taken up as an art in and of itself. (Adding:) We can’t designate some parts as sacred and others boring based on the opinions of people committed to one part of that chain.

chrisnoessel, 5 months ago

@wtrmt To paraphrase Sagan: To make art from scratch, first you have to invent the universe.

chrisnoessel, 5 months ago (edited 5 months ago)

@wtrmt I genuinely don't understand. What two ways?

Re: content, I understand the notion of “content” as not caring about the quality of the thing, only the effect. But I don't mean that. Take this image I prompted earlier this week, thinking about how Cherry blossom picture season will be affected by the anthropocene, and trying a new technique. I find it lovely and haunting. But anti-genAI folks would dismiss it as invalid because I did not flood a valley and wait for golden hour in waders.

chrisnoessel, 5 months ago (edited 5 months ago)

@wtrmt is it just “content”? No. This is not me filling in some quota as a contractual obligation. Is it high art? No. Did it take effort? A small amount. Maybe four or five orders of magnitude less than if I had tried to take it for real. Am I just “pushing a button” or as Wendig shouted, fetishizing an idea above craft? Everyone gets to make up their own mind but for me, no. Is it an invalid collection of pixels because it was generated?

chrisnoessel, 5 months ago

@wtrmt ok. I'm pretty clear that these are virtual. But I shared it as a counterexample against categorizing all generated images as “content”. Is this content?

chrisnoessel, 5 months ago

@wtrmt

That's a lot of brazen assumptions about me and what went into this prompt and the steps it took to get here. I took photography class in undergrad. I understand the basics of technique. In fact I studied back in the caustic chemical days when you burned and dodged with fingers. Do I get to claim all digital photography invalid because it cares nothing for development technique? No, because that technique is only germane to that image making process, not the digital one.

chrisnoessel, 5 months ago

@wtrmt It’s also an impossible set of criteria for “real” artists and art appreciation. If a similar image was produced by a photographer, how would you possibly know they cared for the type of blossom or the cultural significance? And what does that matter to the meaning of the thing? Do you check the interpretive text in a museum to make sure van Gogh was looking at real sunflowers? Did he understand their cultural significance in Ukraine? What kind of criteria are these?

chrisnoessel, 5 months ago

@wtrmt The issues of consent and training are brand new to this discussion and very real, but not germane to the question of effort and craft. It's a giant other argument that needs to be addressed, but for my money a wholly separate discussion.

chrisnoessel, 5 months ago

@wtrmt I see. I spoke about mastery, and that can include knowledge as well as craft, though I was probably emphasizing the craft aspect as I wrote. But you did assume that I didn’t a) have access to original references b) care for technique or knowledge and c) accepted without questioning.

chrisnoessel, 5 months ago

@wtrmt a) I didn’t, but you didn’t know that. It was a safe assumption, but still an assumption. b) I do care about techniques and knowledge and c) I rejected a number of pictures along the way that were not quite right, and iterated against a core to get to something I liked better.

chrisnoessel, 5 months ago

@wtrmt But moreover, it’s problematic to require knowledge of an artists’ intentions and behaviors to categorically reject or regard their art. It is difficult to know (when it’s even possible), and puts audiences in the roles of lawyers and detectives examining the artist not the art. (Again, sorry the word “art” pops up here but the sentences get really wonky without it.)