While I focused mainly on algorithmic music, I’m really glad to see people bringing up other sorts of music (and art) that reinforce the point.
Either quote me saying exactly that or remove it from your post.
AI art generators certainly can be used as tools, in the hands of those skilled in using them. But there’s also a lot that they can do that really can’t be attributed to the human who’s writing the prompt. For instance, I don’t really put much effort into my use of AI art programs: I come up with a prompt, see what it does, and move on. One prompt I tried with NightCafe was “Life, but not as we know it”. NightCafe (at least, the version on the site at the time; I don’t know if it’s been updated) seemed to have a tendency towards producing eldritch Lovecraftian horrors, and I expected something along those lines. Instead, I got a poignant painting of a hobo sitting and resting against the side of a shipping container. Now, where that came from, I don’t know, but I know it didn’t come from me.
I gave you ample opportunity to clarify what you meant in the other thread. I even stated that you seemed confused regarding generative music and using computer tools. You seemed very adamant that the use of a computer meant the computer created the music and not the operator by way of stating that only live music (the kind you do) can actually bring joy. If you want to clarify what you mean, then go right ahead.
Grimes has put an AI version of her voice for others to use:
I never said that only live music (which isn’t the only kind I do) can actually bring joy. Please stop making things up.
Well, when I first read the OP of this thread, and saw
I wondered if that was really what @Disinfectus had said. I did not know what other thread you were referring to (it wasn’t one that I had been following). I thought that, if you meant this current thread to be in any way about that claim, you should have linked to it and/or quoted it directly.
There’s a link in the OP. I can see it anyway.
Yeah, this is another aspect of my definition that I perhaps didn’t make clear enough: What the art conveys/invokes to the viewer doesn’t have to be what the artist intended, but it is important that the artist intend something. When a viewer approaches a work of art they bring their own feelings and biases to the art, which means different people may come away with different feelings from the same art. For instance, with your Ikea diagram perhaps for you there is no emotional component, but perhaps for me I am filled with fond remembrance of my old friend and the day we spent assembling furniture for their first apartment.
Actually, I think the Ikea example is an especially bad one, because, similarly to Lego instructions, there is a genuine art to how the information is presented to the viewer. You’re meant to feel safe and welcomed by the diagrams, and not overwhelmed by the complexity of the thing they are asking you to create. Perhaps a better example in this vein would be a blueprint, which presents information in a way as sterile and emotionless as possible, but even then I’ve seen blueprints framed and put on the wall because the pure craft of the drafter can be appreciated on an aesthetic level. So even in this situation, an image created to be as sterile and neutral as possible can still be artistic simply because of the way it is interpreted by the viewer.
I do still believe that artistic intent matters, a beautiful sunrise can elicit an emotional response in a viewer but a sunrise in itself is not art, because there is no intent behind it. Likewise, an AI generated image can elicit an emotional response, but it also is not art. To become art, a sunrise and an AI image must be interpreted by human intent. If I take a picture of the sunrise, or even just wake up my spouse so they can appreciate it with me, that can become a form of art. If I work to make an AI image (or song) that reflects my intent, that can be a form of art. Intent matters, a desire to share something with someone else matters. Ultimately, that’s what art is, to me at least.
Thank you. I never said what the OP claims I said. And he just attributed something else to me that I didn’t say either.
Maybe you meant something else.
Nowhere does that say that only live music can bring joy. It’s one type of joy, certainly not the only one. My point is that you miss many of the aspects that make music special when you are creating computer generated music. That’s a far cry from what you claim I said. Maybe it is time to report you for false quotes.
If you mean a link to that other thread, I still can’t find it.
I cannot post an image by I see a chain symbol and next to that “Music Creators Assemble”. Is that only visible to me? I thought everyone could see that.
Go ahead. I think my inference is reasonable give the totality of the evidence. I asked you (and you can see the quote) if you were confusing generative music and using a computer tool. You continued to seemingly lump them all in together, and never clarified until just your last post in that thread that you were talking about generating music only.
IIUC That means that that other thread links to this one, not vice versa.
ETA: I guess it does automatically generate a link back to that other thread. My apologies.
Then what was your point? Because I came away from the other thread with exactly the same impression of your argument as the OP here.
The point is, if a computer is being used to generate music, then I don’t believe the person operating the computer should take credit for that music. They didn’t create it, they used a computer to create it. If I tell a computer to write a poem about muffins, I’m not the author of the poem. The computer is the author. And I shouldn’t consider myself a poet, when the computer did the work.
Now, can you point out where I said “only live music can actually bring joy.” because I’ve read what I wrote, and it sure as hell wasn’t what was implied. I said that I feel sorry for those who don’t know the joy of working with other musicians, but that’s far different from saying “only live music can actually bring joy”.
Oh, sorry, I thought you were objecting to the “any use of computers at all makes it not music,” part of the OP.
“Only live music can bring joy,” is, of course, not what you said, but it seems more an awkward paraphrase of what you actually said than a deliberate attempt to mischaracterize you. Particularly since the actual quote is not that much less… let’s say “poorly considered”… than the paraphrase.