I think the meaning of “Théâtre D’opéra Spatial" comes from knowing that it's generative art that won first prize in an art show. The details being wrong invites us to think about the differences...
I think the meaning of “Théâtre D’opéra Spatial" comes from knowing that it's generative art that won first prize in an art show. The details being wrong invites us to think about the differences between first impressions and close observation. If you're familiar with the output of these programs, you could identify it as having some typical features of a certain version of MidJourney.
This seems as deep a meaning as those invited by other art. It's inspired a lot of people to write about it, and this essay is an example.
The main problem is that there's a lot of other generative art has a similar meaning. To continue to be interesting, the builders and users of these systems will need to find different things to say.
I really like the “pattern matching” vs. “pattern breaking” idiom raised in the article. It feels like a nice reframing of “learning the rules so you know when to break them.” I wonder if that...
I really like the “pattern matching” vs. “pattern breaking” idiom raised in the article. It feels like a nice reframing of “learning the rules so you know when to break them.”
I wonder if that ties back to a more general behavioral economics framework: we make artists master difficult skills and the ability to effect the current artistic paradigm as a means of signaling to an audience that they’ve put in the effort and are worthy of consideration. But that’s sort of the table stakes for consideration—the genuine “art” vs. “Art” dichotomy is determined by what you choose to do with that audience attention once you’ve got it. What contribution do you make, stylistically, thematically, technique, or otherwise, above and beyond the status quo zeitgeist?
If AI generation nullifies “putting the hours in” or “earning your chops,” by what measure do we as a collective psyche choose to direct our limited attention to? Marketing budget? Nepotistic insider connections to existing success? Random dumb luck? It’s always seemed like a problem, but it feels like it could get worse.
I think the meaning of “Théâtre D’opéra Spatial" comes from knowing that it's generative art that won first prize in an art show. The details being wrong invites us to think about the differences between first impressions and close observation. If you're familiar with the output of these programs, you could identify it as having some typical features of a certain version of MidJourney.
This seems as deep a meaning as those invited by other art. It's inspired a lot of people to write about it, and this essay is an example.
The main problem is that there's a lot of other generative art has a similar meaning. To continue to be interesting, the builders and users of these systems will need to find different things to say.
Good essay on the nature of generative AI and its effectiveness as art.
I really like the “pattern matching” vs. “pattern breaking” idiom raised in the article. It feels like a nice reframing of “learning the rules so you know when to break them.”
I wonder if that ties back to a more general behavioral economics framework: we make artists master difficult skills and the ability to effect the current artistic paradigm as a means of signaling to an audience that they’ve put in the effort and are worthy of consideration. But that’s sort of the table stakes for consideration—the genuine “art” vs. “Art” dichotomy is determined by what you choose to do with that audience attention once you’ve got it. What contribution do you make, stylistically, thematically, technique, or otherwise, above and beyond the status quo zeitgeist?
If AI generation nullifies “putting the hours in” or “earning your chops,” by what measure do we as a collective psyche choose to direct our limited attention to? Marketing budget? Nepotistic insider connections to existing success? Random dumb luck? It’s always seemed like a problem, but it feels like it could get worse.