3 Comments

I definitely agree that the vulnerable and authentic human behind an art piece is kinda what really gives it it's soul. So the simple output of a text-to-song/image/etc. generator is a different "substance" than what the artist the output is simulating produces.

That said, one thing I do find compelling is that AI tech does democratize access to creative output that would otherwise be outside the budget of smaller artists. Before these models were available, only established artists/studios could hire teams of smaller artists to creative direct and realize a grander vision. Now, those smaller artists can creative direct AI artists towards their own grander visions. Sort of levels the playing field.

As one example, here's something I put out last year that leaned on the support of AI: https://artbroadly.substack.com/p/a-perfect-summer-afternoon-in-milan

Expand full comment

You make a very compelling point about the leveling effect of AI. That post is fascinating — did you lean on AI for text at all, or just the images?

Expand full comment

Thanks man. Na, just the images for that one. If I remember correctly, I'm pretty sure I didn't actually go into it trying to do a conceptual piece about AI. I think it was more about creating a sense of realism or even something like the quasivoyeurism of a found footage piece. AI was a tool to help try to achieve that though.

Sorry to keep shilling my Substack lol, but here's another example where I don't even mention the watercolors use AI (maybe I should have, not sure). But it's a similar kind of thing. Like, in this case, while I am learning to sketch better offline, I can still put out a rich version of a concept using AI. Any one of these images by itself maybe isn't going to have the soul of an identical image I painted, but taken together to aim a higher-level vision, I think the whole piece has a shot (https://artbroadly.substack.com/p/other-peoples-memories).

Expand full comment