Such a good post, Chris! Agree with all of this. The desire to just make things appear without the work or effort is so antithetical to the artmaking process.
I struggle with this argument. Most people actually *can’t* make music, at least of any quality. A child clapping is “music”, sure, but not art. The percentage of humans who can make music of quality is vanishingly small. I’m reasonably musical, play an instrument, and I’ve "made" a song with Suno, but that was months ago and I’ve never done it again, because I don’t have the desire - there’s no music in me trying to get out. But I could not / would not have made that artifact without Suno.
Conversely, I’ve written an entire book. An enormous effort. I could have used AI to do some of it, but what would have been the point?
If you use AI to make something, in what sense have you really “made” it? More like you “requested” it. Art happens when the artist has some inner truth that wants to come out. It usually requires effort and sacrifice and craft, none of which are much required to use AI. I suspect most people's use of Suno will be one-and-done, unless they need an artifact for their job (a jingle, let's say) - or a logo created with AI image gen - these things are not art, they are work artifacts, largely.
AI may well create entertainment, but I don’t think it can create art, because art is a relationship, not an artifact.
Basically, NO to all of it. There’s no needle to thread. AI has no place in the arts. John Williams can be “influenced” by Wagner; human to human. Rearranging the inspired genius of humanity in seconds for expediency and profit will end in the futility of uselessness. It’s not like a synth. This is replacing us all at a speed we can’t control. There are precious few revenue streams for artists, composers and authors. Prompting a Cormac McCarthy short story in seconds isn’t a creative “tool” it’s plagiarism. It’s an “IT”. Not a me or you or we.
Such a good post, Chris! Agree with all of this. The desire to just make things appear without the work or effort is so antithetical to the artmaking process.
I struggle with this argument. Most people actually *can’t* make music, at least of any quality. A child clapping is “music”, sure, but not art. The percentage of humans who can make music of quality is vanishingly small. I’m reasonably musical, play an instrument, and I’ve "made" a song with Suno, but that was months ago and I’ve never done it again, because I don’t have the desire - there’s no music in me trying to get out. But I could not / would not have made that artifact without Suno.
Conversely, I’ve written an entire book. An enormous effort. I could have used AI to do some of it, but what would have been the point?
If you use AI to make something, in what sense have you really “made” it? More like you “requested” it. Art happens when the artist has some inner truth that wants to come out. It usually requires effort and sacrifice and craft, none of which are much required to use AI. I suspect most people's use of Suno will be one-and-done, unless they need an artifact for their job (a jingle, let's say) - or a logo created with AI image gen - these things are not art, they are work artifacts, largely.
AI may well create entertainment, but I don’t think it can create art, because art is a relationship, not an artifact.
Extraordinarily well said!
This is completely beside the point but the perfect “off-kilter song about the solar system” already exists and it’s on The Beach Boys Love You (1977)
Basically, NO to all of it. There’s no needle to thread. AI has no place in the arts. John Williams can be “influenced” by Wagner; human to human. Rearranging the inspired genius of humanity in seconds for expediency and profit will end in the futility of uselessness. It’s not like a synth. This is replacing us all at a speed we can’t control. There are precious few revenue streams for artists, composers and authors. Prompting a Cormac McCarthy short story in seconds isn’t a creative “tool” it’s plagiarism. It’s an “IT”. Not a me or you or we.