I recorded a conversation with Keith Hayden someone obsessed with AI about this very topic, and he brought up a similar point to yours…that the “human 10%” is the whimsical mark of someone who had to suffer the ups and downs of actually making the work. He said AI can’t replicate that now but he predicts it will at some point. With that said, I don’t think the value of a human making art (the experience of making something and how a project changes you) will ever go away, and as you said, some audience will be interested in hearing about that process.
But it goes something like, “People go to a rock show to see someone believe in themselves.”
I think the reason why art and creativity will only become more valuable over time is because it’s one of the most primal and powerful ways humans express and connect with each other.
I think AI will be involved in art going forward, but as a tool not the source.
However, would there ever be a point where AI gets writer’s block or is criticized for being un-original?
I’m guessing there’s a Star Trek TNG episode featuring Data that covers that topic.
Andy Warhol, Jeff Koons, Ai Weiwei, and many others didn't "make" their art. And we don't care about the names of the people who put their hands on those works (or at least we don't credit them). Can we say that we value Jeff Koons' Rabbit because of the human touch? Early modern painters had studios with apprentices who finished their work, but it was really Pop art that separated the crafting of the artwork from the original idea -- and challenged the whole authenticity of art. How radical, then, is a "prompt" to an AI?
Years ago I watched an excellent documentary about a studio / factory that made other peoples’ art. In particular I remember Dr Who’s Tardis, (a phone booth that disappears). The Tardis was an exact model but covered in mirrors. It stood in a corner, also covered with mirrors, so it looked like it ‘disappeared’.
The artist had the idea but not the carpentry and builder skills to execute it. That is understandable.
But the skill of the craftspeople who make the art is usually not appreciated, documented, and I don’t expect they get a share of the profits.
Painters’ studios were surely different. The artist was teaching the apprentices something s/he was very skilled at doing.
In 2011, British photographer David Slater (https://www.djsphotography.co.uk) travelled to a national park in North Sulawesi, Indonesia, and took pictures of a troop of crested black macaque monkeys. He set up a self-triggering camera, and some of the monkeys came close, attracted by the reflections in the camera lens and the shutter noise. This resulted in this wonderful ‘selfie’.
The reason I can post the photo here is because it is available on Wikipedia. They uploaded the picture and tagged it as being in the public domain, reasoning that monkeys cannot own copyright. However, Mr Slater is considering suing Wikipedia for copyright infringement. So, who took this photo?
The International Union for Conservation of Nature lists the crested black macaque as Critically Endangered (IUCN, 2020), appearing on the IUCN's Red List of Threatened Species. This is the last step before extinction in the wild. Go to https://www.wildplanettrust.org.uk/wild-conservation/sulawesi-crested-black-macaque/ for more information about conservation efforts.
Whoa, that's wild. Part of me thinks all art should be open sources, but then I do understand why there is the need for protections.
For example: I feel very conflicted by the internet archive project. The idea to make all books accessible to all people seems very important to me, and I'm very on board with that. But that then the authors of that work don't make any money from all those reads does strike me as not right.
But maybe there is a third option we're not thinking about. Perhaps internet archive can make money from some other busniess mechanism (charging companies to cite books, etc), and then use that money to distribute money to authors based on the number of reads they get?
Thank you for your writing, Elle. I wrote on the same topic, and came to some of the same conclusions, in an essay a few weeks ago on the role of human consciousness in how we should value art. I do disagree slightly, and maybe it’s just semantics, on the idea that art’s value is in how interesting it is, and that a specific human artist having made it is what makes it more interesting and in turn more valuable. Rather, I feel that human art is valuable because it’s a firsthand communication of the contents of a human mind. A Picasso’s monetary value may go up by virtue of being a Picasso even if it’s a simple line, but how much the market values art doesn’t equate to its artistic value. That comes from the artist’s intent, and how that intent is communicated, and how impacts the audience. Anyway, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on where we align and where we don’t: https://open.substack.com/pub/taylorberrett/p/whats-it-like-to-be-only-human-art?r=e79kh&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
I love this -> "what art really is, is a conversation with a messy, thinking, human person on a human scale."
Truly!
Though you have me thinking. If you really wanted to stand in front of my art, you could look at one of my google docs that eventually became an essay, and see the millions of edits to it I made over several weeks. You would have access to my thought process as I was having ideas, deleting them, having new ones, thinking things through. But I would also hate that because it's so messy and unfinished. The final product is what I want people to see!
I recorded a conversation with Keith Hayden someone obsessed with AI about this very topic, and he brought up a similar point to yours…that the “human 10%” is the whimsical mark of someone who had to suffer the ups and downs of actually making the work. He said AI can’t replicate that now but he predicts it will at some point. With that said, I don’t think the value of a human making art (the experience of making something and how a project changes you) will ever go away, and as you said, some audience will be interested in hearing about that process.
Not to self-promote too much, but the conversation is here if you wanna go deeper: https://www.bigquitenergy.com/p/how-much-is-the-human-10-worth
Very cool, thanks for sharing! I'm with you, the human part will never go away, even if we add to it!
I don’t know the attribution to this quote...
But it goes something like, “People go to a rock show to see someone believe in themselves.”
I think the reason why art and creativity will only become more valuable over time is because it’s one of the most primal and powerful ways humans express and connect with each other.
I think AI will be involved in art going forward, but as a tool not the source.
However, would there ever be a point where AI gets writer’s block or is criticized for being un-original?
I’m guessing there’s a Star Trek TNG episode featuring Data that covers that topic.
I definitely think AI will be used as a tool, not the source. That's how we think of search engines right now!
Also I love that quote....
Andy Warhol, Jeff Koons, Ai Weiwei, and many others didn't "make" their art. And we don't care about the names of the people who put their hands on those works (or at least we don't credit them). Can we say that we value Jeff Koons' Rabbit because of the human touch? Early modern painters had studios with apprentices who finished their work, but it was really Pop art that separated the crafting of the artwork from the original idea -- and challenged the whole authenticity of art. How radical, then, is a "prompt" to an AI?
Years ago I watched an excellent documentary about a studio / factory that made other peoples’ art. In particular I remember Dr Who’s Tardis, (a phone booth that disappears). The Tardis was an exact model but covered in mirrors. It stood in a corner, also covered with mirrors, so it looked like it ‘disappeared’.
The artist had the idea but not the carpentry and builder skills to execute it. That is understandable.
But the skill of the craftspeople who make the art is usually not appreciated, documented, and I don’t expect they get a share of the profits.
Painters’ studios were surely different. The artist was teaching the apprentices something s/he was very skilled at doing.
That's a very good point! I was fascinated by the case against Warhol for using another artist's print, which was actually owned by the magazine it was commissioned from. Who is the artist? The photographer? The magazine? The mixed media artist who used it all? https://news.artnet.com/art-world/the-supreme-court-ruling-lynn-goldsmith-andy-warhol-foundation-2304684
In 2011, British photographer David Slater (https://www.djsphotography.co.uk) travelled to a national park in North Sulawesi, Indonesia, and took pictures of a troop of crested black macaque monkeys. He set up a self-triggering camera, and some of the monkeys came close, attracted by the reflections in the camera lens and the shutter noise. This resulted in this wonderful ‘selfie’.
The reason I can post the photo here is because it is available on Wikipedia. They uploaded the picture and tagged it as being in the public domain, reasoning that monkeys cannot own copyright. However, Mr Slater is considering suing Wikipedia for copyright infringement. So, who took this photo?
The International Union for Conservation of Nature lists the crested black macaque as Critically Endangered (IUCN, 2020), appearing on the IUCN's Red List of Threatened Species. This is the last step before extinction in the wild. Go to https://www.wildplanettrust.org.uk/wild-conservation/sulawesi-crested-black-macaque/ for more information about conservation efforts.
Whoa, that's wild. Part of me thinks all art should be open sources, but then I do understand why there is the need for protections.
For example: I feel very conflicted by the internet archive project. The idea to make all books accessible to all people seems very important to me, and I'm very on board with that. But that then the authors of that work don't make any money from all those reads does strike me as not right.
But maybe there is a third option we're not thinking about. Perhaps internet archive can make money from some other busniess mechanism (charging companies to cite books, etc), and then use that money to distribute money to authors based on the number of reads they get?
It's worth figuring out!
Thank you for your writing, Elle. I wrote on the same topic, and came to some of the same conclusions, in an essay a few weeks ago on the role of human consciousness in how we should value art. I do disagree slightly, and maybe it’s just semantics, on the idea that art’s value is in how interesting it is, and that a specific human artist having made it is what makes it more interesting and in turn more valuable. Rather, I feel that human art is valuable because it’s a firsthand communication of the contents of a human mind. A Picasso’s monetary value may go up by virtue of being a Picasso even if it’s a simple line, but how much the market values art doesn’t equate to its artistic value. That comes from the artist’s intent, and how that intent is communicated, and how impacts the audience. Anyway, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on where we align and where we don’t: https://open.substack.com/pub/taylorberrett/p/whats-it-like-to-be-only-human-art?r=e79kh&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Yes, exactly. It's very much our minds! Your post gets there in a much more existential way but I very much agree.
I love this -> "what art really is, is a conversation with a messy, thinking, human person on a human scale."
Truly!
Though you have me thinking. If you really wanted to stand in front of my art, you could look at one of my google docs that eventually became an essay, and see the millions of edits to it I made over several weeks. You would have access to my thought process as I was having ideas, deleting them, having new ones, thinking things through. But I would also hate that because it's so messy and unfinished. The final product is what I want people to see!
Ourselves, but also other people who might resonate with it!