Hacker News Reader

> The creation of the synthesizer didn't kill the guitar

That's a bad argument. First of all, it probably did replace guitar parts. Computers with plugins certainly did. Second, the argument was rather that it would replace musicians. And it did that too. Modern samplers replace entire orchestras. Not that it's a bad thing per se (after all, who can afford even a small string section?), but it did happen. Third, this doesn't take the same role in drawing a synthesizer takes in music production.

> I love that humanity has developed so many new highly advanced tools which allow greater artistic expression by a broader range of people.

In der Beschränkung zeigt sich erst der Meister (It is in working within limits that the master reveals himself).

It sounds to me like you are approaching this from a capitalist perspective.

The invention of the synth and samplers has definitely replaced the jobs of many instrumentalists. Despite that, people still learn how to play the guitar, the violin, the trumpet, etc.

However, it also decoupled the roles of musician and instrumentalist so that a wider range of people can express themselves musically without dedicating a majority of their life to learning to play one or more instruments.

AI art tools are going to do the same thing - the roles of 'artist' and 'painter/draw-er/whatever' were previously tightly coupled but you no longer have to have the raw technical skills.

As it was with music, this is probably a net benefit to society since it allows so many more people to express themselves artistically. It will cost some people jobs, though.

It will also deter some people from learning to draw/paint but there will still be plenty of people who do it anyways.

Where does capitalism vs. any other world view fit in this disscussion?

1. Does capitalism somehow obstruct people expressing themselves musically? Does nationalized ownership of production means or being ruled by clergy stimulate it somehow?

2. Is there a world-view that enables (advanced) musical expression without studying?

3. Is it artistic expression if you bang out a few random words on a keyboard and something is generated in return?

4. What makes you think that this (the topic still being AI generated art) has already happened in music? AFAIK, those tools are pretty limited, and barely accessible. If it did, what makes you think that it benefitted society?

5. How does many more people expressing themselves artistically benefit society?

5b. 5, if it doesn't require any effort?

Well, let me put it like this: Ableton (and other DAWs) along with virtual instruments did certainly open up music production, in a way that answers 1.) And 2.).

I do not own an organ, but I can get a pretty good VST alternative.

People have been producing electronic music without a lot of formal musical training for decades now.

Except to an artist, none of this is new or surprising. I've seen a common theme where in people purely in tech underestimate the range of topics already explored in art and philosophy. These things have been discussed for well over a century:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32676006

In your link he identifies the pieces by the artist. No matter how abstract or challenging or whatever, Duchamp and Moholy-Nagy still got to go to cocktail parties and call themselves artists. That's the new thing.

I'm not sure I get what you're saying. Can you clarify? No one can stop you from calling yourself an artist.

But how do you regulate it? One can setup Disco Diffusion on their own computer, generate some pleasing results that they desire, and go over it on a separate layer, drawing everything "from scratch", then deleting the AI-generated layer.

You don't. Trying to do so would be similar to the crazy lengths schools have gone to to prevent cheating during remote schooling. It's on us to adapt our systems so that they make sense in the new environment.

Tracing over reference images is already widespread in art and has been for centuries. The only difference would be the ability to generate any reference you want. Sounds like a good thing.

Why does it need to be regulated?

> I suspect a lot of AI artwork will end up looking kinda same-y after a while

There is a definitely "look" to MidJourney pieces, that once you've seen a bunch, they're somewhat easy to pick out.

> The creation of the synthesizer

compare music as played in a cultural setting, say 100 years ago. and the avalanche of dance tracks in the last thirty years (ravers, you are not invited to do this test). Honestly tell me that creatively nothing is lost in musical arts.

1922 was 100 years ago, here's some music from that year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpeBSBceSHk

I have a music TV service and I have to say that today we have very deep and creative music and bland and shallow too.

Technology turned up artists expressiveness incredibly, but a good artist can create wonders with extremely limited tools and a bad one can't create anything good spending god's money on expensive gear. We have good artists today too.

Okay: creatively, nothing is lost in the musical arts.

Music is more creative and varied than ever. You just don't like it as much.

Exactly, the new stuff feeds back into the old stuff and adds to the overall variety. Yesterday I listened to someone cover an Aphex Twin song on a harp.

Some researchers don’t agree with this:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/is-pop-mus...

If you only count 'pop music', of course not. But there is more music being made that isn't pop than ever.

Except people said the same thing in 1970 compared to 1870 when there was essentially no digital influence on art in 1970.

Compared to the 1800s, art has been pushed towards things that are "simpler" in all areas and it's not because of digitalization. Rothko didn't happen because of a bucket fill tool.

> art has been pushed towards things that are "simpler" in all areas

This can't be true for still images. Not only the quantity of art being produced by digital means but the variation and quality has exploded since the democratization of digital painting. Certain styles are in vogue but there are countless examples of wild experimentation. Technical ability also seems greatly enhanced by these tools. Add to that all of the forms that weren't even possible 30 years ago and I strongly doubt we are in any way losing variety or quality in art. Maybe the sheer quantity is the problem, it's harder to find the really great art amongst the ever expanding ocean of generic art.

If you go to any contemporary art institute it's full of still images which are just solid colors or like underwear stapled onto a canvas. Even if you like that, most digital art is just anime girls with large breasts.

The digital music you're complaining is just one portion of what is being made and it has mass appeal; you can also complain that sitcoms are so much worse Citizen Kane or McDonald's is so much worse than fine dining used to be. There's still nuanced music and film and food being made, and the complaint that popular stuff is "crude" is basically just a normal refrain in all areas of art, and I don't think digitalization is the primary culprit.

"Art institutes" I'll give you, but surely you agree those are a pretty limited subset of what all art is. And even one look at one site like deviantART disproves your ideas about what most digital art is.

I say this with no snark intended: you are demonstrably in a filter bubble and need to expand your horizons before you can accurately make comments about what "most" art is

Deviantart is effectively a filter to specific subset of digital art. It is reasonable to complain that SoundCloud isn't filling your "deviantart but for music" pseudo -curation needs, but that's super different than saying digitalization has somehow uniquely 'ruined' music.

I'm confused about what you're arguing for but this part:

> Deviantart is effectively a filter to specific subset of digital art

may be true since it is a community of artists that tend to have their own sub-genres that they move in but I believe the other poster was just giving it as the most popular example. Deviantart is really just the tip of the digital art iceberg, you can search and find a multitude of other sites hosting art communities as well as the sites of individual creators, YouTube and Twitch streams, Discord servers, etc.

Im arguing that all forms of art including both digital art and music is still "good" and none of it has been "ruined".

The very first OP in this thread is arguing that music was ruined by the availability of digital music compared to music 100 years ago. I think this is just the standard "kids these days" griping. I was trying to say that digital art isn't special, in that most of it is also crap but it's not hard to find good stuff. Music is the same as that and has not been ruined.

If you want to argue against the modern music industry I'm right there with you, but (as just one example) I can't imagine movies of the last 50 years without synthesizers. Also, some of my favorite guitar players of all time also use synthesizers heavily in their music to create additional textures.

Noone wants to bang to mozart bro.

Yes, but: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MFbn8EbB4k

:)

I stand somewhat corrected! :) Always happy to add new tracks to my mix.