This was illuminating and interesting, thank you! As a songwriter, I hope you are right that AI cannot entirely replace humans for the compelling reasons you suggest. But mass production and replication of art in film and music and images DID partially replace this connection and made it normal. People still obsess with knowing about the artist behind the art, but they don't need to hear that artist live. I saw a movie recently about Paul McCartney made some time back. I learned that it was he, not John, who was initially into avant-garde music and art. That is not the story presented generally about Paul McCartney. It doesn't change how much I like some of his songs, but it framed him differently and made my relationship to the music shift subtly. For me, it was a validation of my judgements, for others, it might feel dissonant with how they want to see him. But like most people, I don't know Paul McCartney, and have never seen him play live. Like everybody, even the oldest people alive, I grew up in a time of mass produced music. I have often wondered if this is really what we need most from music. And I love the process of recording and producing my own music, but I still have those questions. I believe nothing ever will replace live music played by human beings in intimate settings, as that is how we evolved. With any technology "advance," it seems we give up as much as we gain, maybe more. As our brains and culture become used to AI generated art, I imagine most people will probably adapt very quickly and just be engaging with the end product, or the AI will make up artist personalities for us to engage with in a simulacrum of a real engagement, like a game.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, Elizabeth! I wouldn't go so far as to claim that AI-generated art *cannot* replace human art. The claim is much weaker: with AI-generated art there is a feeling that something is *missing* (compared to human art). Whether this "feeling" (or "intution") is sufficiently strong to create sufficiently strong barriers for the spread of AI-generated art is something I'm less sure of (although it is true that the said feeling could give us *some* reason to think that there will be some "barriers" in place.). Also note the part where I say that AI-generated musicians like Anna Indiana "cannot be a social partner" because "her level of competence is not that high". We could imagine AI whose capabilities and competences are so great that we would see it as a potential social partner. Such an agent could become part of a signaling-evaluating-sorting game which could IMO eliminate the feeling that, behind the art produced by such an agent, "there is really no one to be evaluated".
I am sure you are right actually, that in the very near future (next month?) there will be AI art that doesn't feel like something is "missing." But something still IS missing--a relationship. How will that affect us? I'm not optimistic. The whole AI and art topic is kind of depressing at times. I heard a podcast producer on the radio today talking about how they have to make podcasts of uncreative things they aren't interested in, because it's what Spotify is demanding. They have to have a good relationship with Spotify or they won't make money, they won't even have a chance of working on the things they feel passionate about. The money-making algorithm is increasingly calling the shots, not human creativity--and in a year from now it will be all the more insane. We're all so dependent on these technologies. My personal strategy, at this point in the game of my life (I'm 65 and have been an artist my whole life) is to not ever be beholden to anyone. I am in a relationship with my (small) audience and gratefully accept funding (either online, in person) when someone really digs my music, but I don't connect the creation of it with money. I sing to fragile elders for my bread and butter, that's my job. That sometimes entails learning a song I don't love if one of them requests it, but that's not the same kind of compromise this producer was talking about, either time-wise or energy-wise or soul-wise. And sometimes I learn that wow, I really actually like that song after all--it's the direct, in-person relationship that is most important, an essential ingredient in art. I put my original music and videos on the streaming services, but I don't bother trying to promote them beyond my email mailing list. It's impossible. I just leave them as my breadcrumbs, my legacy if you will, in case someone who needs them can find them in all the noise.
But on a brighter note--I do think young artists will reinvent art as I believe it is meant to be experienced. It may be in underground cultures, but artistic expression and connection are basic needs for humans. And all the things you write about in this piece involve relationships--that is what is missing in the AI generated art. You cannot have a real relationship with an algorithm or a robot. I believe there will always be some people who know that and fight for authenticity.
Such a methodical and well-reasoned post! Our relationship to aesthetic experience seems to me a huge issue in the age of AI. Thank you for sharing your insights about agency and the role of art in social relations.
This was illuminating and interesting, thank you! As a songwriter, I hope you are right that AI cannot entirely replace humans for the compelling reasons you suggest. But mass production and replication of art in film and music and images DID partially replace this connection and made it normal. People still obsess with knowing about the artist behind the art, but they don't need to hear that artist live. I saw a movie recently about Paul McCartney made some time back. I learned that it was he, not John, who was initially into avant-garde music and art. That is not the story presented generally about Paul McCartney. It doesn't change how much I like some of his songs, but it framed him differently and made my relationship to the music shift subtly. For me, it was a validation of my judgements, for others, it might feel dissonant with how they want to see him. But like most people, I don't know Paul McCartney, and have never seen him play live. Like everybody, even the oldest people alive, I grew up in a time of mass produced music. I have often wondered if this is really what we need most from music. And I love the process of recording and producing my own music, but I still have those questions. I believe nothing ever will replace live music played by human beings in intimate settings, as that is how we evolved. With any technology "advance," it seems we give up as much as we gain, maybe more. As our brains and culture become used to AI generated art, I imagine most people will probably adapt very quickly and just be engaging with the end product, or the AI will make up artist personalities for us to engage with in a simulacrum of a real engagement, like a game.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, Elizabeth! I wouldn't go so far as to claim that AI-generated art *cannot* replace human art. The claim is much weaker: with AI-generated art there is a feeling that something is *missing* (compared to human art). Whether this "feeling" (or "intution") is sufficiently strong to create sufficiently strong barriers for the spread of AI-generated art is something I'm less sure of (although it is true that the said feeling could give us *some* reason to think that there will be some "barriers" in place.). Also note the part where I say that AI-generated musicians like Anna Indiana "cannot be a social partner" because "her level of competence is not that high". We could imagine AI whose capabilities and competences are so great that we would see it as a potential social partner. Such an agent could become part of a signaling-evaluating-sorting game which could IMO eliminate the feeling that, behind the art produced by such an agent, "there is really no one to be evaluated".
I am sure you are right actually, that in the very near future (next month?) there will be AI art that doesn't feel like something is "missing." But something still IS missing--a relationship. How will that affect us? I'm not optimistic. The whole AI and art topic is kind of depressing at times. I heard a podcast producer on the radio today talking about how they have to make podcasts of uncreative things they aren't interested in, because it's what Spotify is demanding. They have to have a good relationship with Spotify or they won't make money, they won't even have a chance of working on the things they feel passionate about. The money-making algorithm is increasingly calling the shots, not human creativity--and in a year from now it will be all the more insane. We're all so dependent on these technologies. My personal strategy, at this point in the game of my life (I'm 65 and have been an artist my whole life) is to not ever be beholden to anyone. I am in a relationship with my (small) audience and gratefully accept funding (either online, in person) when someone really digs my music, but I don't connect the creation of it with money. I sing to fragile elders for my bread and butter, that's my job. That sometimes entails learning a song I don't love if one of them requests it, but that's not the same kind of compromise this producer was talking about, either time-wise or energy-wise or soul-wise. And sometimes I learn that wow, I really actually like that song after all--it's the direct, in-person relationship that is most important, an essential ingredient in art. I put my original music and videos on the streaming services, but I don't bother trying to promote them beyond my email mailing list. It's impossible. I just leave them as my breadcrumbs, my legacy if you will, in case someone who needs them can find them in all the noise.
But on a brighter note--I do think young artists will reinvent art as I believe it is meant to be experienced. It may be in underground cultures, but artistic expression and connection are basic needs for humans. And all the things you write about in this piece involve relationships--that is what is missing in the AI generated art. You cannot have a real relationship with an algorithm or a robot. I believe there will always be some people who know that and fight for authenticity.
Such a methodical and well-reasoned post! Our relationship to aesthetic experience seems to me a huge issue in the age of AI. Thank you for sharing your insights about agency and the role of art in social relations.
Thank you for reading Christopher!