That artists get special dispensation when truck drivers and other working people do not is as compelling a reason as any not to separate the art from the artist. Beautifully parsed.
I really enjoyed your thoughts on this, and it got me thinking about all the stuff that has been ruined for me, specifically by the people behind the art.
Sometimes, you want the separation between artist and artwork because the love you have for someone's work feels as if it is based on a some special, mystical connection, that something intrinsic within the art speaks directly to you. Like someone has explained something about you, to you. I think that is why artists are held to a different standard. You don't want them to be flawed (however wrong this is) because when the artist turns out to hold fundamentally differing beliefs, it not only changes your view of their work, but it makes you question your own sense of self, and whether you're an arsehole for liking them in the first place. I think that's why it's such an enticing prospect to be able to enjoy their work in isolation. Unfortunately, after any unwanted revelations, I'm never really able to do that because the work always feels slightly tainted. No matter how much you try to claw back that love, it just isn't the same.
Your comment goes straight to the heart of why this is all so messy... the public exposure/takedown of a beloved creator can barely blip one person's radar, but shatter someone else's world. Fans have a different connection to creators than critics; I agree with you 100% that a simple rule like "separate the artist, etc." would, in theory, make things so much easier, but it doesn't. And yeah, it's never the name... it's kinda like a distant cousin to heartbreak.
Well written, nice flow and I wholeheartedly agree that the problems of equivocation have permeated all tranches of the cultural sphere, exacerbated by what I call "no such thing as bringing a knife to gun fight anymore", but, at least for me your premise posits a different question?
Often, the question of art/artist separation stems from broken mores, the isms and all otherwise nasty behavior be it sticks, stones or other means. And to clarify my own bias, I am all for cancel culture - fuck them all - fuck me for that matter.
But to get back to my point, I think it is only fair to also apply this not-all-neat and not-all-tidy dilemma in the direction of the ubiquitous 6-giga-pound, rampaging gorilla - AI.
Now, the jury will be deliberating for some time for sure, but early indications run the gamut from clutch your pearls to assume the position. But my question, of which your piece made me type out this silly comment, is "Will they dance to it?". What I mean by this, easier to imagine within the musical sphere, will AI music move people? If people feel it, will they even care? Which brings it back to the whole art/artist separation question.
Personally, I believe music is fucked, or more succinctly human-only created music is fucked. And I base this on the non-scientific belief that no one can really tell us why music moves us or why it does not, aside from some dissectionary strange-maths. Might as well "Bring out your Dead" when it comes to the visual arts too in my opinion (and this from someone who is piecing together a crop-frame mini view camera for shits and giggles).
But what I do wonder about is the wonderful world of words. The field of Lettres tilts more intellectual than the other arts - I think I can say that without being too much of a snob. So what will capital W We do when some filthy-compute-rich, prompt merchant spits out the next Invisible Cities, The Good Terrorist, The Killer Inside Me or The Fall (my favorite Camus, or rather my favorite book full stop.)
What will capital W We do?
Will We separate the art from the artist, the artist from the art?
Maybe I am biased, well sure I am, but my two-bits or two-bytes on this question of AI and the Arts points me toward a yellow caution sign that reads "Speed Kills". Therein, why I believe in the fuckedness of humanoid music and visual arts stems from the idea that We simply cannot keep up - those AI-tainted two fields of art are approaching or already within the exponential curve - The Wall. Whereas, the field of Lettres, might have a chance. If we can write long enough? If we can write fast enough? If we can write deep enough? And I think someone with more skill and inclination than myself should really write some defining piece about this question?
A detailed and deeply-thought reply that deserves a reply in kind. But rather than spew off the top of my head, suffice it to say that your AI question/concern is not lost on me, and worthy of a post all its own. The chief reason I haven't written anything on AI is simply because I don't know that I've yet to come up with anything that hasn't been better said and more thoroughly thought out by others much wiser and more articulate than myself.*
*And since I can't seem to hyperlink any of the text above (or figure out how to do so), I'm referring to Nick Cave's Red Hand Files nos. 218 and 248, and Will Christopher Baer's Substack ("Involuntary") entry, "Move 37: therefore I am."
That said, I can only speak for myself, but I'd ask the same question of every creator out there: let's suppose you're correct and we're all fucked, insofar as being able to keep ahead of AI's mimicry; that the day is nigh when AI will surmount every aesthetic obstacle we can think of and truly create moving, unique work independent of human creators. Let's suppose that's going to happen, sooner than later.
Right now, any writer, musician, composer, painter, photographer or other artist working today, however successful or anonymous, and assuming they have a sense of humility coupled with discipline, coupled with an honest assessment of the giants upon whose shoulders they stand, any such artist can rattle off a list of creators far better than they are, at least in their own humble estimation. I know I certainly can (starting with those two names, above). I can list a legion of writers, living and dead, that I can only hope to equal someday. Whether anyone agrees with me or not, or simply believes I'm being too humble, is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the existence of those writers has not and will not stop me from writing.
The work is the reward, something those who confuse AI prompts with creation will never understand and of which they will never know the joy.
If the urge to write, play, compose or paint burns in you, regardless of recognition or reward, the existence of another creator (better than you, more successful, or not) should have no bearing on your practice. Whether that other creator is flesh and blood or circuits and chips makes no difference.
The short version: the existence of McDonald's doesn't rob me of the enjoyment of cooking.
I'll write more on this... maybe. But again, thanks for your detailed input.
No sir, thank you for your detailed reply - an unexpected response to me just haplessly pulling the nail off to the other side. And yes, took the time to read the suggested Cave (genius) RHFs, which, while eloquent, misses the third of AAA's (artist,art,audience), but found WCB a more familiar crossroads (to be fair he had me at Move 37 as an amateur Go enthusiast), as he alludes to the third A audience, which was what your art/artist separation piece sparked for me.
All artists, writers perhaps more so, by my definition, break my third law of sailing - don't piss into the wind. Rightly or wrongly, tragedy or farce, they're all asking "Is this darkness in you, too?". Personally, I blame Camus, or my misreading of, for being so darn convincing, but I digress. I just wanted to say thanks for the reply...
That artists get special dispensation when truck drivers and other working people do not is as compelling a reason as any not to separate the art from the artist. Beautifully parsed.
I really enjoyed your thoughts on this, and it got me thinking about all the stuff that has been ruined for me, specifically by the people behind the art.
Sometimes, you want the separation between artist and artwork because the love you have for someone's work feels as if it is based on a some special, mystical connection, that something intrinsic within the art speaks directly to you. Like someone has explained something about you, to you. I think that is why artists are held to a different standard. You don't want them to be flawed (however wrong this is) because when the artist turns out to hold fundamentally differing beliefs, it not only changes your view of their work, but it makes you question your own sense of self, and whether you're an arsehole for liking them in the first place. I think that's why it's such an enticing prospect to be able to enjoy their work in isolation. Unfortunately, after any unwanted revelations, I'm never really able to do that because the work always feels slightly tainted. No matter how much you try to claw back that love, it just isn't the same.
Your comment goes straight to the heart of why this is all so messy... the public exposure/takedown of a beloved creator can barely blip one person's radar, but shatter someone else's world. Fans have a different connection to creators than critics; I agree with you 100% that a simple rule like "separate the artist, etc." would, in theory, make things so much easier, but it doesn't. And yeah, it's never the name... it's kinda like a distant cousin to heartbreak.
Well written, nice flow and I wholeheartedly agree that the problems of equivocation have permeated all tranches of the cultural sphere, exacerbated by what I call "no such thing as bringing a knife to gun fight anymore", but, at least for me your premise posits a different question?
Often, the question of art/artist separation stems from broken mores, the isms and all otherwise nasty behavior be it sticks, stones or other means. And to clarify my own bias, I am all for cancel culture - fuck them all - fuck me for that matter.
But to get back to my point, I think it is only fair to also apply this not-all-neat and not-all-tidy dilemma in the direction of the ubiquitous 6-giga-pound, rampaging gorilla - AI.
Now, the jury will be deliberating for some time for sure, but early indications run the gamut from clutch your pearls to assume the position. But my question, of which your piece made me type out this silly comment, is "Will they dance to it?". What I mean by this, easier to imagine within the musical sphere, will AI music move people? If people feel it, will they even care? Which brings it back to the whole art/artist separation question.
Personally, I believe music is fucked, or more succinctly human-only created music is fucked. And I base this on the non-scientific belief that no one can really tell us why music moves us or why it does not, aside from some dissectionary strange-maths. Might as well "Bring out your Dead" when it comes to the visual arts too in my opinion (and this from someone who is piecing together a crop-frame mini view camera for shits and giggles).
But what I do wonder about is the wonderful world of words. The field of Lettres tilts more intellectual than the other arts - I think I can say that without being too much of a snob. So what will capital W We do when some filthy-compute-rich, prompt merchant spits out the next Invisible Cities, The Good Terrorist, The Killer Inside Me or The Fall (my favorite Camus, or rather my favorite book full stop.)
What will capital W We do?
Will We separate the art from the artist, the artist from the art?
Maybe I am biased, well sure I am, but my two-bits or two-bytes on this question of AI and the Arts points me toward a yellow caution sign that reads "Speed Kills". Therein, why I believe in the fuckedness of humanoid music and visual arts stems from the idea that We simply cannot keep up - those AI-tainted two fields of art are approaching or already within the exponential curve - The Wall. Whereas, the field of Lettres, might have a chance. If we can write long enough? If we can write fast enough? If we can write deep enough? And I think someone with more skill and inclination than myself should really write some defining piece about this question?
Who knows? "Can they dance to it"
A detailed and deeply-thought reply that deserves a reply in kind. But rather than spew off the top of my head, suffice it to say that your AI question/concern is not lost on me, and worthy of a post all its own. The chief reason I haven't written anything on AI is simply because I don't know that I've yet to come up with anything that hasn't been better said and more thoroughly thought out by others much wiser and more articulate than myself.*
*And since I can't seem to hyperlink any of the text above (or figure out how to do so), I'm referring to Nick Cave's Red Hand Files nos. 218 and 248, and Will Christopher Baer's Substack ("Involuntary") entry, "Move 37: therefore I am."
That said, I can only speak for myself, but I'd ask the same question of every creator out there: let's suppose you're correct and we're all fucked, insofar as being able to keep ahead of AI's mimicry; that the day is nigh when AI will surmount every aesthetic obstacle we can think of and truly create moving, unique work independent of human creators. Let's suppose that's going to happen, sooner than later.
Right now, any writer, musician, composer, painter, photographer or other artist working today, however successful or anonymous, and assuming they have a sense of humility coupled with discipline, coupled with an honest assessment of the giants upon whose shoulders they stand, any such artist can rattle off a list of creators far better than they are, at least in their own humble estimation. I know I certainly can (starting with those two names, above). I can list a legion of writers, living and dead, that I can only hope to equal someday. Whether anyone agrees with me or not, or simply believes I'm being too humble, is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the existence of those writers has not and will not stop me from writing.
The work is the reward, something those who confuse AI prompts with creation will never understand and of which they will never know the joy.
If the urge to write, play, compose or paint burns in you, regardless of recognition or reward, the existence of another creator (better than you, more successful, or not) should have no bearing on your practice. Whether that other creator is flesh and blood or circuits and chips makes no difference.
The short version: the existence of McDonald's doesn't rob me of the enjoyment of cooking.
I'll write more on this... maybe. But again, thanks for your detailed input.
Fade.
No sir, thank you for your detailed reply - an unexpected response to me just haplessly pulling the nail off to the other side. And yes, took the time to read the suggested Cave (genius) RHFs, which, while eloquent, misses the third of AAA's (artist,art,audience), but found WCB a more familiar crossroads (to be fair he had me at Move 37 as an amateur Go enthusiast), as he alludes to the third A audience, which was what your art/artist separation piece sparked for me.
All artists, writers perhaps more so, by my definition, break my third law of sailing - don't piss into the wind. Rightly or wrongly, tragedy or farce, they're all asking "Is this darkness in you, too?". Personally, I blame Camus, or my misreading of, for being so darn convincing, but I digress. I just wanted to say thanks for the reply...
Well reasoned and well written essay
Beautifully said, Craig. Thank you.
Well said