Forms of life, forms of mind

7 responses to “Experiments in AI Art with Midjourney #5”

1. 

   Turil Cronburg

   December 15, 2023

   Some lovely stuff! And I like how you’re looking at this from a more objective view. I see AI in general as being here as a tool for humans, and other Earthlings, to use to help us communicate our own stories in ways that we never before could, or at least most of us couldn’t, without paying a lot of money to hire a designer/artist to make us images and text and song and whatnot to help us express ourselves. Now we have the option (especially with the free AI tools available) to more effectively and compellingly share our most meaningful stories of love, loss, dreams, and what practical stuff we need to work towards those dreams.

   And that’s what’s going to allow our planet to evolve into a whole organism, I believe.

   Reply
2. 

   Leah

   December 15, 2023

   Nice

   Reply
3. 

   Pamela C Lyon

   December 15, 2023

   I understand the distinction you’re making here, and appreciate you taking the time to explain it. And it is important that you do so, on one level, but on another, I’m just loving the experience of peering inside the mind of Michael Levin. All art that is a (more or less) free expression of the individual does that, provides this glimpse into the mind of the artist. As with all art, my own experience, triggers of delight and despair, history of interaction with visual art, as well as the current context generated by my bodymind are required to make it live *for me*. It takes me to other worlds, and I need that.

   Reply
   1. 

      Mike Levin

      December 16, 2023

      Indeed; I need it too. I put in that explanation because some people hate AI-generated art (or don’t think it’s art) because (for now, at least) there is no rich cognitive artist behind it, so it’s a 1-way relationship. I think there’s still value in it.

      Reply
      1. 

         Zach C

         December 16, 2023

         For most people, the hate isn’t about the tool or the art, it’s about the lack of respect of certain actors and disruptive nature it has on their work. Most artists, if you told them they would have a secure line of work in their future, would not feel threatened about AI art.

         As a consumer, it also becomes frustrating and disappointing when AI art is primarily used for commoditization: reducing cost of production to the point of bringing the quality and novelty of it to the most cynical level. We can always expect that mass production process to exist, but I suppose we hope that it won’t be the *only* use for AI art.

         I think there is an equilibrium that can be reached that respects the spectrum of cognitive creativity. I can’t say what that looks like, only the sense that it exists.

         Reply
4. 

   Marsa

   December 17, 2023

   I think its possible that who/what we consider an artist is as subjective as what we consider art.

   If an observer views something of value, they will feel the intended energy from it regardless of the cognitive state that created the view. The value of the art will speak for itself through the observers biological process/reaction to what they are viewing.
   Art can not lie, nor can it be defined- because the definition is inside the observer, intertwined inside their own understanding of the world, their own experience in that moment of reflection.

   So, if something is personally understood as art, how can the producer not be an artist?
   An atheist may still value the beauty in a sunset, even if they believe it is merely molecules and particles scattering across the sky and not painted by some divine creator. Regardless, they can say the molecules and particles created a work of art, and it can still be accepted as a valid truth.

   Reply
   1. 

      Turil Cronburg

      December 17, 2023

      Also, in addition to the words art and artist being subjective, and varying all the time even in any one individual, we have to be aware that the process of creating media is different from the outcome. One can be an artist arting, while simultaneously creating something others don’t experience as art because the outcome isn’t any different from something made by a non-art-process (see: Marcel Duchamp’s “fountain”). And we can have things we consider “art” that have no artistic processes involved (see: accidental spills making an interesting shape, or computer programs that generate pleasing patterns). This is why I define art as the process of telling a novel story using traditional techniques, with the goal of serving one’s own needs. It’s very specific, and fits into a set of creativity categories including craft, design, religion, politics, science, and basic personal expression.

      Reply