Nvidia Gaugan programmer's art future

I can't deny that this stuff is Really wild, soon when a company needs a new block-buster title, the owner goes down in the basement, presses a button and, instant PC and, console classic, with acting, interesting story and, Epic drama - - People are talking more and more about this - -

But, it's also about this, when all it requires of some-one to make art, is to press a button, it won't be impressive - - If I made a Rembrandt that way, no one would pay millions for it, well some dumb art - buyers might buy that until they figure it out - -

My point is, when there's zero human effort it also has zero human value, when it's just dumb art - - Why would I think it's important, it doesn't require effort or, excellence - -

It's like today, with all that CG in movies, it's sort of made them a bit worthless, like before they took the time to build massive sets, the stunt-men actually jumped off buildings and, so on - - It took blood and, guts --

In the end, what the computer is doing is a ' fad ', no more interesting than a ' Hello world ' C# code - -

Humans admire excellence and, Achievement - - the computer can never really contribute that, it's just some silicon rock with, electrical wiring - -

In the end, artists are needed because they do some-thing other people can't or, have the talent for - -

Pressing a button doesn't make you an artist, I've put more energy and, effort into writing this line, than pressing a button on a computer, and getting " Mona Lisa " - - The reason those paintings mattered were because they were excellent and, hard to come by, only one ' Mona Lisa ' - -

I wouldn't pay 2 $$ for a computer-generated image and, I would want a disclaimer letting me know what I was buying - -

In the end, it's not impressive from a human point of view, it's just empty and, vain - -

 

As are we.

 

Only a difference is degree of complexity. Every genius knows the realest truth. They just a dumb monkey. Thats why the smartest dumb monkeys ain't taking things to serious, and making games instead of whatever other dumb stuff you could be doing.

 

I still think part of the reason Mona Lisa was so revered is, it took the artist many years to become that good and, he stood out among his peers, at the time . . That's one thing, the other thing was, back then you couldn't just get a copy, even that took many hours, sometimes months, to get a forgery or, a reasonable imitation one could bring home . . That made these things collectors items that were valued - -

Who's gonna pay good money for something that isn't any more complicated than pressing a button and, which can copied and pasted 100.000 times, with the click of a button --

The reason things are expensive is because they're hard to do, and require a lot of man-hours, to do, so the workers or, artist needs money, food, daily expenses, so that drives the cost up - -

Where's the cost going to be, when you have a button that says, Press to make an interesting level, press to make an interesting character ( really just a matter of modifying a decent custom character creator, from a AA or, AAA RPG ) . .

And, what happens if somebody copies your code or, sooner or later a cheap version comes along and, means everybody can do it -- In the end, we'll only spend money and, effort on things that impress us and, are meaningful --

Having a computer randomly throw elements together so, they look like all the other stuff out there, doesn't make sense --

People are still gonna go to the greatest artists on the planet and, give them money because, what they do is what matters, no what they produce, their product - -§

 

Hmm, maybe a good artist knows deep down what he's doing is just mechanical and, that what he does could be automated, after many years of practice, an artist finally has an easy work-flow down and, that could be programmed, into a computer, like retopologize a character, that used to be a grueling proces that took a long time, people were experimenting, figuring it out, now there's good tutorials and, you know what you need to do before you've even tried to place the first polygon - -

I don't think a genius is some-one who thinks he's a dumb monkey, I think a genius is some-one who strives for excellence and, is persistent and, wise - ---

However, trying to define genius is rather elusive, for instance Albert Einstein is a genius but, so is Michael Jordan - -

In the end, even if computers could replace art-making, realistically, people would still paint and, draw, because it's fun - -

And, if some-one put 2000 hours into making a painting, he would probably charge 10.000 $ $ for it and, that'd be fair and, an art-appreciator would perhaps pay that, for it - - The price would be set by necessity, since the artist spent that much time and, he needs food and, a roof - -

In the end, only a human can innovate because, we can experience things a computer never has and, create some-thing from pure inspiration or, insight - - A computer can do what's been done before but, not take some-thing revolutionary and, start a rebellion . .. My point is, computers are good at repeating patterns, not finding them unless, it's specifically told what, to look for - -

 

Computer won't replace human art because human crave connection with each other, art is a way to connect people so we can get angry, moved, please because someone else is different/similar, he want to care, to relate to another experience to feel like we exist and we aren't alone. The artifact quality called piece of art is just the tools to do that, it's inherent quality matter much less than the promise to relate to someone else. Execution is a way to relate, you know someone made effort to do that, you can understand the experience behind that effort, and that's what moves you.

Computer can't provide that, they can only provide entertainment, at best a mirror to look back at us in the most complex Rorschach test, but not to connect because the computer has no experience of its own, nothing to say, no existence, no emotion that matter to him it want to share. As such easy access to one button art will indeed create a saturation of entertainment, but that saturation will bring back a culture of authenticity, imperfect thing done by human, to be shared, to relate.

Artist has always be curator of experience, even the entertainer had to know what makes people tick, to select and compose thing to express a singular experience in the most relatable way, either by admiration through skills or empathy with story. Curator will have a new meaning with this new creative ecosystem, if everything can exist at any moment, it will be a job to navigate through the strate of creation to find the unique form, it will take skills, taste and literacy to get the right mixture, which are the very core why artist train in the art. In the end we won't relate to the machine, but the excellent taste of the curator who know you enough to find that one story you can relate.

It's not the end ...

Artist will still be artist.