In an attempt to help out, I realized doing this comment turns out to be highly appropriate to the subject matter of the deep dive itself.
Since Ted's photo is captioned, "not sure where I shot this, but I sure do wonder where. (TH)" I thought I'd help out. I dragged the photo into a google image search (click that little camera icon in the search bar and drag and drop,) and got a quick result telling me the artist that created the work is Eve De Haan, a London based artist that often uses neon text in her commentary artwork. A few clicks later I found her official site https://www.halfaroastchicken.com/ (The site name itself has an interesting backstory into her approach to her art as well.) Going to her Exhibitions section we can find that the work was first created for Art Miami 2022.
While properly associating appreciated art with the artist who made it is a laudable goal to strive for in and of itself, I have to confess that the search was made infinitely easier by the integration of AI in the search processes for me. Image search itself is substantially more accurate and able to find simularity in various sourcess much better than it used to be limited to.
Of course, you still have to follow the leads to the origins to be truly accurate. (There are hundreds of photographs of the artwork simiilar to Ted's in various locations where the artwork has been situated which gang tackles the subject of the search.) There were some misleading links that had to be fereted out among the returned results. But, I was able to navigate through to the proper attributions and verify by my own eye the true original artist who made the work.
AI was helpful as an "assist" in this case. I'd never trust what I get from AI as an end to a means. But as a means to an end, with discernment and human intelligence in the mix, it can be of great help.
What’s important to me is the process. AI seeks to reduce the process. I want to spend the time figuring out what I think, not what AI thinks based on the training data it was given. I want to enjoy art where the artist has taken the time to figure out what they think.
What AI is very good for us looking for patterns in huge sets of data and approaching that data differently than humans would and this could be very useful for some avant guarde storytelling but that’s kind of academic. I imagine it’ll be able to churn out formulaic movies like crazy but how much appetite do we have for this and how long will it take to pare down “the movie” to some anomalous platonic anti-ideal we’re all tired of? I think it’s good news for indie artists because it’ll hollow out the corporate model, which people are already tiring of, and we’ll go looking for something original.
But even that all aside — AI doesn’t flow like human art does. That’s the tell for me. In writing it’s a lack of understanding about the musicality and flow of a sentence that comes naturally to people who learned language verbally first. I actually find it really disorienting because it’s a mental off-ramp disguised as natural speech patterns. You end up out of the story in the way non-sequiters and tangents take you out of the story, but the story is still on track and there’s no markers to bring you back on board. I can’t see a machine ever being able to fully emulate that because it’s just not how they work and it’s a thing WE have a hard time communicating because it’s so natural to us.
I’ve been dreaming about and making micro-budget films since the early 2000s. Every week, I devote time to understanding and exploring tools considered AI-powered to understand their range, limits, and potential.
As the months pass, it’s becoming very clear to me that we may be entering a mind-blowing leapfrog period. The way some of us, or maybe just I, were making DIY films five years ago may soon feel as old as the way people made films 25 to 50 years ago.
That could impact us in one of two ways. If your brain allows for new learning and adaptation, it’s going to be a new day. If you feel comfortable making art exactly as you always have, then hold fast. Don’t let anyone, or anything, take away the pleasure of how you choose to spend time with your craft.
But we are evolving into a new practice of building filmworks, not just films. These works will serve an audience looking for something more immersive, more interactive, and more layered across multiple medium platforms than passive viewing.
And while there will always be an audience for classic cinema, the distribution pathways are already moving in a different direction. They’ll continue to evolve, consolidate and bottleneck to remain indispensable. Filmmakers will have to decide whether they want to adapt with them, resist them, or build new pathways of their own.
“If your brain allows for new learning and adaptation, it’s going to be a new day. If you feel comfortable making art exactly as you always have, then hold fast. Don’t let anyone, or anything, take away the pleasure of how you choose to spend time with your craft.”
I’ve always felt that as social media proliferated, creators could utilize it to build massive empires but eventually we would see its plateau and eventual fizzling as the true essence of art resurfaces. The tech will remain and creatives who didn’t grow massively because of it will benefit from the next big tech that provides the same opportunity. AI is that.
I think you’re right in artist holding fast to their way of making art without losing themselves to keep up with the joneses.
The romance question is great. My bet: AI can generate the footage but never the longing behind it — it reflects a vision, it can't yearn for one. Cinema survives wherever someone means the frame. The tool's a mirror; the filmmaker's still the meaning-maker. Free book in that key thru 6/3: amazon.com/dp/B0H3HY8W9F
In The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams joked that philosophers demanded “rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty” once a machine started producing answers. The modern AI panic has created the same economy. Vast numbers of academics, ethicists, and professional critics now make careers denouncing systems they scarcely understand, because alarmism pays better than technical competence and confusion is easier to sell than clarity.
In an attempt to help out, I realized doing this comment turns out to be highly appropriate to the subject matter of the deep dive itself.
Since Ted's photo is captioned, "not sure where I shot this, but I sure do wonder where. (TH)" I thought I'd help out. I dragged the photo into a google image search (click that little camera icon in the search bar and drag and drop,) and got a quick result telling me the artist that created the work is Eve De Haan, a London based artist that often uses neon text in her commentary artwork. A few clicks later I found her official site https://www.halfaroastchicken.com/ (The site name itself has an interesting backstory into her approach to her art as well.) Going to her Exhibitions section we can find that the work was first created for Art Miami 2022.
While properly associating appreciated art with the artist who made it is a laudable goal to strive for in and of itself, I have to confess that the search was made infinitely easier by the integration of AI in the search processes for me. Image search itself is substantially more accurate and able to find simularity in various sourcess much better than it used to be limited to.
Of course, you still have to follow the leads to the origins to be truly accurate. (There are hundreds of photographs of the artwork simiilar to Ted's in various locations where the artwork has been situated which gang tackles the subject of the search.) There were some misleading links that had to be fereted out among the returned results. But, I was able to navigate through to the proper attributions and verify by my own eye the true original artist who made the work.
AI was helpful as an "assist" in this case. I'd never trust what I get from AI as an end to a means. But as a means to an end, with discernment and human intelligence in the mix, it can be of great help.
What’s important to me is the process. AI seeks to reduce the process. I want to spend the time figuring out what I think, not what AI thinks based on the training data it was given. I want to enjoy art where the artist has taken the time to figure out what they think.
What AI is very good for us looking for patterns in huge sets of data and approaching that data differently than humans would and this could be very useful for some avant guarde storytelling but that’s kind of academic. I imagine it’ll be able to churn out formulaic movies like crazy but how much appetite do we have for this and how long will it take to pare down “the movie” to some anomalous platonic anti-ideal we’re all tired of? I think it’s good news for indie artists because it’ll hollow out the corporate model, which people are already tiring of, and we’ll go looking for something original.
But even that all aside — AI doesn’t flow like human art does. That’s the tell for me. In writing it’s a lack of understanding about the musicality and flow of a sentence that comes naturally to people who learned language verbally first. I actually find it really disorienting because it’s a mental off-ramp disguised as natural speech patterns. You end up out of the story in the way non-sequiters and tangents take you out of the story, but the story is still on track and there’s no markers to bring you back on board. I can’t see a machine ever being able to fully emulate that because it’s just not how they work and it’s a thing WE have a hard time communicating because it’s so natural to us.
Thank you so much for sharing my article! I’m glad I could help contribute to this piece.
I’ve been dreaming about and making micro-budget films since the early 2000s. Every week, I devote time to understanding and exploring tools considered AI-powered to understand their range, limits, and potential.
As the months pass, it’s becoming very clear to me that we may be entering a mind-blowing leapfrog period. The way some of us, or maybe just I, were making DIY films five years ago may soon feel as old as the way people made films 25 to 50 years ago.
That could impact us in one of two ways. If your brain allows for new learning and adaptation, it’s going to be a new day. If you feel comfortable making art exactly as you always have, then hold fast. Don’t let anyone, or anything, take away the pleasure of how you choose to spend time with your craft.
But we are evolving into a new practice of building filmworks, not just films. These works will serve an audience looking for something more immersive, more interactive, and more layered across multiple medium platforms than passive viewing.
And while there will always be an audience for classic cinema, the distribution pathways are already moving in a different direction. They’ll continue to evolve, consolidate and bottleneck to remain indispensable. Filmmakers will have to decide whether they want to adapt with them, resist them, or build new pathways of their own.
“If your brain allows for new learning and adaptation, it’s going to be a new day. If you feel comfortable making art exactly as you always have, then hold fast. Don’t let anyone, or anything, take away the pleasure of how you choose to spend time with your craft.”
I’ve always felt that as social media proliferated, creators could utilize it to build massive empires but eventually we would see its plateau and eventual fizzling as the true essence of art resurfaces. The tech will remain and creatives who didn’t grow massively because of it will benefit from the next big tech that provides the same opportunity. AI is that.
I think you’re right in artist holding fast to their way of making art without losing themselves to keep up with the joneses.
The romance question is great. My bet: AI can generate the footage but never the longing behind it — it reflects a vision, it can't yearn for one. Cinema survives wherever someone means the frame. The tool's a mirror; the filmmaker's still the meaning-maker. Free book in that key thru 6/3: amazon.com/dp/B0H3HY8W9F
In The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams joked that philosophers demanded “rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty” once a machine started producing answers. The modern AI panic has created the same economy. Vast numbers of academics, ethicists, and professional critics now make careers denouncing systems they scarcely understand, because alarmism pays better than technical competence and confusion is easier to sell than clarity.
https://jbsections.substack.com/p/academics-denouncing-aino-technical