I think you’re asking exactly the right question. I have seen even fellow 3D artists struggle with answering this. Where is the legitimacy when a machine does work for me? and what -as an artist- do I bring to the table? As an illustrator and 3D animator, my answer is : intent. As long as I am controlling the important variables, I am controlling the gist of my creation. I am creating what I see with my mind’s eye, using the sensibility and the motor control that I’ve developed through years of practice. What my 3D program does for me is essentially give me virtual clay to sculpt with, virtual armatures to rig with, virtual photons to render with. But I’m the one drawing textures, I’m the one handling the paintbrush, moving those controllers in the timeline, ultimately creating that vision. And I think this stays valid even when I’m using an AI texture generator to fill in some secondary stuff I can’t be bothered to work hours on : it’s not relevant to the intent of the film/picture.
What does that mean for Jackson Pollock style paintings, where the content of the painting is at least partly determined by chance?
Or algorithmic art, where the artist writes code for a computer to execute (such as a fractal renderer or cellular automata) but doesn’t necessarily know what the final result will look like?
Or Duchamp’s Fountain, or photography in general, where you’re just adding a frame to a thing you didn’t create.
I feel like 10 years ago it would be very uncontroversial to say something like “art is as much discovery and the act of selection as it is creation”, but not so much now.
I feel like all of those are or were driven by creative intent. I am personally not moved much by Duchamp or Pollock, I feel like they exist more to advance the discourse than being art pieces in themselves. Then again I am not looking for an all-encompassing definition of art.
Why include photography here ? do you not feel most of the work lies in selecting a moment in time & a point of view ?
I feel like 10 years ago it would be very uncontroversial to say something like “art is as much discovery and the act of selection as it is creation”, but not so much now.
Because, as a reaction to generative AI, so much emphasis is now placed on authorial intent, and the interplay of that intent and the process by which the artist realizes it. Such as being able to recognize a specific artist’s mannerisms and read emotions into the shape of their individual brush strokes. Like in your previous comment:
I am creating what I see with my mind’s eye, using the sensibility and the motor control that I’ve developed through years of practice.
I feel as if 10 years ago the conversation was very different. I think back then if someone said “the most important thing about art is being able to see the imprints of the artist’s will flowing from their mind, through their hand, and into the workpiece” people would immediately bring up something like Fountain and say that art can also lie in selection and the creation of context, not just in the creation of the object itself.
I think you’re asking exactly the right question. I have seen even fellow 3D artists struggle with answering this. Where is the legitimacy when a machine does work for me? and what -as an artist- do I bring to the table? As an illustrator and 3D animator, my answer is : intent. As long as I am controlling the important variables, I am controlling the gist of my creation. I am creating what I see with my mind’s eye, using the sensibility and the motor control that I’ve developed through years of practice. What my 3D program does for me is essentially give me virtual clay to sculpt with, virtual armatures to rig with, virtual photons to render with. But I’m the one drawing textures, I’m the one handling the paintbrush, moving those controllers in the timeline, ultimately creating that vision. And I think this stays valid even when I’m using an AI texture generator to fill in some secondary stuff I can’t be bothered to work hours on : it’s not relevant to the intent of the film/picture.
What does that mean for Jackson Pollock style paintings, where the content of the painting is at least partly determined by chance?
Or algorithmic art, where the artist writes code for a computer to execute (such as a fractal renderer or cellular automata) but doesn’t necessarily know what the final result will look like?
Or Duchamp’s Fountain, or photography in general, where you’re just adding a frame to a thing you didn’t create.
I feel like 10 years ago it would be very uncontroversial to say something like “art is as much discovery and the act of selection as it is creation”, but not so much now.
I feel like all of those are or were driven by creative intent. I am personally not moved much by Duchamp or Pollock, I feel like they exist more to advance the discourse than being art pieces in themselves. Then again I am not looking for an all-encompassing definition of art.
Why include photography here ? do you not feel most of the work lies in selecting a moment in time & a point of view ?
I do feel that way, which is why in the next paragraph I mention selection.
Ah, I see, ok.
Why not now ?
Because, as a reaction to generative AI, so much emphasis is now placed on authorial intent, and the interplay of that intent and the process by which the artist realizes it. Such as being able to recognize a specific artist’s mannerisms and read emotions into the shape of their individual brush strokes. Like in your previous comment:
I feel as if 10 years ago the conversation was very different. I think back then if someone said “the most important thing about art is being able to see the imprints of the artist’s will flowing from their mind, through their hand, and into the workpiece” people would immediately bring up something like Fountain and say that art can also lie in selection and the creation of context, not just in the creation of the object itself.
And here we have it exactly: intentionality is what distinguishes art from slop.
Maybe it’s not all there is…, but I think it’s at least a good starting point