The Death of the Artist

[Shinova]

Do you think there will ever be a point in the future or far future where the artist, writer, film-maker, basically any act of creativity, ceases to exist or at least cease to exist as a profession?


For example, what if technology gets developed that anyone could fabricate a full-length book or film or create a painting instantly simply from either what they're directly imagining, or from what they would like to read/watch/experience (for longer, complex works)?

Or basically any technology that basically takes creativity away from the realm of those with the imagination and puts it into the hands of the mass public.

It doesn't neccessarily have to be that technology, or whatever.

What do you think?

[Nephtys]

Do you think there will ever be a point in the future or far future where the artist, writer, film-maker, basically any act of creativity, ceases to exist or at least cease to exist as a profession?


For example, what if technology gets developed that anyone could fabricate a full-length book or film or create a painting instantly simply from either what they're directly imagining, or from what they would like to read/watch/experience (for longer, complex works)?

Or basically any technology that basically takes creativity away from the realm of those with the imagination and puts it into the hands of the mass public.

It doesn't neccessarily have to be that technology, or whatever.

What do you think?

If such a device is made that produces an artistic anything, be it a story, movie, sculpture, dopple-holo-senso-vision or whatever... some people will be better at it than others.

If someone off the street had an idea for a book these days, they'd get killed for not knowing how to write, or how to draw, or how to direct. If this invention exists, then it'll be their imagination's limitation. Some people are not as creative, or entertaining as others.

All any advances in these kinds of things do, is make tools more readilly available for people lacking skill XYZ. Think of how easy it is to make CG Artwork now, compared to trying to paint that stuff like back in the day? It still doesn't kill the market for CG Artwork, does it?

[brianeyci]

Despite what you see in movies, writing a book has nothing to do with inspiration (there are exceptions but not so many as you think and it's usually avant garde writing that's the exception not mainstream novels). The scene of a guy suddenly getting a bright idea and sitting down in front of a typewriter keying until he's done a 120000 word novel is a big lie. Writers plot, characterize and let their conscious and subconscious work over long periods of time. Not only that but a writer has to be prepared to throw away months worth of writing or research as useless at any time if he realizes he's been on the wrong track.

A device that fabricates a book from "what they're directly imagining" would make a terrible book since what a person's imagining that moment is not as good as months of imagination, planning, drafting and rewriting, as would a device that wrote a book from "what they would like to read/watch/experience" since that would be based on their previous reading experience and would undoubtedly generate hackneyed plots, characters and settings.

Brian

[Shinova]

I could say that the technology in question scans every part of the person's conscious and subconscious mind and fabricates a story that would accomodate everything the person had in mind at that time, and obvious blanks would be filled in by the machine in a fashion that said person would most enjoy. Thus you could say, "I wish I could watch a crossover movie between Lord of the Rings and Star Wars," and the machine would scan your mind and create a LotR and SW crossover that you would enjoy the most (out of every conceivable version of a LotR/SW crossover there can be).


But then this twists the premise of the thread by making the work much more the machine's than the person's. But let's just take a gander and say that this is capable as well. What then?

[Nephtys]

Despite what you see in movies, writing a book has nothing to do with inspiration (there are exceptions but not so many as you think and it's usually avant garde writing that's the exception not mainstream novels). The scene of a guy suddenly getting a bright idea and sitting down in front of a typewriter keying until he's done a 120000 word novel is a big lie. Writers plot, characterize and let their conscious and subconscious work over long periods of time. Not only that but a writer has to be prepared to throw away months worth of writing or research as useless at any time if he realizes he's been on the wrong track.

A device that fabricates a book from "what they're directly imagining" would make a terrible book since what a person's imagining that moment is not as good as months of imagination, planning, drafting and rewriting, as would a device that wrote a book from "what they would like to read/watch/experience" since that would be based on their previous reading experience and would undoubtedly generate hackneyed plots, characters and settings.

Brian

Inspiration isn't what I'm getting at. Ideas are. Most people just can't produce a well-thought of script or storyline, or trim the fat, or add embelishments or whatever. It's just a lack of training/experience in the imagination.

Characterization is pretty hard for most people, to make multiple people seem real, and distinct.

This is really the reason why there are good film directors, and bad ones. Some people are just better at making ideas, even if they have the same tools, resources and training.

[brianeyci]

Ideas are very important, but the dirty little secret in writing is that ideas are a penny a thousand. This is what happens when you become a writer and word gets around. A friend, a family member, a relative, some guy you talk to in the supermarket buying groceries, comes up to you and says he has a great idea. You can use his idea, and write a book, but he'll split it fifty fifty with you. He thinks he's being generous. You, being a published writer, know you can think of an idea in three minutes. Le Guin thought of the Left Hand of Darkness by imagining two people pushing a sled through a frozen wasteland. The rest of the work took a hell of a lot longer than three minutes.

Writing is an art, but there is training involved and it's not all subjective. Some people just won't get calculus or chemistry, and some people won't ever learn how to write, but put enough work into it and you can characterize. Talent's important since it's an art, but craft is just as important and I'd take a well trained writer with mediocre talent over an untrained writer with huge talent any second.

But then this twists the premise of the thread by making the work much more the machine's than the person's. But let's just take a gander and say that this is capable as well. What then?

Well I say in general people do not know what they want until they see it in terms of art. And if you give them what they want, all the time, it may be unsatisfying, because what they need to be entertained may not be the same as what they want to be entertained. Let's take a mystery novel. If it scanned your brain and figured out exactly what you wanted... the worst case would be you would actually know the end, and the best is you'd have this nagging feeling you have that you've read the book before.

Brian

[Darth Wong]

Do you think there will ever be a point in the future or far future where the artist, writer, film-maker, basically any act of creativity, ceases to exist or at least cease to exist as a profession?

Some people are more creative than others. I don't see how that would change in the future. And the less creative people allow the more creative people to entertain them.

For example, what if technology gets developed that anyone could fabricate a full-length book or film or create a painting instantly simply from either what they're directly imagining, or from what they would like to read/watch/experience (for longer, complex works)?

Every single one of the books and movies developed by this technology would be very similar. If you have a single idea, eg- "wouldn't it be cool to make a story about underground monsters" and allow a computer to flesh it out, the computer will do it according to its programming, which will necessarily be rather recognizable after a while.

Or basically any technology that basically takes creativity away from the realm of those with the imagination and puts it into the hands of the mass public.

We already have word processors that make the composition of a novel incredibly easy. Novelists still exist.

[Azrael]

Do you think there will ever be a point in the future or far future where the artist, writer, film-maker, basically any act of creativity, ceases to exist or at least cease to exist as a profession?


For example, what if technology gets developed that anyone could fabricate a full-length book or film or create a painting instantly simply from either what they're directly imagining, or from what they would like to read/watch/experience (for longer, complex works)?

Or basically any technology that basically takes creativity away from the realm of those with the imagination and puts it into the hands of the mass public.

It doesn't neccessarily have to be that technology, or whatever.

What do you think?

I think you're forgetting why we all find creativity entertaining. Trying to enjoy something you've written before is like trying to enjoy a book you've read millions of times. You may not have imagined it millions of times, but it will feel just as familiar.

A future that doesn't require an army of people and millions of dollars in production costs means that we'll have far fewer people in the entertainment industry, but that industry will still exist if not for talent, then only because creating coherent universes is diffcult and time consuming and will remain so ever if the tools to do it have a direct telepathic link to your imagination. there are too many people out there who can't be arsed to refine something for years (or ever decades)when they can just sit there and watch something someone else did. All of the payoff. None of the work.

[Winston Blake]

For example, what if technology gets developed that anyone could fabricate a full-length book or film or create a painting instantly simply from either what they're directly imagining, or from what they would like to read/watch/experience (for longer, complex works)?

Or basically any technology that basically takes creativity away from the realm of those with the imagination and puts it into the hands of the mass public.

I think that Flash cartoons are already fulfilling some of this. Just imagine how an animation company in the old days would view a technology that can give the average joe the ability to create short films and gain instant worldwide distribution, all by themselves in a short time. Result? A lot of mediocre crap, massively propagating 'memes' and a lot of people getting fifteen minutes of fame.

[Patrick Degan]

For example, what if technology gets developed that anyone could fabricate a full-length book or film or create a painting instantly simply from either what they're directly imagining, or from what they would like to read/watch/experience (for longer, complex works)?

Or basically any technology that basically takes creativity away from the realm of those with the imagination and puts it into the hands of the mass public.

I think that Flash cartoons are already fulfilling some of this. Just imagine how an animation company in the old days would view a technology that can give the average joe the ability to create short films and gain instant worldwide distribution, all by themselves in a short time. Result? A lot of mediocre crap, massively propagating 'memes' and a lot of people getting fifteen minutes of fame.

Not just Flash cartoons but most graphical software on the market. At the newspaper where I now work as a layout artist, we get in ads composed by people who think having Photoshop and CorelDraw on their PCs makes them artists, going ahead and slapping together ads for their businesses, which are either in the wrong file format or so terribly composed that they are unreproducable as negatives, at least in any form that will be printable and legible. Lots of people simply do not know that artistic talent is also a lot of fucking work and it takes a lot of fucking work to develop the talent in the first place.

[Lord Zentei]

Do you think there will ever be a point in the future or far future where the artist, writer, film-maker, basically any act of creativity, ceases to exist or at least cease to exist as a profession?


For example, what if technology gets developed that anyone could fabricate a full-length book or film or create a painting instantly simply from either what they're directly imagining, or from what they would like to read/watch/experience (for longer, complex works)?

Or basically any technology that basically takes creativity away from the realm of those with the imagination and puts it into the hands of the mass public.

It doesn't neccessarily have to be that technology, or whatever.

What do you think?

I think that creativity is a trait and a skill inherent to the person, the tools are merely ways of making it manifest.

Creativity is going to be one of the last things to be automated away, if it ever is. Unless we develop a human equivalent AI, and even then humans and AIs will have differing levels of imagination, creativity and skill, leading some of them to specialize in such vocations.