Interesting that you write about accessibility in enjoying music since it feels like a lot of the discourse is on the accessibility of creating art right now. Would love to hear your thoughts :)
I haven't personally engaged in the discourse on the accessibility of creating art, but overall the dissemination of music software, drawing software, video editing software, etc is a net good in my eyes. Just like when science or math was accessible to more people, democratizing art allows for nothing but more innovation.
Obviously this democratization also leads to a lot more "objectively" terrible art (objectively bad art is a whole different topic I haven't done enough reading on to create a proper definition or even discussion on), but that only means that more people are exposed to what is "bad". There were bad composers and bad artists back when art creation was inaccessible, we just don't remember them because they weren't good.
I do think that a part of this discourse does revolve around AI "art", but I am *firmly* in the camp that AI is not capable of creating what we call art. In that sense, the tools to create visual or prose based communication (trying to avoid the term art here) may be considered to be *too* accessible, in the same way that some pretentious people might argue that Taylor Swift being as accessible as she is is pretense for calling her art harmful or "bad".
I do think that the accessibility afforded by AI tools is harmful, especially for those who would "cheat" the actual creation process by using nothing but an algorithm that's effectively stealing from other artists (and funnily enough, often stealing from other AI generated slop). I do not think that the accessibility of Taylor Swift's music is harmful to music consumption. Music (and art in general) is a net good in my view.
It will be fascinating to see how this discourse evolves as art creation tools evolve, and as generative AI tools only come into wider and wider use. (There's also a whole discussion about how capitalism discourages the creation of art and how generative AI is only emboldening that, but again I haven't read enough to make more than surface level commentary).
Thanks for the comment, it certainly is a fascinating discussion, and if school/work ever lets up enough for me to think on it, maybe you'll see a post about it someday (side note but I also try to have each of my posts talk about something that I don't see getting discussed widely, so if I feel like I have nothing new to say on the topic it's likely that I'll avoid writing on it.)
Interesting that you write about accessibility in enjoying music since it feels like a lot of the discourse is on the accessibility of creating art right now. Would love to hear your thoughts :)
I haven't personally engaged in the discourse on the accessibility of creating art, but overall the dissemination of music software, drawing software, video editing software, etc is a net good in my eyes. Just like when science or math was accessible to more people, democratizing art allows for nothing but more innovation.
Obviously this democratization also leads to a lot more "objectively" terrible art (objectively bad art is a whole different topic I haven't done enough reading on to create a proper definition or even discussion on), but that only means that more people are exposed to what is "bad". There were bad composers and bad artists back when art creation was inaccessible, we just don't remember them because they weren't good.
I do think that a part of this discourse does revolve around AI "art", but I am *firmly* in the camp that AI is not capable of creating what we call art. In that sense, the tools to create visual or prose based communication (trying to avoid the term art here) may be considered to be *too* accessible, in the same way that some pretentious people might argue that Taylor Swift being as accessible as she is is pretense for calling her art harmful or "bad".
I do think that the accessibility afforded by AI tools is harmful, especially for those who would "cheat" the actual creation process by using nothing but an algorithm that's effectively stealing from other artists (and funnily enough, often stealing from other AI generated slop). I do not think that the accessibility of Taylor Swift's music is harmful to music consumption. Music (and art in general) is a net good in my view.
It will be fascinating to see how this discourse evolves as art creation tools evolve, and as generative AI tools only come into wider and wider use. (There's also a whole discussion about how capitalism discourages the creation of art and how generative AI is only emboldening that, but again I haven't read enough to make more than surface level commentary).
Thanks for the comment, it certainly is a fascinating discussion, and if school/work ever lets up enough for me to think on it, maybe you'll see a post about it someday (side note but I also try to have each of my posts talk about something that I don't see getting discussed widely, so if I feel like I have nothing new to say on the topic it's likely that I'll avoid writing on it.)