Hell, Clown Core, 2019:
The first one, a sort of silly nightmare, approaches video surrealism far more than any absurdist play or comedy ever has. The second is reminiscent*, in a good way, of John Zorn. (As an ex-saxophonist myself I'm proud that the most bizarre cerebral work in jazz tends to come from saxophinists. See e.g. Eric Dolphy.) But what I'm most interested in, is how much more interested I am in the second one, seemingly because humans created it.
I make no argument about AI Not Being Able to Produce Real Art - I think that debate seems quite over by now, and there's no innate, essential trait differentiating AI and human-generated art outside of our skulls.If you told me I misread the date, and in fact Clown Core is all AI-generated as well, I would shrug, then having learned that, my interest would diminish. It's not just the machine-vs-human aspect of it: if I found out that say, the band Carcass (one of my favorites) had for all these years outsourced their songwriting to someone at their record label, my reaction would be similar. When I see or hear art that appeals to me, I would to know about its creators, what kind of people they are, about their backgrounds and training and what it was like to produce the work. (Note in the case of Clown Core, they've never officially revealed their identities, which makes them more compelling still.)
There may, very soon, be a status value to "artisan novels" or "artisan symphonies" produced manually by human. This troubles me only because I don't at all understand the appeal of artisanal products (soap, bread, bicycles) and in fact I might be a little too vocal about rejecting their value. Being honest, the people who get excited about them usually strike me as trying a little too hard to signal their taste and authenticity, and sometimes as old farts pining for a long-lost age. I may grudgingly be joining their ranks.
Granted, I'm not aware of any AI engines that are proactively churning out surrealist videos without human supervision, entirely motivated by their own programmed-in utility function. There are still humans involved in the decision tree to create these things, if only at a very abstract level. What if I found out that Dali would open a dictionary, roll dice, and this would determine what he painted? No, and in fact that might deepen my appreciation - because he, a fellow human being, conceived of it, and executed it. Though I'm not aware of any such experiments, I'm sure artists have tried randomizing their art in some form. In fact, the automatic painting some surrealists did strikes me as the opposite of random - trying to produce "inscapes" (like Vertigo of Eros by Roberto Matta, above) that were even more authentically the product of the artist's mind than something he deliberated over and sicklied over with the pale cast of thought. Supposing there is some deep subconscious that large language models can expose with their own products - would I care more? No - so why do I care when humans do it? The answer must be that as a social animal, I am compelled by connection with others of my species, even with someone I can never meet.
*Clown Core also uses the technique of An*l C*nt, who pioneered the lyrical technique of clearly not saying any of the printed lyrics and just screaming; possibly they make up the words after they've finished recording.
