Nick Cave on ChatGPT and the creative process

What is art? That’s a rhetorical question, because this is a highly debated topic and the answers have changed over time. There was a thousand years where art could not be separated from religious expression. There was a period where only technical mastery was considered important and the artist relatively unimportant. It varies by culture, time period, and even down to the individual.

And once you can agree on something that should be art; there will be disagreements as to whether a particular example is worthy of the title. Is Nick Cave’s “Into my Arms” art? Is the Spice Girls “Wannabe”?

Many years ago at the start of my career I was an engineer of the traditional variety working for a Smart Metering company. There was one analog electrical engineer there who I would best describe as a “mad genius”. His designs were constrained to solve a very boring practical problem, yes, but they were also creative, beautiful, and I would argue, art. Yes you need a degree in electrical engineering to appreciate them, but I guarantee that any such engineer would not fail to be moved by the beauty and elegance of his designs.

> I don't care much who wrote the code I'm running or if it was AI generated. There's nothing human being shared there, it solves a problem, and all that really matters is that it solves the problem well.

Much like with my example of the Smart Meter, the tradesmen installing it could care less about the beauty within. However I do appreciate beautiful elegant code, rare as it is. But name for me any human creative endeavour that is not 99% meaningless, repetitive, soulless drivel?

Something special does feel lost by us being able to play a (near) perfect violin sound at the press of a button.

On the other hand, some lovely pieces have been made with those buttons.

It seems reasonable that new technologies might stretch both of these outcomes, maybe not in equal parts.

But even before that I'm not convinced that about your claim. I'll concede that most artists whose works have survived for a period will have done so for patronage, because others will have faced severe limits on production. E.g. Haydn being able to be a court musician for the Esterhazy's ensured his work was played in front of an audience and associated with status, and so secured it distribution that someone composing and playing in less privileged positions did not enjoy (and indeed that Haydn himself did not enjoy at the start of his attempts to make a living as a musician after he could no longer sing in a choir).

For large parts of time we can expect most art to have gotten lost because it was not written down and recorded, or because it was produced or kept in ways that hampered its longevity.

E.g. already under the Chinese Tang dynasty we know that art was seen as an acceptable pastime and that while patronage happened, it was not a particularly desirable job, to the point that one of the earliest known Chinese painter was by a man - Yan Liben - who apparently became ashamed when he was referred to as "the imperial painter" and warned his son not learn to paint to avoid his fate of being known for it, because it was lower status than his actual paying job in the imperial administration, and his painting was something he at one point was ridiculed for.

People draw or make music or create stories whether or not we get paid for it, and even in situations where it's seen in a negative light, and we've done so for tens of thousands of years.

As for your last question: With games, I see a pretty clear distinction between those designed to quickly make lots of people addicted to the point where they spend as much money as possible, and those that primarily aim to transmit experiences or emotions.

Thinking about other businesses, I guess there's also a distinction between the short term revenue optimising ones, and those that focus on delighting the customer. Thinking about it, I should probably also consider that art, as I think parent suggested. Anything that's being created for a primary purpose other than short term revenue possibly.

So in summary, I suppose whether or not something is art is better decided based on the intentions of the creator, not the tools they use for creation.