That was one of the first books on computer graphics. I loved it.
I will admit that as a software dev and a former 3d modeller and animator I may be too close to how the digital paint and canvas are made to get excited. Another reason is the infinite number of works that can be produced by machines running the same algorithms, which has an unfortunate effect of turning artworks from an event to mass-produced objects (or renderings on LCD screens). That mass-production aspect removed barriers to entry to become an artist, see the deluge of "abstract art" on Etsy and hundreds of tutorials on how to produce it on YouTube. There just isn't anything special about it. I understand that this is not new, painters are still salty about photography and photographers are not happy about digital distribution of their works on a mass scale without compensation. And I know that mass production of artworks is not new; in the past, master painters or engravers ran workshops that produced works "in the style of" too. Still, there was some effort required to produce such works. I think the perception of generative art suffers from the same thing that makes it possible: ease of access to a lot of compute power for next to nothing.
I spent over 10 years of my life working with 3d graphics and finally went back to photography and recently to film photography. I feel more involved in the process of creation and there is a physical artifact at the end of the process. Once it is produced it needs no power to enjoy it unlike generative art that needs a screen to be seen (some of it can be printed in 2d or 3d).
As for AI, I see it as a threat to all who invested their time and effort into creating business models that support them in the digital ___domain. That value is being taken away from them now. Technology applied to the creative space has always been about improving efficiency of the creative process and offering new tools, but this time round there is an assumption that all that we create is fair game for the AI companies and that we should accept it while they monetize it. There is no model for the creator to make a living from his creations in the AI space and I think that's dishonest.
The model for creators to make a living after AI hoovers everything up is simple: it's called revolution. You pull up on the wealthy person, and you take ownership of their AI, and make it free and open source for all. Then the AI production system can provide for any quality of life needs, and you no longer have to do any art for any reason other than you enjoy it.
Remember, art is fundamentally worthless bullshit that we do because life is miserable and terrifying, and we're obsessive miserable bastards. There's no reason to make it a living, except to enslave artists to the whims of the wealthy. We can just take from the wealthy, instead.
Seize the means of production from capitalists, and you'll be free to be make art without the added misery of having to please bastards with too much money and no real love of the process of art. But continue defining art as having to produce revenue and support the living of artists, and you're just fighting for continued slavery at the hands of the wealthy. I say seize the means instead, using extreme measures if necessary.
I will admit that as a software dev and a former 3d modeller and animator I may be too close to how the digital paint and canvas are made to get excited. Another reason is the infinite number of works that can be produced by machines running the same algorithms, which has an unfortunate effect of turning artworks from an event to mass-produced objects (or renderings on LCD screens). That mass-production aspect removed barriers to entry to become an artist, see the deluge of "abstract art" on Etsy and hundreds of tutorials on how to produce it on YouTube. There just isn't anything special about it. I understand that this is not new, painters are still salty about photography and photographers are not happy about digital distribution of their works on a mass scale without compensation. And I know that mass production of artworks is not new; in the past, master painters or engravers ran workshops that produced works "in the style of" too. Still, there was some effort required to produce such works. I think the perception of generative art suffers from the same thing that makes it possible: ease of access to a lot of compute power for next to nothing.
I spent over 10 years of my life working with 3d graphics and finally went back to photography and recently to film photography. I feel more involved in the process of creation and there is a physical artifact at the end of the process. Once it is produced it needs no power to enjoy it unlike generative art that needs a screen to be seen (some of it can be printed in 2d or 3d).
As for AI, I see it as a threat to all who invested their time and effort into creating business models that support them in the digital ___domain. That value is being taken away from them now. Technology applied to the creative space has always been about improving efficiency of the creative process and offering new tools, but this time round there is an assumption that all that we create is fair game for the AI companies and that we should accept it while they monetize it. There is no model for the creator to make a living from his creations in the AI space and I think that's dishonest.