There’s a book called The Artist’s Way by Julia Cameron. One of the main tasks is writing three pages every morning, called The Morning Pages. I personally find the first two pages quite quick and easy, but it’s that third page where the interesting stuff comes out.
I’m nine weeks into the twelve week program and it has taken me on an incredible journey of self discovery. Memories from childhood, dreams and hopes for the future. All of them uncovered to explore.
There’s something beautiful about writing with a fountain pen and paper. Setting aside time every day to dive deep and see what comes out.
The music gave me a nostalgic hit and I never played the game! The developers were clearly inspired by Sonic which was released three years earlier for the Mega Drive in 1991.
It takes tremendous skill in a number of areas to produce a video game. I do wonder if with AI generated games we’ll see more of this type of work or less!
I think responsibly developed AI (read: no copywrite infringement) for automation could help the industry tremendously. However, don't get me confused, generative AI imo has no place in games, furthermore in art as a whole.
I studied for a Fine Art BA, and I don't see an issue with generative AI in art per se. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that what matters is the outcome, not the process. If someone can produce something meaningful to other people - and it might well be something like a critique of AI using AI - then what's the issue? (That's a genuine question by the way, not rhetorical).
There's a huge amount of art I find vacuous, much of it tradtional media like painting, no need for it to be AI generated. Be open to learning about it, and if you still don't like it then that's fine. Theres's a bunch of stuff that's non-traditional like Alvin Lucier, Gustav Metzger, Hans Haacke, as well as generative sound installations by people like Brian Eno. I don't think gatekeeping art ever works - that's part of its fun! The only thing that does really get to me is the huge amount of dirty money sloshing around the art world, but that's more about ethics than aesthetics.
> I came to the conclusion a long time ago that what matters is the outcome, not the process.
I agree with you about half-way. The process of making the art isn't important. It's why songs that have amazed the world have taken anywhere between 7 hours and 7 years to produce. The outcome is informed by the life that produced it. To reiterate, the life that produced it is the most important. It's a connection to their humanity.
> I don't think gatekeeping art ever works - that's part of its fun!
You're also right, but this is primarily a dimension of taste. When I say AI has no place in art, what I am really getting at is it will have no place. I believe people will see it for what it is, and what it says about the people who use it.
Andy Warhol's art is just copied cans of soup or famous people photos. Jazz music is a thing because of the Jazz standards. Copying and remixing is art.
> I think it could really empower indie devs for instance.
I think indie devs are already pretty empowered with the number of small game engines, etc., given the quantity - and quality - of stuff they're putting out (just look at itch.io).
I’m not sure I understand. Its not required, as is evidenced by all the amazing indie games we have already pre AI. But if it helps, why not? Maybe this way there can be even more great games.
It is important to teach students about these great Indian mathematicians. I’d never heard of them and feel like I’m missing a big piece of history, mainly due to British imperialism and subjugation.
Many, many streamers have been getting away with streaming copyrighted music for a while now, by simply not recording VODs (or, recording them in such a way that the music is excluded).
My understanding is that this practice is still technically illegal (since live-broadcasting music without recording it is still something you need copyright permission for), but significantly more difficult for record companies to crack down on.
The second-last paragraph seems to cover this. In short, no - but it seems reasonable to believe this could be a solid stepping-stone on the path from here to there.
If you just want background music that won't set off any DMCA alarms use one of the generative AI music tools. Even the examples and 10-second tests are probably good enough (just loop them), LOL
By law they can't be copyrighted since they were generated by AI.
When I took photos of the northern lights on my Sony RX1 the colours became much stronger. I assumed all digital cameras captured the colours better than our eyes.
Yes, an electronic sensor is much more sensitive than our eyes. However, even within digital sensors, some are more sensitive than others. Add that sensitivity with the ability to do long exposure, and you can capture things we will never see with our naked eyes. Even with binoculars or telescopes, our eyes will just seem more photons, but pretty much without the color. That's where the digital sensors really "shine"
Our eyes definitely do not see "pretty much without the color". Born and raised in Norway I've watched more aurora borealis than I care to count. On many occassions you could see all kinds of colors and dancing lights with the naked eye, very strong and vivid, too. Important to be in a dark environment without light pollution. At the arctic circle during polar night you will see northern lights that almost match the most stunning photos you have seen.
I’m nine weeks into the twelve week program and it has taken me on an incredible journey of self discovery. Memories from childhood, dreams and hopes for the future. All of them uncovered to explore.
There’s something beautiful about writing with a fountain pen and paper. Setting aside time every day to dive deep and see what comes out.