Created with Midjourney using the prompt “a magician top hat, on a workshop table, cinematic still, hdr --ar 16:9”
In the 1960’s, an artistic movement emerged called ‘process art’.
As a rejection of the minimalist movement it grew alongside, process art was a reclamation of the value to be found in an artist’s improvisation, eccentricity, and methodology.
Artspace sums it better than I:
“Process artists forcefully rejected certain aspects of Minimalist art, turning their backs on its impersonal erasure of the hand of the artist, its immovability, and its celebration of carefully composed forms.”
Think Jackson Pollock, the forerunner of the process art movement.
Pollock’s paintings had a lasting and unmistakable traceability, with each drip and stroke of paint existing in such a visibly layered way that they could almost be “excavated”–in theory.
But his act of painting was also a performance in itself. The artistry was found in the destination, of course, but also in the journey. From Widewalls:
““While these paintings are, without a doubt, visually stunning, what counts the most is the process behind them, the idea that got everything going, the impulse of creation so palpable we can almost touch it.””
I think about process art a lot when I see the progress of generative AI.
…
I suspect that generative AI–at least for creative purposes–will fall into a “fast food” tier of art: quick-turn, mass-produced consumables with a caveated origin (lest suffer the steeper reputational risk of plagiarism).
It may shake off some of the “uncanny valley” feeling of stock photos. Or the retrofitted relevance of pre-written greeting cards. But generative AI is still an intrusion–a third party–between a human-to-human connection. Even if it maintains quality, it still increases distance.
And while I wouldn’t go so far as to say the same (and nor do I have a remotely comparable pedigree to do so), I was particularly moved by Hayao Miyazaki calling AI art “an insult to life itself”.
But an opinion on the merit of generative AI isn’t the point I’m trying to make here. In fact, I’m for many of the new pathways it can grant us. And I’m a user of it myself.
Instead, my point is that I’m enjoying watching process much, much more because of it.
…
I’m looking for (the) work.
The beta builds. The dead ends. The sawdust. The archaeology of paint splatters on canvas.
I’ll read the dev diary. I’ll watch the vlogs. I’ll listen to the voice notes.
It’s why my appreciation has grown for kitbashing, song dissections, livestream artists, and TikTok tinkerers.
We’re entering an era of post-creation. Output inundation. Preference saturation. Creative fast food.
So to continue to connect as human beings through creativity, it will no longer be enough to share just what we’ve made. We need to share how we made it.
Because when everyone’s a magician, we need to look for the ones who can explain their tricks.
…
““I don’t want to hear where the treasure is! I don’t even want to hear if there IS a treasure or not! I don’t know much, but everyone sets off to sea to find out for themselves. If Pops were to tell us anything here, then I’ll quit being a pirate! If we’re going to have a boring adventure like that, then I would rather die.””
…
- n.b.