Huh? Every single thing that could be considered artistic still needs to be done, it’s just that now there’s a new tool that allows you to skip some of the non artistic parts.
Then credit the people who actually did the artistic input—the composers, the writers, and so on. Not some manufactured figurehead identity slapped onto an algorithm.
On the other hand, you could say that what is actually getting the praise is the community in general with all the anonymous people that made the phenomena possible. But I don’t know if it works in a way that makes that applicable. Or if it’s actually true.
By, uh, many people? Especially those who like to judge artists by their vocal skills? Singing is an art by itself.
And if you need a citation for that, then… I’m not sure what to say except engaging into complex and abstract discussions on the topic of “what is art?”, which will distract us from the immediate subject.
Why can’t a vocaloid have a personality? Does Gregory House have a personality?
I think the idea of “Miku” is a stand in for a large group of people, just like “Google” is. I also don’t think many people have a problem with personifying Google.
Why can’t a vocaloid have a personality? Does Gregory House have a personality?
Gregory House is the main character of a TV show that has actual plots. Vocaloids are just animesque moeblobs.
Furthermore, Gregory House is not credited for programmatically singing songs actually written and composed by humans.
I think the idea of “Miku” is a stand in for a large group of people, just like “Google” is.
Except people don’t treat it that way. In any case, our senses don’t work that way. If it’s anthropomorphized (pointlessly, in this case), we automatically think of it as having the qualities of a person, whether it makes sense or not.
Gregory House is not credited for programmatically singing songs actually written and composed by humans.
His actor, Hugh Laurie, is credited for performing lines written by different humans. Why does Hugh Laurie deserve performing credit when Miku doesn’t?
I was thinking about it. Do we care about the artist’s personality or the product of said personality? If it turns out that the product is more efficiently produced without involvement of the artist, will we reject it? My answer is “the latter” and “hell, no!”. When photography came along and displaced the majority of painters, did the society care? Even if it did, it didn’t matter in the long run because now the photography occupies the space previously held by living artists. Luckily, pictorial art did survive, though it occupies a narrow niche compared to the past. I think there were other art forms that disappeared completely in the course of technological progress.
Now the question is, is it what we strive for? (and by we I mean educated people who support technological advancement and take a certain degree of responsibility for its direction). Looks like it is.
I, for one, do care about the artist’s personality.
I value creators—be they writers, artists, directors, or composers—best when they have a reason to do what they’re doing. When they have an aspiration, a passion for art, or a message they want to relay to the audience. I like analyzing works and trying to understand the author’s mindset, figuring out what drove them to do it the way they did and what they were thinking at the moment, and how it relates to their historical context, etc.
All of those are human, relatable, empathic qualities.
But idolizing a hollow software moeblob that only does what it’s told? There really is no wonder it’s Japanese. It’s the same kind of worst excesses of the otaku subculture that drive fans to conduct faux-marriages with anime characters.
Most people obsessing over various idols are obsessing over a carefully constructed fake image anyway. At least with an obviously fictional idol, people are more honest about the fact.
Good point actually. The pop industry is built around crafting cynically made up images, and the actual singer is often an incidental figurehead.
I guess this is the logical conclusion—when there is nothing real about the image at all, there isn’t even a living person behind it. In which case we should ask if this is the direction in which we want to go, or it’s time to look back and rethink it.
Behold, as living artists are displaced by constructs with no personality. And geeks all over the world obsess over it, of course.
Huh? Every single thing that could be considered artistic still needs to be done, it’s just that now there’s a new tool that allows you to skip some of the non artistic parts.
Then credit the people who actually did the artistic input—the composers, the writers, and so on. Not some manufactured figurehead identity slapped onto an algorithm.
Yea, THAT I can agree on.
On the other hand, you could say that what is actually getting the praise is the community in general with all the anonymous people that made the phenomena possible. But I don’t know if it works in a way that makes that applicable. Or if it’s actually true.
The composition remains to be done; but the actual production of vocal sound is also considered artistic.
By whom, and on what merit?
By, uh, many people? Especially those who like to judge artists by their vocal skills? Singing is an art by itself.
And if you need a citation for that, then… I’m not sure what to say except engaging into complex and abstract discussions on the topic of “what is art?”, which will distract us from the immediate subject.
I’m actually writing (or at least am supposed to be writing) an article about that. Let’s just wait with this discussion until I’ve finished that.
Why can’t a vocaloid have a personality? Does Gregory House have a personality?
I think the idea of “Miku” is a stand in for a large group of people, just like “Google” is. I also don’t think many people have a problem with personifying Google.
Gregory House is the main character of a TV show that has actual plots. Vocaloids are just animesque moeblobs.
Furthermore, Gregory House is not credited for programmatically singing songs actually written and composed by humans.
Except people don’t treat it that way. In any case, our senses don’t work that way. If it’s anthropomorphized (pointlessly, in this case), we automatically think of it as having the qualities of a person, whether it makes sense or not.
His actor, Hugh Laurie, is credited for performing lines written by different humans. Why does Hugh Laurie deserve performing credit when Miku doesn’t?
Because Laurie is a person?
Yes, that is the reason.
The question is whether and why we should consider Miku a non-person. I was attempting to refute the proposed personhood predicate implementation.
Well said.
I was thinking about it. Do we care about the artist’s personality or the product of said personality? If it turns out that the product is more efficiently produced without involvement of the artist, will we reject it? My answer is “the latter” and “hell, no!”. When photography came along and displaced the majority of painters, did the society care? Even if it did, it didn’t matter in the long run because now the photography occupies the space previously held by living artists. Luckily, pictorial art did survive, though it occupies a narrow niche compared to the past. I think there were other art forms that disappeared completely in the course of technological progress.
Now the question is, is it what we strive for? (and by we I mean educated people who support technological advancement and take a certain degree of responsibility for its direction). Looks like it is.
Now there is one more reason to think about this.
I, for one, do care about the artist’s personality.
I value creators—be they writers, artists, directors, or composers—best when they have a reason to do what they’re doing. When they have an aspiration, a passion for art, or a message they want to relay to the audience. I like analyzing works and trying to understand the author’s mindset, figuring out what drove them to do it the way they did and what they were thinking at the moment, and how it relates to their historical context, etc.
All of those are human, relatable, empathic qualities.
But idolizing a hollow software moeblob that only does what it’s told? There really is no wonder it’s Japanese. It’s the same kind of worst excesses of the otaku subculture that drive fans to conduct faux-marriages with anime characters.
Rant over.
Most people obsessing over various idols are obsessing over a carefully constructed fake image anyway. At least with an obviously fictional idol, people are more honest about the fact.
Good point actually. The pop industry is built around crafting cynically made up images, and the actual singer is often an incidental figurehead.
I guess this is the logical conclusion—when there is nothing real about the image at all, there isn’t even a living person behind it. In which case we should ask if this is the direction in which we want to go, or it’s time to look back and rethink it.