The article speaks of philosophy, religion and human truth. Bob Dylan
said "I find the religiosity and philosophy in the music. I've
learned more from the songs than I've learned from rabbis, preachers,
evangelists, all of that."
Yet the last thread I read was about AI, and how Stable Diffusion is
going to make art irrelevant. What struck me about that thread was the
cheerful celebration of the death of the human and how it "wouldn't
really matter" when "inevitably" nobody would have a reason to
express themselves through art, nor audiences the attention to care if
anything is human or not. Adapt or die. Accept the final dominance of
the machine/Moloch etc.
To hackers, is Dylan anything but a curiosity of how music used to
mean something? A laughable vestige of "freedom" and "the 60's"?
Or is he cited because those Blues songs, the messages within, and the
spirituality that Dylan speaks of, are still relevant to the struggle
against domination and nihilism?
Personally, I would define a "hacker" as "curious", "intellectually exploring". Just because most of the HN userbase probably works in / with STEM doesn't mean that's all we do. I'm pretty happy to explore different domains every now and then, so long as I can see some intellectual depth to explore. And I definitely see that in Dylan's music.
I see things like Stable Diffusion as just another tool in humans’ creativity toolbox. If it leads its enthusiasts into a purely nihilistic state where art loses all meaning to them, that’s their problem.
Long after AI, people will still be happy to strum on a guitar, because it feels good. Sure there’s also fame and fortune possible, but I don’t believe those are the sole reasons all people embark on artistic or philosophical pursuits. Some people really are trying to work something out or, again, just feel good.
Dylan quite famously had a "split" with the folk purists for his love
of electric guitar, so isn't sentimental about traditions, tools and
technologies.
The content he seems to admire in folk and blues could hardly be more
scathing of the "violence of the man", making him a paragon of protest
and anti-corporatism for 7 decades. Most successful artists seem to
trade their right to rail against power for fame, but Dylan still
managed to speak powerfully through his BBC Radio 6 Music show, mainly
by his playlist choices and adding short, knowing commentary. A
message I still think he speaks is on art as a tool for social change,
which seems increasingly crushed by the nihilism of "comfort and
convenience".
I think I get that, but I wonder if all artists make art with the explicit intention to instigate social change, or if some simply express their dissatisfaction and others pick it up and run with it? That’s a funny thing about the subjectivity of art, people can run in unexpected directions. See Republicans using Bruce Springsteen songs at rallys.
I also wonder about the inevitability of people who wouldn’t lift a finger for a social cause anyways. I don’t think it’s inevitable so I agree that there is danger in pulling more people into potential nihilism.
I really seek out and admire those artists that seem to just not care what others think about them or their art and engage in a purely self-indulgent expression. I don’t think people will just stop that, it might go more underground though. I wouldn’t be surprised by that as a reaction to this centralized, always-online trend we’re in the midst of (and previously, gameshow fame like American Idol).
> I don’t think people will just stop that, it might go more
underground though. I wouldn’t be surprised by that as a reaction to
this centralized, always-online trend we’re in the midst of (and
previously, gameshow fame like American Idol).
I agree. It's a good point and I think likely as well.
An artist friend touched this "where now for art" thing a week ago [1] in
some writing. I think it's on all artists' minds more than ever.
Just wanted to say thanks for some thought provoking discussion here, cheers!
ETA: Will give that a read, looks good from the first couple paragraphs.
I feel lucky to have read The Alignment Problem right before these image generators started coming out, more in the midst of GitHub copilot. It was a sobering perspective on the tech, which looks to be echoed in that article.
People didn't stop playing chess when computers started to beat them. So even if computers can make better music, why would people stop making music themselves?
