Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.

What is Loopy Pro?Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.

Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.

Download on the App Store

Loopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.

AI maybe be good for artists

2»

Comments

  • edited October 29

    @Luxthor said:

    @klownshed said:
    ...
    Why bother learning how to draw, paint, write, photograph, play an instrument, write a song when you can type in a few words instead?
    ...

    John, there is nothing to be worried about. Making art is a form of self-accomplishment, like climbing on the mountaintop, learning to speak a new language, learning to play an instrument, and expressing your feelings and experiences using your body and mind.

    Writing the prompt has nothing to do with your personal accomplishment in certain art disciplines, maybe in writing a good prompt and that's it. You can't run 100 meters in the Olympics using a motorcycle. You are not a mathematician for just knowing how to use a calculator. You can't win a chess game using AI to do your moves.

    Today, "AI" is, before everything else, just a product, an apparatus of sorts. There are plenty of ways where it can be useful. I'm so freaking excited for what is happening right now in the technology world.

    One thing is sure: GPT is not you!

    I agree with that. But I am trying to make the point that AI is not good for artists. I’m not even saying I’m an artist and it’s not good for me. I just mess about as a hobby, I don’t have a career as an artist. I have no skin in the game.

    But many artists that currently have careers are going to be replaced by, in most cases, an inferior facsimile designed to be average.

    So in the context of the OP, no, AI is absolutely not good for artists on the whole.

    What most of us do here is mainly irrelevant. A hobby is whatever you want it to be. If you make ‘art’ using AI and enjoy it, who am I to judge? If It’s a fun tool you get enjoyment from then it’s doing its job. That’s awesome. Using ai to help you create things you’d not otherwise have to the time and perhaps ability to make is great.

    And if we use AI to improve what we do, that’s great too. But it doesn’t change the fact that art will be seen as something that is now created by machines and not something artists are required for anymore.

    The main job for artists will be as fodder for the training data sets. And that demeans and devalues the general opinion people have of art and artists. Your average punter probably won’t value something they think they can knock up themselves in seconds by talking to their phone.

  • @AudioGus : I wondered where Bill had been since he and Ted went on their excellent adventure. Now I know.

  • I think anyone who uses AI to make "art" doesn't really have a clue about being an artist. The process is the whole point, and if you cut out the process, you're left with nothing.

    No-one is going to get fulfilment from writing a fucking prompt. There is no self-discovery, no growth, no insights. It's all just superficial bullshit. Art is about the inner journey, over many many years, decades. It's about the things you discover inside yourself that you didn't know were even there. The stuff that can only be discovered by doing the work. The moments where something, seemingly spontaneously, emerges out of you. Those moments will surprise and delight you, but they don't happen by typing words into a prompt.

    Maybe AI filters out the people who want instant satisfaction and superficial metrics, but it's got nothing to do with art.

  • edited October 29

    Addendum: if AI can be used to cut out tedious tasks, sure that would be great. If it can be used to assist creativity and make artists more productive, also good.

    What's happening now though is that people are handing over the actual creative part of the process, lock stock and barrel over to the LLM, and calling that stuff art. It's not, it's merely product.

  • @richardyot said:
    Addendum: if AI can be used to cut out tedious tasks, sure that would be great. If it can be used to assist creativity and make artists more productive, also good.

    What's happening now though is that people are handing over the actual creative part of the process, lock stock and barrel over to the LLM, and calling that stuff art. It's not, it's merely product.

    Yeah, this is my attitude too, there’s uses for it within our practice, but to replace it entirely is madness, unless the art you’re making happens to be about the death of creativity…

  • @richardyot said:
    Addendum: if AI can be used to cut out tedious tasks, sure that would be great. If it can be used to assist creativity and make artists more productive, also good.

    What's happening now though is that people are handing over the actual creative part of the process, lock stock and barrel over to the LLM, and calling that stuff art. It's not, it's merely product.

    The command prompt is a crude input device, AI will learn your tastes and create unique content just for you. Live entertainment will be a little more difficult for AI to create because usually the performance is a shared experience.

  • AI is going to get better and better at churning out mediocrity, and it will probably drown out human made mediocrity completely. In the meantime, I'm going to keep plugging away and one day I'm sure I'll achieve mediocrity on my own without any assistance from an AI bot...

  • @klownshed said:
    AI is going to get better and better at churning out mediocrity, and it will probably drown out human made mediocrity completely. In the meantime, I'm going to keep plugging away and one day I'm sure I'll achieve mediocrity on my own without any assistance from an AI bot...

    ❤️

  • @Simon said:
    Identifying Political Deepfakes in Social Media Using AI:

    https://www.truemedia.org

    Learn from history? Like the history of not bringing politics into the Forum and gettting threads shut down?

    Nah, people don't seem to learn things like that...

    :D :D :D <3 <3 <3

  • @richardyot said:
    I think anyone who uses AI to make "art" doesn't really have a clue about being an artist. The process is the whole point, and if you cut out the process, you're left with nothing.

    No-one is going to get fulfilment from writing a fucking prompt. There is no self-discovery, no growth, no insights. It's all just superficial bullshit. Art is about the inner journey, over many many years, decades. It's about the things you discover inside yourself that you didn't know were even there. The stuff that can only be discovered by doing the work. The moments where something, seemingly spontaneously, emerges out of you. Those moments will surprise and delight you, but they don't happen by typing words into a prompt.

    Maybe AI filters out the people who want instant satisfaction and superficial metrics, but it's got nothing to do with art.

    I have been working as a full time commercial artist for over thirty years and never once in the span of any of my jobs or contracts did I ever make art. It has been more of a competitive sport / hustle / parlour trick / bait and switch shell game. AI fits in great.

  • I find it interesting that with AI it might be possible to create a song that never ends... constantly evolving and changing like some of those AI music video animations that we see today.

  • @Coloobar said:
    I find it interesting that with AI it might be possible to create a song that never ends... constantly evolving and changing like some of those AI music video animations that we see today.

    I did a progressively morphing block that I kept feeding back into Udio, slightly tweaking the prompt and mix weighting with each pass. It was pretty interesting

  • edited October 29

    @richardyot said:
    No-one is going to get fulfilment from writing a fucking prompt.

    Yah that is the equivalent of the 'filter on a photo' phase tons of people went through in the 90s.

    I do think people will be able to use AI/ML in ways to create things that do lead to self discovery etc and image diffusion rendering could very well be a part of that process but the end result likely would not be something as mundane as a single still image.

  • People are getting fulfillment from using that brambos photo app, and you can´t argue that is miles away from "filter on a photo".

    Yeah, I get it, you also frame and compose etc. There is normally a planning and thought process behind that prompt which get you where you want, too.

  • @AudioGus said:

    @richardyot said:
    I think anyone who uses AI to make "art" doesn't really have a clue about being an artist. The process is the whole point, and if you cut out the process, you're left with nothing.

    No-one is going to get fulfilment from writing a fucking prompt. There is no self-discovery, no growth, no insights. It's all just superficial bullshit. Art is about the inner journey, over many many years, decades. It's about the things you discover inside yourself that you didn't know were even there. The stuff that can only be discovered by doing the work. The moments where something, seemingly spontaneously, emerges out of you. Those moments will surprise and delight you, but they don't happen by typing words into a prompt.

    Maybe AI filters out the people who want instant satisfaction and superficial metrics, but it's got nothing to do with art.

    I have been working as a full time commercial artist for over thirty years and never once in the span of any of my jobs or contracts did I ever make art. It has been more of a competitive sport / hustle / parlour trick / bait and switch shell game. AI fits in great.

    I've also worked as a commercial artist for my whole career, but commercial work is not really art IMO, it's a craft or a trade. When you're working for hire, on someone else's IP, you're being hired for skills more than creativity. In the end all my best work was the work I did for myself.

    Personally I don't really care if AI encroaches into commercial art - it clearly already has, and there are endless cheap AI illustrations everywhere. It's the idea that someone would choose to use AI as a substitute for making their own personal art that I find baffling, because it takes all the joy out of it in exchange for superficial convenience.

  • @oldsynthguy said:

    @klownshed said:
    AI is terrible for all existing artists as the models are trained on their work without permission or recompense.

    AI is also bad for artists as it’s by definition always going to shit out the most average of work. That’s how it works — the models average out the data.

    AI is also bad for artists as it is basically allowing non-artists to do the job of the artist with ease. To an average at best level.

    AI is also a crock of shit for me as the whole point of me making music is for me to make it. I get zero satisfaction out of typing a prompt to let an LLM vomit out something for me.

    AI is going to be good for people that want an image but can’t take a photo. Or draw a picture. Or write with any degree of competence. Or they want a tune but can’t play an instrument, sing or write a song.

    It’s not for artists. Quite the opposite. It empowers those with no artistic talent, and those with neither talent nor taste.

    In democratising art it also demeans and devalues it. Why bother learning how to draw, paint, write, photograph, play an instrument, write a song when you can type in a few words instead?

    100%, all of this.

    I trained as an illustrator, and alongside book work built up a steady income from fine art. Now my arty social media feeds are saturated with digital/AI art, and even local galleries have started selling AI prints. The writing (or painting) for creatives, is literally on the wall. I haven’t painted for 6 months now, what’s the point when it won’t get seen or shown or bought? All that time, money, effort? I’ll just go and read a book (a real one) instead.

    This could damage so many lives and incomes. Who will need to buy the hundreds of developers music apps I have on my iPad, when Apple release iCreate in 2027 which can conjure up any sound in the known, and unknown universe, and knock out an album with a nice cover in 30 seconds? Who needs bands and instruments when AI can make something ‘better’?

    So after a bit of fun using AI as tools, humans stop creating, and the machines take over the very thing that makes us unique.

    AI maybe be good for artists? Not in a million years.

    But A.I. will also replace very costly doctors, lawyers and (eventually) politicians and the cost to use them will approach near zero. So there is an upside.

  • edited October 29

    @AudioGus said:

    @richardyot said:
    I think anyone who uses AI to make "art" doesn't really have a clue about being an artist. The process is the whole point, and if you cut out the process, you're left with nothing.

    No-one is going to get fulfilment from writing a fucking prompt. There is no self-discovery, no growth, no insights. It's all just superficial bullshit. Art is about the inner journey, over many many years, decades. It's about the things you discover inside yourself that you didn't know were even there. The stuff that can only be discovered by doing the work. The moments where something, seemingly spontaneously, emerges out of you. Those moments will surprise and delight you, but they don't happen by typing words into a prompt.

    Maybe AI filters out the people who want instant satisfaction and superficial metrics, but it's got nothing to do with art.

    I have been working as a full time commercial artist for over thirty years and never once in the span of any of my jobs or contracts did I ever make art. It has been more of a competitive sport / hustle / parlour trick / bait and switch shell game. AI fits in great.

    That's correct. "Commercial art" isn't about individual growth, it's about getting something made that the client likes, is effective and then getting paid for it. "Art" is what an individual does for their own edification... and it may never pay off for them as a career.

  • edited October 29

    @richardyot said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @richardyot said:
    I think anyone who uses AI to make "art" doesn't really have a clue about being an artist. The process is the whole point, and if you cut out the process, you're left with nothing.

    No-one is going to get fulfilment from writing a fucking prompt. There is no self-discovery, no growth, no insights. It's all just superficial bullshit. Art is about the inner journey, over many many years, decades. It's about the things you discover inside yourself that you didn't know were even there. The stuff that can only be discovered by doing the work. The moments where something, seemingly spontaneously, emerges out of you. Those moments will surprise and delight you, but they don't happen by typing words into a prompt.

    Maybe AI filters out the people who want instant satisfaction and superficial metrics, but it's got nothing to do with art.

    I have been working as a full time commercial artist for over thirty years and never once in the span of any of my jobs or contracts did I ever make art. It has been more of a competitive sport / hustle / parlour trick / bait and switch shell game. AI fits in great.

    I've also worked as a commercial artist for my whole career, but commercial work is not really art IMO, it's a craft or a trade. When you're working for hire, on someone else's IP, you're being hired for skills more than creativity. In the end all my best work was the work I did for myself.

    Weird though when we use the term 'commercial artist' in different situations. Artists who don't make art...! No wonder most are crazy douche bags. hehe

    It's the idea that someone would choose to use AI as a substitute for making their own personal art that I find baffling, because it takes all the joy out of it in exchange for superficial convenience.

    Baffling? Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. I am sure you know that people are addicted to superficial convenience in most aspects of their life. I know a dude who lives in the bush 24/7. The idea of people not wanting to grow their own food baffles him.

  • edited October 29

    @Coloobar said:
    I find it interesting that with AI it might be possible to create a song that never ends... constantly evolving and changing like some of those AI music video animations that we see today.

    I think point-of-sale/in-store A.I. music will be able to subtly change to enhance the buying experience for individual tastes. It's already possible to change advertising preferences with eye-tracking monitoring, so this should be a trivial problem to solve for such systems.

  • edited October 29

    @NeuM said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @richardyot said:
    I think anyone who uses AI to make "art" doesn't really have a clue about being an artist. The process is the whole point, and if you cut out the process, you're left with nothing.

    No-one is going to get fulfilment from writing a fucking prompt. There is no self-discovery, no growth, no insights. It's all just superficial bullshit. Art is about the inner journey, over many many years, decades. It's about the things you discover inside yourself that you didn't know were even there. The stuff that can only be discovered by doing the work. The moments where something, seemingly spontaneously, emerges out of you. Those moments will surprise and delight you, but they don't happen by typing words into a prompt.

    Maybe AI filters out the people who want instant satisfaction and superficial metrics, but it's got nothing to do with art.

    I have been working as a full time commercial artist for over thirty years and never once in the span of any of my jobs or contracts did I ever make art. It has been more of a competitive sport / hustle / parlour trick / bait and switch shell game. AI fits in great.

    That's correct. "Commercial art" isn't about individual growth, it's about getting something made that the client likes, is effective and then getting paid for it. "Art" is what an individual does for their own edification... and it may never pay off for them as a career.

    The client sees the results as 'art' and calls it 'art' so in that context I accept it as such. They pay me to play along. I avoid using the term myself. Most of what we do in culture / society is the art of playing along.

  • @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @richardyot said:
    I think anyone who uses AI to make "art" doesn't really have a clue about being an artist. The process is the whole point, and if you cut out the process, you're left with nothing.

    No-one is going to get fulfilment from writing a fucking prompt. There is no self-discovery, no growth, no insights. It's all just superficial bullshit. Art is about the inner journey, over many many years, decades. It's about the things you discover inside yourself that you didn't know were even there. The stuff that can only be discovered by doing the work. The moments where something, seemingly spontaneously, emerges out of you. Those moments will surprise and delight you, but they don't happen by typing words into a prompt.

    Maybe AI filters out the people who want instant satisfaction and superficial metrics, but it's got nothing to do with art.

    I have been working as a full time commercial artist for over thirty years and never once in the span of any of my jobs or contracts did I ever make art. It has been more of a competitive sport / hustle / parlour trick / bait and switch shell game. AI fits in great.

    That's correct. "Commercial art" isn't about individual growth, it's about getting something made that the client likes, is effective and then getting paid for it. "Art" is what an individual does for their own edification... and it may never pay off for them as a career.

    The client sees the results as 'art' and calls it 'art' so in that context I accept it as such. They pay me to play along. I avoid using the term myself. Most of what we do in culture / society is the art of playing along.

    It’s art, along with quite a few composers who have created music for various patrons, over many centuries.

  • edited October 29

    @NeuM said:

    @oldsynthguy said:

    @klownshed said:
    AI is terrible for all existing artists as the models are trained on their work without permission or recompense.

    AI is also bad for artists as it’s by definition always going to shit out the most average of work. That’s how it works — the models average out the data.

    AI is also bad for artists as it is basically allowing non-artists to do the job of the artist with ease. To an average at best level.

    AI is also a crock of shit for me as the whole point of me making music is for me to make it. I get zero satisfaction out of typing a prompt to let an LLM vomit out something for me.

    AI is going to be good for people that want an image but can’t take a photo. Or draw a picture. Or write with any degree of competence. Or they want a tune but can’t play an instrument, sing or write a song.

    It’s not for artists. Quite the opposite. It empowers those with no artistic talent, and those with neither talent nor taste.

    In democratising art it also demeans and devalues it. Why bother learning how to draw, paint, write, photograph, play an instrument, write a song when you can type in a few words instead?

    100%, all of this.

    I trained as an illustrator, and alongside book work built up a steady income from fine art. Now my arty social media feeds are saturated with digital/AI art, and even local galleries have started selling AI prints. The writing (or painting) for creatives, is literally on the wall. I haven’t painted for 6 months now, what’s the point when it won’t get seen or shown or bought? All that time, money, effort? I’ll just go and read a book (a real one) instead.

    This could damage so many lives and incomes. Who will need to buy the hundreds of developers music apps I have on my iPad, when Apple release iCreate in 2027 which can conjure up any sound in the known, and unknown universe, and knock out an album with a nice cover in 30 seconds? Who needs bands and instruments when AI can make something ‘better’?

    So after a bit of fun using AI as tools, humans stop creating, and the machines take over the very thing that makes us unique.

    AI maybe be good for artists? Not in a million years.

    But A.I. will also replace very costly doctors, lawyers and (eventually) politicians and the cost to use them will approach near zero. So there is an upside.

    Why stop at lawyers? What about Judge and jury? CEOs, CFOs, et are also costly.

    I would gladly accept having to part with my beloved ios music making tools if meant being able to watch AI, Youtube, tiktok, Meta, and X all burn to the fucking ground.
    (Feeling a touch nihilistic today)

  • @Blipsford_Baubie said:

    @NeuM said:

    @oldsynthguy said:

    @klownshed said:
    AI is terrible for all existing artists as the models are trained on their work without permission or recompense.

    AI is also bad for artists as it’s by definition always going to shit out the most average of work. That’s how it works — the models average out the data.

    AI is also bad for artists as it is basically allowing non-artists to do the job of the artist with ease. To an average at best level.

    AI is also a crock of shit for me as the whole point of me making music is for me to make it. I get zero satisfaction out of typing a prompt to let an LLM vomit out something for me.

    AI is going to be good for people that want an image but can’t take a photo. Or draw a picture. Or write with any degree of competence. Or they want a tune but can’t play an instrument, sing or write a song.

    It’s not for artists. Quite the opposite. It empowers those with no artistic talent, and those with neither talent nor taste.

    In democratising art it also demeans and devalues it. Why bother learning how to draw, paint, write, photograph, play an instrument, write a song when you can type in a few words instead?

    100%, all of this.

    I trained as an illustrator, and alongside book work built up a steady income from fine art. Now my arty social media feeds are saturated with digital/AI art, and even local galleries have started selling AI prints. The writing (or painting) for creatives, is literally on the wall. I haven’t painted for 6 months now, what’s the point when it won’t get seen or shown or bought? All that time, money, effort? I’ll just go and read a book (a real one) instead.

    This could damage so many lives and incomes. Who will need to buy the hundreds of developers music apps I have on my iPad, when Apple release iCreate in 2027 which can conjure up any sound in the known, and unknown universe, and knock out an album with a nice cover in 30 seconds? Who needs bands and instruments when AI can make something ‘better’?

    So after a bit of fun using AI as tools, humans stop creating, and the machines take over the very thing that makes us unique.

    AI maybe be good for artists? Not in a million years.

    But A.I. will also replace very costly doctors, lawyers and (eventually) politicians and the cost to use them will approach near zero. So there is an upside.

    Why stop at lawyers? What about Judge and jury? CEOs, CFOs, et are also costly.

    I would gladly accept having to part with my beloved ios music making tools if meant being able to watch AI, Youtube, tiktok, FB, and X all burn to the fucking ground.
    (Feeling a touch nihilistic today)

    What was so wrong with orgies in the jungle!?

  • @Blipsford_Baubie said:

    @NeuM said:

    @oldsynthguy said:

    @klownshed said:
    AI is terrible for all existing artists as the models are trained on their work without permission or recompense.

    AI is also bad for artists as it’s by definition always going to shit out the most average of work. That’s how it works — the models average out the data.

    AI is also bad for artists as it is basically allowing non-artists to do the job of the artist with ease. To an average at best level.

    AI is also a crock of shit for me as the whole point of me making music is for me to make it. I get zero satisfaction out of typing a prompt to let an LLM vomit out something for me.

    AI is going to be good for people that want an image but can’t take a photo. Or draw a picture. Or write with any degree of competence. Or they want a tune but can’t play an instrument, sing or write a song.

    It’s not for artists. Quite the opposite. It empowers those with no artistic talent, and those with neither talent nor taste.

    In democratising art it also demeans and devalues it. Why bother learning how to draw, paint, write, photograph, play an instrument, write a song when you can type in a few words instead?

    100%, all of this.

    I trained as an illustrator, and alongside book work built up a steady income from fine art. Now my arty social media feeds are saturated with digital/AI art, and even local galleries have started selling AI prints. The writing (or painting) for creatives, is literally on the wall. I haven’t painted for 6 months now, what’s the point when it won’t get seen or shown or bought? All that time, money, effort? I’ll just go and read a book (a real one) instead.

    This could damage so many lives and incomes. Who will need to buy the hundreds of developers music apps I have on my iPad, when Apple release iCreate in 2027 which can conjure up any sound in the known, and unknown universe, and knock out an album with a nice cover in 30 seconds? Who needs bands and instruments when AI can make something ‘better’?

    So after a bit of fun using AI as tools, humans stop creating, and the machines take over the very thing that makes us unique.

    AI maybe be good for artists? Not in a million years.

    But A.I. will also replace very costly doctors, lawyers and (eventually) politicians and the cost to use them will approach near zero. So there is an upside.

    Why stop at lawyers? What about Judge and jury? CEOs, CFOs, et are also costly.

    I would gladly accept having to part with my beloved ios music making tools if meant being able to watch AI, Youtube, tiktok, Meta, and X all burn to the fucking ground.
    (Feeling a touch nihilistic today)

    Pssst… It’s not going to all burn to the ground because we’re all self-interested and most people are not suicidal. Things will continue to get better, and complaints will always be at an all-time high.

  • edited October 29

    AI is a tool, a shortcut, an assist, a spark of inspiration, and the death of jobs across many industries. I don’t really care about it one way or the other, because FREEDOM to do and make as one wishes (within legal parameters of course) is something I value. AI churns out garbage music based on garbage parameters of an imitation of a style or another product. Whatever, it’s just product and content, and it’s no different from a calculator or Google maps, with a sprinkle of algorithmic “sentience”. AI’s existence doesn’t change the fact that jobs have already been dying for a long time, as the world pushes for profit and efficiency.

    Why learn to cook a meal if you can order it. Why order soap from Amazon if you can make it yourself? @richardyot yes it’s the experience and the journey…

    My biggest and main concern is music education. Learning music or an instrument or a different language is amazing for the brain.

    Why do schools still teach math, if we have all the craziest and fastest calculators that can spit out answers in a millisecond? Why teach math at school at all if we have calculators?? I hope society will feel the same way about music education as they do about math education, but I’m afraid they already don’t.

  • @JoyceRoadStudios said:
    AI is a tool, a shortcut, an assist, a spark of inspiration, and the death of jobs across many industries. I don’t really care about it one way or the other, because FREEDOM to do and make as one wishes (within legal parameters of course) is something I value. AI churns out garbage music based on garbage parameters of an imitation of a style or another product. Whatever, it’s just product and content, and it’s no different from a calculator or Google maps, with a sprinkle of algorithmic “sentience”. AI’s existence doesn’t change the fact that jobs have already been dying for a long time, as the world pushes for profit and efficiency.

    Why learn to cook a meal if you can order it. Why order soap from Amazon if you can make it yourself? @richardyot yes it’s the experience and the journey…

    My biggest and main concern is music education. Learning music or an instrument or a different language is amazing for the brain.

    Why do schools still teach math, if we have all the craziest and fastest calculators that can spit out answers in a millisecond? Why teach math at school at all if we have calculators?? I hope society will feel the same way about music education as they do about math education, but I’m afraid they already don’t.

    Human brain size has been decreasing, probably due to evolutionary drivers that no longer exists, so if you don’t use it, you lose it, natural efficiency in effect.

  • edited October 29

    @bleep said:
    People are getting fulfillment from using that brambos photo app, and you can´t argue that is miles away from "filter on a photo".

    Yeah, I get it, you also frame and compose etc. There is normally a planning and thought process behind that prompt which get you where you want, too.

    Well there was that thrill in the 90s of taking an image, doing 'find edges', dropping it on top of the original and setting the blend mode to screen and thinking we were the next Andy Warhol. Things moved slowly so many made websites, got illustration work for Mondo 2000 or Wired etc and even sold prints etc until the jig was up.

  • wimwim
    edited October 29

    @knewspeak said:
    It’s art, along with quite a few composers who have created music for various patrons, over many centuries.

    That is a very good point. Bach, Hayden, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, Wagner ... all worked for wealthy or powerful patrons.

Sign In or Register to comment.