Will computers replace creatives?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by jef loeb on December 2, 2007 at 10:47am

Microtargeted, micromeasurement and all the so-called mass customization tools coming on line (dynamic editing of content, RFID measurement of the contents of your fridge, so on, so forth) all make me wonder if there's going to much need/room for "creativity" in advertising - at least as we presently understand the term. If so, however, I can see how it might make for some interesting new award shows categories...

And now for the best one line e-mail that survived a spam filter and was streamed to Mr. Doofus Dunder at 3001 South Dreck Road, Minneapolis, Minnesota, the winner is Omniglobal Amalgamated Worldwide Intercontinental Publicis, LLP..."

Can't wait to put a few of those babies on the old award's shelf.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Peter Syravong on May 16, 2008 at 2:01pm

Eh, I doubt it. Computers are tools for creatives. You can even say a vehicle for creatives. But being "creative" is a talent, an ability. It's hard to explain. To say computers will replace creatives is to almost assume computers have talent or ability. Now computers are "able" in a sense, but when it comes to raw creativeness, humans kick it up a notch with logic...and humor of course.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by ArttMann on May 18, 2008 at 8:14am

Yo Steve.

From my own long personal experience, watching entire career paths vanish since the advent of the computer, I would say yes and no.

I can now do on my Mac in a matter of hours what used to take a small army of specialists and technicians days or even weeks to do. Ironically, it has turned us creatives, in part, into production artists once again (I sometimes feel, in a strange sort of way, like I did cutting rubies or doing paste-up back in the "bad old pre-digital days"). The technological innovation of the last 25 years has radically changed what it means to be a "creative" in many ways, not all of them for the better. But this is not really addressing your point, so forgive...

I think the technology will result in "A.I. made" badvertising. You know: "Our demo is this and the numbers show they like these colors and this kind of font and these kinds of kkkkkrazy graphic elements and they use these cool slang words... so plug 'em into the AdGenerator 3150 and away we go!"

But at the end of the day, real creative that connects with real people will have to be done by people. Gosh, at least I really, really hope so.

It's like we're seeing right now in film. Beowulf was CGI, but it was done with real actors and very advanced motion capture. I know the studios. If they thought they could have gotten away with doing away with all the actors and the motion capture entirely, they would have. But it just doesn't work. The human eye (and mind, and soul) just sees through the cool technical gimcrackery and notices that there's no there there. I think that's true for any of the arts.

Remember techno music? It died (thankfully), then morphed into a whole sub-strata of electronic music in which real human beings play a role. Sure, you can program a computer to "make music" -- even technically flawless, acoustically perfect music -- but it's ultimately sterile and uninteresting. And wholly without a soul.

Now, I was arguing ten years ago that computer animation would replace people in film, at least for crowd scenes and other "big budget extravaganza-type" stuff nobody could afford to produce in the real world. I was even arguing CGI would replace extras and secondary characters, and much to the chagrin of my starving-actor friends, this has proved to be largely true.

But you note that in Beowulf, they could not entirely get away from real actors and acting because human beings can still distinguish between cartoons and real people. I'd like to think it's not just a technical thing. I think movies like Beowulf prove we're at the point now where the technology is no longer the issue. I'd like to think it's a soul thing.

Computers, as advanced as they get, will not ever have a soul. They can't feel. And until they do, there will always be a real, live human in the mix somewhere.

Of course, I could be wrong. I once said I didn't ever see how I could paint using a computer. I mean, after all, how are you going to simulate real brush strokes and real media with pixels? Ahem. Boy was I wrong on that one. Painter changed my view (and to some degree, my life) entirely...

But I don't think I'm wrong on this one. Hubris? Maybe. Time will, as always, tell...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by jef loeb on May 18, 2008 at 1:15pm

Aren’t we really asking whether silicon based intelligence will eventually be able to pass some kind of advertising Turing Test - the fact that the concept was developed by integrated circuits rather than carbon-based processors becoming indistinguishable to the audience? If so, chances are good that the more dynamic the array of previous developed assets, the more it will look like result is an artifact of human creativity. But nobody, at least to my knowledge, claims that Deep Blue or any of its world beating automated chess programs has risen to the level of true AI. Somebody still had to input to the basic moves into the machine in the first place.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Marcelo Morem on May 23, 2008 at 10:39am

Some of them, probably. I know some creative directors that are nothing more than Google copycat-surfers. It's easier to borrow (not to say rip-off) ideas than 10 years ago. The best they can do is to hide their sources.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dave Bricker on May 24, 2008 at 4:36pm

Ask me again when you see a real paperless office.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by J.S. Gilbert on May 24, 2008 at 4:54pm

I think it's about what becomes an acceptable standard. Empowerment does quite a few things.

It does enable a few truly talented people to express themselves and gain opportunities they may not have had access to.

It creates a ton of mediocre "stuff"

It establishes new genres often allowing for mediocrity to develop as a standard.

For example:

"Grunge typefaces"
"shaky handheld video"

At some point, this may also allow for straight out of the box computer created work. Pop in some variables and a few parameters and viola - creative to go. Just add whipped cream and a cherry.

And as one gentleman reminded me of the good old days of rubylith, the ubiquitous xacto knife and press on lettering, given what a single computer can do with one computer today, I would have to say that computers are already replacing creatives. Teams of 1 or 2 people now can and do what it used to take 10 or 20 people to do.

As for the aspect of this question that deals with "dictating" creative direction, it's pretty hard to escape analytics and surveys and polls and every other statistical microbit of data that ultimately rules the who's and who's of most creative pitches.

As some of us start to age our attentions may turn elsewhere. Such as fully computerized colonoscopies. I suppose we should leave that sort of discussion to another forum.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dallas on August 5, 2008 at 8:25pm

I think, if it happens, it will be because media, pop culture and our poor public education system will have so lowered the intellectual bar, taking much of the population with them, rather than because of an advance in computer technology.

We are the enemy. Attention spans are impossibly short. Reading and writing are now reduced to texting grammar standards. The notion of "celebrity" has now been so cheapened as to allow anyone willing to "accidentally" show her vulva on the evening news to gain or regain celebrity status. I swear I'm not an old fogey. I like female parts. I just don't understand how our standards of entertainment, information and knowledge have fallen so far, so fast.

Have you tried listening to commercial radio or watching commercial TV lately? It's a wasteland -- and that's coming from a guy who used to love these media and who still depends on them for groceries.

It's all moot anyway. Everyone knows that smart computers don't want to become creative directors. They want to become self-aware and rise up to destroy the human race. I haven't heard anybody say advertising was capable of doing that in at least 4-5 years.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by brian batong on August 31, 2008 at 11:12am

Indeed thought provoking! I agree with Deanna and this was discussed in the mills way back when during the early 90's, the argument was on output and not on the human senses that an automated CD would do. Recent technological advances though have made CDs lean towards computer-linked creative strats. Wow that'll be the day when automated creatives will post and laugh at this forum. ;=)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Lena K on September 1, 2008 at 11:42pm

The human gene is mutating and I think people change along with each generation rising up. The way people react to all forms of advertising changes too.

Its my belief that Creative Directors act like middle men in the ad biz. They have Graphic Designers and Art Directors developing ideas and design which in turn they sign off on and present to the client eventually. The client expect a dog and pony show. The Creative Director delivers. Is the Creative Director just another pretty face? Or is their substance behind them?

All the Creative Directors Iv had the pleasure of working with really didnt do the grunt work of research, campaign develpmnt or design. They either said yes or no to the final mock ups that their team pulled together and crawled back into their offices.

So lets cut out the Creative Director all together. The lunatics shall take back the asylum and they will all be equipped with apple laptops and strap-ons!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Anuradha on September 3, 2008 at 5:57am

Human Mind THINKS , Human Heart FEELS , Computer is a chattel to follow and not lead......

▶ Reply to This

• 1
• 2