Human creativity goes into "what to build", not "how to build it".

A Photograph is, mechanically, 100% machine-created. But we still call photographers "creative" for their work on picking what to photograph, how to frame it, timing the shot, etc..

Honestly, I think it's wonderful that editors are finally getting some credit for the creativity they bring to the process. There's plenty of writing about how famous films like "Star Wars" often owe a lot to their editing, even though that traditionally doesn't get credited as "creative" work.

Is someone who commissions a painting considered creative?

Commissioning a painting, if it needs describing a scene, a thought or some direction, then yes.

This is literally what photographers do. Most do not even deal with exposure or any other setting. "Auto".

Revered photographers do a lot more than push a button. But I agree pushing a button and getting a result without much thought or effort generally doesn't make for an interesting creative work, most professional photographers would agree too

> Most do not even deal with exposure or any other setting. "Auto".

Professional ones, this is completely incorrect. Maybe hobbyists? But even then, not many.

Creativity is defined by what one did in the creative process, not whether you did something else outside of the creative process or not. I.e. if the only thing you do is say "make me a piece of art, I'll pay you $x" then you had 0 creative involvement. Not because you paid for it, but because of the lack of doing anything during the creation process.

The same is true of using any tool. If you just click a premade and generic "process photo" button in an image editor for every photo you get then you're doing no creative work (unless that whole action is a meta statement itself or something). If you mess with the different options and settings to find the one which matches your creative vision then you've played a part in the creative process.

> Human creativity goes into "what to build", not "how to build it".

I dont know if i've ever seen a message miss the point more than this one.

> Human creativity goes into "what to build", not "how to build it".

This is nonsense, right? If I decided "hey wouldn't it be cool if there was a really interesting painting of a dude" that isn't an interesting creative expression

Explore the editing angle: do you really think that absolutely nothing of artistic value would be lost if we just stopped editing films entirely? Or is it clear that an editor can bring value simply by offering input?

Certainly the extent of the input matters - "cool art of a dude" is a very generic concept, but at a certain point, just writing the idea down has to count as creative, because otherwise books are all uncreative.

> Explore the editing angle:

I am not ChatGPT, do not talk to humans like this