Such fascinating comments on here. I think it would be interesting to find a provocative quote said by a computer scientist about art and then see how artists d

Such fascinating comments on here. I think it would be interesting to find a provocative quote said by a computer scientist about art and then see how artists debate/discuss the quote's meaning. My 2 cents on this quote: 1. This quote is about art. Not about computers. Picasso was an artist (and a great salesman, PR-man, self-promoter btw). But he didn't know shit about computers or "calculating machines" or whatever octogenarians called them "mechanical brains" back then. This quote is about art. 2. The quote seems to be widely misunderstood by a surprisingly large percentage of people who don't get it. Firstly, it's just a quote. I'm not sure why it gets as much attention as it does, but everyone needs to chill. I feel maybe people get offended quickly by it or get caught up in who said it and then everyone forgets to read it closely...Here goes: The quote is illogical. The quote makes no sense. This is prima facie. Something cannot be "useless" and have a use. Even if a thing has one single use, it is not and cannot be called, "useless". Assuming computers only give you answers, that would be a use and so they cannot be called "useless". e.g. can you say "Thermometers are useless, they only tell you temperature" or "Easels are useless, they only hold the paintings"? Hopefully you see illogical structure and fallacy of what he is saying. Funny how a computer would not accept the logic of the quote. But I don't think that was intentional. Next: Without going into to much context on Picasso's view on art and technology (which he was not against), I think one way to understand the quote is to flip it: What is the point of art? A question asked by many for a long time..."Art is useless. It just gives you questions".