5 ms·

What art would that be? Part of art is not just the physical piece but the message it delivers, or a message that can be interpreted in many ways. Computer gene

by yason 8y ago

What art would that be? Part of art is not just the physical piece but the message it delivers, or a message that can be interpreted in many ways. Computer generated images can learn to do the aesthetic part but if the piece has no human context from which it comes nor has anything to say, how would that be art? Why did the computer create the image, and what is it trying to tell us with it?

adventured 8y ago
Art doesn't have to have something to say, it does not require a message, there does not have to be a thought-out why to its creation. It's strictly subjective, without exception. I can give whatever meaning to computer / AI generated art that I please. To intentionally use an exaggerated example: I can urinate on a wall, tell nobody else about it, give it no further meaning or consideration, have done it for no particular reason other than my need to urinate, and call it art (regardless of whether the setup premise is offensive to some). I can look at this image from the site: https://78.media.tumblr.com/015901ac8ded0c711dcec8f8de7ec223/tumblr_inline_pdjd8hvd4J1rl9zu7_500.png https://78.media.tumblr.com/015901ac8ded0c711dcec8f8de7ec223... And I can decide that is art which represents my emancipation from indentured servitude in another life when I was a coal miner for BigCorp on Mars. Or any other seemingly ridiculous meaning I choose to give it.
- bojo 8y ago
  Sorry, but as someone with an art degree I have to respectfully disagree. Pissing on a wall and arbitrarily calling it art does not make it art. That style of thinking worked during the Dada movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada but is no longer something that would work today, unless you were doing a live art installation, in which case you are committing to some kind of commentary on some factor of the world anyways. Artists almost always create art with meaning, and in the rare cases they don’t they are still attempting to make genuinely thought provoking works of art, even if it’s simply showing off their skills. If you go to an art gallery there is always the artist’s thesis statement or message written out at the entrance. You are correct that art is subjective though. What an artist envisions and what their audience gets out of it has been shown time and again to not line up in many cases. And in a way, that is the beauty of art - our shared experiences while appreciating it.
  - Shorel 8y ago
    > Pissing on a wall and arbitrarily calling it art does not make it art. That's my argument against (most) graffiti.
    - Yetanfou 8y ago
      ...unless you are a big name in art, in which case the same act will suddenly be daring and expressive - viz. piss-filled jars with crosses in 'm and similar works of 'art'.
  - dna_polymerase 8y ago
    > Pissing on a wall and arbitrarily calling it art does not make it art. > You are correct that art is subjective though. "art degree"
    - bojo 8y ago
      “context”
  - Broken_Hippo 8y ago
    It doesn't matter if the artist's meaning is portrayed, though, so long as viewers give it meaning. I'd argue that if the viewer doesn't give some meaning or attach some emotion to it, it has failed. I might not have meaning in mind when I create things, but I know others perceive that stuff in my art. I know a few tricks to make others feel things or think about things, and employ those. I'm mostly just making stuff I like for whatever reason, though. These AI pictures would wind up being called art if someone purposefully produced them as such and if necessary, provided some meaning or context to them all.
  - vwea4e4aw 8y ago
    You say "sorry that's not how art works" but then immediately talk about an art movement that did just that? You're contradicting yourself. I get what you're trying to say. That sort of thing isn't common in contemporary art, especially not in a gallery setting. But that's a tiny portion of all the art in the world. For example - I know an artist in Tuscon who drinks his own piss. That's the performance. He might have a personal meaning behind it, but he doesn't explain it to anyone. And he does plenty of other meaningless things intentionally. He's not world renowned or anything, but he is known among some artists in Tuscon, he considers himself an artist, and thats how he makes his living. He also has an art degree.
yellowapple 8y ago
The beautiful thing about art is that its meaning is inherently personal and subjective. What the computer is trying to say is secondary to what the computer is saying - more importantly, rather, what it's saying about its dataset. Even how the works are presented could be interpreted as an artistic work in and of itself, the presenter being the artist. I think these are art, since they affect me in the ways which I typically associate with art.
- yason 8y ago
  (Warning: the discourse on the nature of art is a classic debate that will likely never end.) Art has a quality that is merely not personal and subjective. Interpretation is personal and subjective but if art was, then anything would do because there would be no objective-ish yardsticks to help judge between two random pieces. Postmodernism tried to explore the boundaries of how little is needed for the subject still to be art, which interestingly can be considered an art in itself. But the underlying current even there is that there is a human idea, motivation, or vision behind the art that is created. Computer generated pieces lack that; however, the process of computer generation probably does qualify as art. If an artist used a computer to generate images and make collages out the selected generated images that would be art—much like Warhol created art out of emblems of ordinary or entertainment figures.
  - yellowapple 8y ago
    Warning heeded :) I think the fundamental question here is why art requires a "human" element to actually be art, and what that "human" element actually is. My opinion is that humans aren't really as special as we want to think we are, and that fundamentally there's no real difference between how humans create "art" and how machines create "art"; in the end, we're both drawing on our inputs, applying some subjective evaluation (possibly based on other inputs), and producing a corresponding output. How that "subjective evaluation" step happens might seem different enough to warrant different classifications, but I'm not really convinced it actually is.
    - yason 8y ago
Freeboots 8y ago
Well there IS a human intent via the input. This could fall under process, or generative art. On a side not; A vast portion of art has been purposefully void of meaning for hundreds of years. "l'art pour l'art"
- b1daly 8y ago
  An essential aspect of an artistic work, whether it is structured from words, matter, sound, or behavior is that it has a human author who “intends” it to be art. An important part of this is that it has no other intended purpose. (This is what separates it from design.) So it needs a human author. The AI created images could be turned into art if someone could credibly claim such authorship. In the instance of the images in the post, they are not intended as art, so some kind of metaphysical alchemy would be required to convert them. (A big name modern artist claims them as his own, with permission from the developers, and puts them in a show.) In addition to the work itself, the framing or presentation is essential to complete the artistic product. Printing the images out on nice material and framing them would help. John Cage’s 4’33” is (IMO) a brilliant performance piece. It requires the context of a stage, of live musicians to be effective. It doesn’t work so well as a recorded piece! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4′33″ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4′33″
  - nonsince 8y ago
    Any restrictions you put on what is and isn’t art will be contradicted by something, somewhere. A large number of pieces of art exist only to raise the question of what art even is.
    - yason 8y ago
      Then that is already the message—to question what art even is. Computer generated works don't have that, or any message. The process of computer-generating a number of pieces itself might be some form of art, but more like in the form of art of programming rather than the art of painting.
  - michrassena 8y ago
tomtimtall 8y ago
The computer doesn’t create the art anymore than a brush painted the Mona Lisa. It’s not just pointing a computer at a canvas and waiting for stuff to happen. There are people behind the models people with intentions, human context and an idea of what they want to create. The AI is just a tool to transform disconnected parts into an interesting work.
- bausshf 8y ago
  It is however random generated, so you cannot expect the same output from the same input.
  - notahacker 8y ago
    Many forms of creative endeavour, from landscape gardening to Jackson Pollock drip paintings, have allowed for a large amount of the gap between the creator's broad intent and the final appearance to be filled by processes that aren't 100% predictable. There's also a lot of intent going on in which works to display and which to discard Whether largely unintended consequences or not, the abstract forms of the man in the tie are interesting enough to not look out of place in a gallery, and the renderings of sheep and clocks are clearly the products of a mind (even though it's a human one)trying to get a response from the viewer attuned to the idea of androids dreaming of electric sheep, melting clocks being an iconic surrealist thing and failure to interpret "one (1) single clock" being funny. The grassy hillside, sans sheep, not so much. A quick play with the algorithm suggests a lot of its outputs are unrecognisable forms with no correspondence to anything, so he'd already thrown away a lot of uninteresting results to get to that point.
  - SunboX 8y ago
    Let an artist draw the same picture a second time without seeing the first one.
corerius 8y ago
So how could you tell an AI-generated Rothko from the real thing? If you can't tell the difference, is there a difference?...a kind of Turing test applied to art. Personally, I think that a helluva lot of modern art has a high BS level, and welcome the uproar that a computer could bring to it.
tialaramex 8y ago
No. The best working definition I've run into said that Everything unnecessary that is done on purpose is art. If you want the art to mean something that's your problem, not the artist's.

by yason 8y ago

adventured 8y ago

Art doesn't have to have something to say, it does not require a message, there does not have to be a thought-out why to its creation. It's strictly subjective, without exception. I can give whatever meaning to computer / AI generated art that I please. To intentionally use an exaggerated example: I can urinate on a wall, tell nobody else about it, give it no further meaning or consideration, have done it for no particular reason other than my need to urinate, and call it art (regardless of whether the setup premise is offensive to some). I can look at this image from the site: https://78.media.tumblr.com/015901ac8ded0c711dcec8f8de7ec223/tumblr_inline_pdjd8hvd4J1rl9zu7_500.png https://78.media.tumblr.com/015901ac8ded0c711dcec8f8de7ec223... And I can decide that is art which represents my emancipation from indentured servitude in another life when I was a coal miner for BigCorp on Mars. Or any other seemingly ridiculous meaning I choose to give it.

bojo 8y ago
Sorry, but as someone with an art degree I have to respectfully disagree. Pissing on a wall and arbitrarily calling it art does not make it art. That style of thinking worked during the Dada movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada but is no longer something that would work today, unless you were doing a live art installation, in which case you are committing to some kind of commentary on some factor of the world anyways. Artists almost always create art with meaning, and in the rare cases they don’t they are still attempting to make genuinely thought provoking works of art, even if it’s simply showing off their skills. If you go to an art gallery there is always the artist’s thesis statement or message written out at the entrance. You are correct that art is subjective though. What an artist envisions and what their audience gets out of it has been shown time and again to not line up in many cases. And in a way, that is the beauty of art - our shared experiences while appreciating it.
- Shorel 8y ago
  > Pissing on a wall and arbitrarily calling it art does not make it art. That's my argument against (most) graffiti.
  - Yetanfou 8y ago
    ...unless you are a big name in art, in which case the same act will suddenly be daring and expressive - viz. piss-filled jars with crosses in 'm and similar works of 'art'.
- dna_polymerase 8y ago
  > Pissing on a wall and arbitrarily calling it art does not make it art. > You are correct that art is subjective though. "art degree"
  - bojo 8y ago
    “context”
- Broken_Hippo 8y ago
  It doesn't matter if the artist's meaning is portrayed, though, so long as viewers give it meaning. I'd argue that if the viewer doesn't give some meaning or attach some emotion to it, it has failed. I might not have meaning in mind when I create things, but I know others perceive that stuff in my art. I know a few tricks to make others feel things or think about things, and employ those. I'm mostly just making stuff I like for whatever reason, though. These AI pictures would wind up being called art if someone purposefully produced them as such and if necessary, provided some meaning or context to them all.
- vwea4e4aw 8y ago
  You say "sorry that's not how art works" but then immediately talk about an art movement that did just that? You're contradicting yourself. I get what you're trying to say. That sort of thing isn't common in contemporary art, especially not in a gallery setting. But that's a tiny portion of all the art in the world. For example - I know an artist in Tuscon who drinks his own piss. That's the performance. He might have a personal meaning behind it, but he doesn't explain it to anyone. And he does plenty of other meaningless things intentionally. He's not world renowned or anything, but he is known among some artists in Tuscon, he considers himself an artist, and thats how he makes his living. He also has an art degree.

yellowapple 8y ago

The beautiful thing about art is that its meaning is inherently personal and subjective. What the computer is trying to say is secondary to what the computer is saying - more importantly, rather, what it's saying about its dataset. Even how the works are presented could be interpreted as an artistic work in and of itself, the presenter being the artist. I think these are art, since they affect me in the ways which I typically associate with art.

yason 8y ago
(Warning: the discourse on the nature of art is a classic debate that will likely never end.) Art has a quality that is merely not personal and subjective. Interpretation is personal and subjective but if art was, then anything would do because there would be no objective-ish yardsticks to help judge between two random pieces. Postmodernism tried to explore the boundaries of how little is needed for the subject still to be art, which interestingly can be considered an art in itself. But the underlying current even there is that there is a human idea, motivation, or vision behind the art that is created. Computer generated pieces lack that; however, the process of computer generation probably does qualify as art. If an artist used a computer to generate images and make collages out the selected generated images that would be art—much like Warhol created art out of emblems of ordinary or entertainment figures.
- yellowapple 8y ago
  Warning heeded :) I think the fundamental question here is why art requires a "human" element to actually be art, and what that "human" element actually is. My opinion is that humans aren't really as special as we want to think we are, and that fundamentally there's no real difference between how humans create "art" and how machines create "art"; in the end, we're both drawing on our inputs, applying some subjective evaluation (possibly based on other inputs), and producing a corresponding output. How that "subjective evaluation" step happens might seem different enough to warrant different classifications, but I'm not really convinced it actually is.
  - yason 8y ago

Freeboots 8y ago

Well there IS a human intent via the input. This could fall under process, or generative art. On a side not; A vast portion of art has been purposefully void of meaning for hundreds of years. "l'art pour l'art"

b1daly 8y ago
An essential aspect of an artistic work, whether it is structured from words, matter, sound, or behavior is that it has a human author who “intends” it to be art. An important part of this is that it has no other intended purpose. (This is what separates it from design.) So it needs a human author. The AI created images could be turned into art if someone could credibly claim such authorship. In the instance of the images in the post, they are not intended as art, so some kind of metaphysical alchemy would be required to convert them. (A big name modern artist claims them as his own, with permission from the developers, and puts them in a show.) In addition to the work itself, the framing or presentation is essential to complete the artistic product. Printing the images out on nice material and framing them would help. John Cage’s 4’33” is (IMO) a brilliant performance piece. It requires the context of a stage, of live musicians to be effective. It doesn’t work so well as a recorded piece! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4′33″ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4′33″
- nonsince 8y ago
  Any restrictions you put on what is and isn’t art will be contradicted by something, somewhere. A large number of pieces of art exist only to raise the question of what art even is.
  - yason 8y ago
    Then that is already the message—to question what art even is. Computer generated works don't have that, or any message. The process of computer-generating a number of pieces itself might be some form of art, but more like in the form of art of programming rather than the art of painting.
- michrassena 8y ago

tomtimtall 8y ago

The computer doesn’t create the art anymore than a brush painted the Mona Lisa. It’s not just pointing a computer at a canvas and waiting for stuff to happen. There are people behind the models people with intentions, human context and an idea of what they want to create. The AI is just a tool to transform disconnected parts into an interesting work.

bausshf 8y ago
It is however random generated, so you cannot expect the same output from the same input.
- notahacker 8y ago
  Many forms of creative endeavour, from landscape gardening to Jackson Pollock drip paintings, have allowed for a large amount of the gap between the creator's broad intent and the final appearance to be filled by processes that aren't 100% predictable. There's also a lot of intent going on in which works to display and which to discard Whether largely unintended consequences or not, the abstract forms of the man in the tie are interesting enough to not look out of place in a gallery, and the renderings of sheep and clocks are clearly the products of a mind (even though it's a human one)trying to get a response from the viewer attuned to the idea of androids dreaming of electric sheep, melting clocks being an iconic surrealist thing and failure to interpret "one (1) single clock" being funny. The grassy hillside, sans sheep, not so much. A quick play with the algorithm suggests a lot of its outputs are unrecognisable forms with no correspondence to anything, so he'd already thrown away a lot of uninteresting results to get to that point.
- SunboX 8y ago
  Let an artist draw the same picture a second time without seeing the first one.

corerius 8y ago

So how could you tell an AI-generated Rothko from the real thing? If you can't tell the difference, is there a difference?...a kind of Turing test applied to art. Personally, I think that a helluva lot of modern art has a high BS level, and welcome the uproar that a computer could bring to it.

tialaramex 8y ago

No. The best working definition I've run into said that Everything unnecessary that is done on purpose is art. If you want the art to mean something that's your problem, not the artist's.