4 ms·

Not trying to denigrate artists, but as somebody that admittedly doesn't appreciate art, I'm still not sure how artists aren't just pastiche image maker themsel

by iakh 7y ago

Not trying to denigrate artists, but as somebody that admittedly doesn't appreciate art, I'm still not sure how artists aren't just pastiche image maker themselves. Based on your comment, I'm not entirely clear what the difference is

hug 7y ago
Can this machine, beautiful art though it may make, look at the work of the cubists and spontaneously generate Gehry? Without Mondrian, would it find beauty in clean abstract lines and sharp angles? Can it, by itself, come up with the concept of neoplasticism and implement that, in any way, to create a new beautiful artwork? Would the AI, not for Klimt, have an appreciation for how casually erotic the female form can be? Does it, yet, have this appreciation? I don't know, and I'm sure it doesn't either.
- nineteen999 7y ago
  > I don't know, and I'm sure it doesn't either. Even more pertinently, it doesn't care.
  - tartoran 7y ago
    I might stretch it further that it can’t even care because the machine does not have the capability to care.
    - nineteen999 7y ago
      I think to the average human, that was implicit in my comment, but for the benefit of the machines, it's good to spell it out.
craftinator 7y ago
Well said. I actually do appreciate many forms of art, but I feel that many artist (that I know) are just a mixture of regurgitators and expert salesmen. They make something random, then come up with a backstory that makes it somewhat interesting. This AI can out perform them, without the need for the ingenuous hook story.
- tartoran 7y ago
  The serious ones who stick around doing the same thing for a lifetime do eventually find some meaningful essence however abstract that is. But there is indeed a lot of deception in the art world since it is a non quantifiable subject the story does add some value
- drongoking 7y ago
  > I actually do appreciate many forms of art, but I feel that many artist (that I know) are just a mixture of regurgitators and expert salesmen. They make something random, then come up with a backstory that makes it somewhat interesting. I wouldn't call your relationship with art "appreciation". Sounds more like undisguised disdain.
  - craftinator 7y ago
    I appreciate art, not artists. You seem to either have misread what I said, or are actively trying to misattribute my words.
    - TheGrassyKnoll 7y ago
      > "I appreciate art, not artists." Can you have one without the other ? Apparently, now, you can...
- friendlybus 7y ago
  Interpreting the random is a fair form of art. Like a sports commentator or video game mechanic.
mhh__ 7y ago
https://youtu.be/9PKp4q5-Aww?t=289 https://youtu.be/9PKp4q5-Aww?t=289 Watch this video of an art dealer looking at the "efforts" of the Top Gear trio - He's looking for premeditation, emotion, and inspiration, it's arguably a bit pretentious, but you can see his change in the thought process when James May starts to explain how his big metal face is a deconstruction of a car into a display of his emotions while driving it. A piece of art is different to different people, but you are consuming the artist's opinions both directly (if you are aware of the artist's previous work, i.e. Francis Bacons paintings are pretty interesting if you know a bit about his life) and indirectly (The Video game Pathologic is very polarising but is so utterly alien to the archetypal video game - especially when it first came out - that it really resonates with some of those who play it). Imitation and technique only go so far - Erik Satie wasn't particularly well regarded as a composer (or even a musician, he often referred to himself as a Phonometrician) when he produced his most famous works but he is known to this day for his command of minimalism, repitition and a surprisingly Jazz-like use of "horizontal" harmony from simple scales (Potentially constructed by stacking triads but I don't know)
TheGrassyKnoll 7y ago
(pastiche: I had to look it up) pastiche n 1: a musical composition consisting of a series of songs or other musical pieces from various sources [syn: medley, potpourri, pastiche] 2: a work of art that imitates the style of some previous work http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=pastiche http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=pas...
flarg 7y ago
A lot of art is exactly that, but it's usually very obvious. As it is in these pictures.
- gwd 7y ago
  I find this whole discussion quite interesting: There seem to be many people who think these photos are pretty much just like what you see in an art gallery, and others who say that it's obviously just inspirationless imitation. Comparing this to generated music -- every time there's a "quiz" challenging to distinguish computer-generated snippets of music from real classical music, I've gotten 100%. The key difference is that the computer-generated music I've heard so far is just one musical idea after the other; it doesn't seem to have intent or motion. (Much like GPT-2 style text: a single sentence looks reasonable; once you get to several paragraphs, it completely stops "hanging together".)
  - tartoran 7y ago
    > it doesn't seem to have intent or motion Because it does not have any. It’s a tool. Can we say a cool brush creates paintings, a complex instrument creates music? By itself Im afraid it’s far from it. A human hand must be involved somewhere (im literal about the hand part, but a brain nonetheless)

by iakh 7y ago

hug 7y ago

Can this machine, beautiful art though it may make, look at the work of the cubists and spontaneously generate Gehry? Without Mondrian, would it find beauty in clean abstract lines and sharp angles? Can it, by itself, come up with the concept of neoplasticism and implement that, in any way, to create a new beautiful artwork? Would the AI, not for Klimt, have an appreciation for how casually erotic the female form can be? Does it, yet, have this appreciation? I don't know, and I'm sure it doesn't either.

nineteen999 7y ago
> I don't know, and I'm sure it doesn't either. Even more pertinently, it doesn't care.
- tartoran 7y ago
  I might stretch it further that it can’t even care because the machine does not have the capability to care.
  - nineteen999 7y ago
    I think to the average human, that was implicit in my comment, but for the benefit of the machines, it's good to spell it out.

craftinator 7y ago

Well said. I actually do appreciate many forms of art, but I feel that many artist (that I know) are just a mixture of regurgitators and expert salesmen. They make something random, then come up with a backstory that makes it somewhat interesting. This AI can out perform them, without the need for the ingenuous hook story.

tartoran 7y ago
The serious ones who stick around doing the same thing for a lifetime do eventually find some meaningful essence however abstract that is. But there is indeed a lot of deception in the art world since it is a non quantifiable subject the story does add some value
drongoking 7y ago
> I actually do appreciate many forms of art, but I feel that many artist (that I know) are just a mixture of regurgitators and expert salesmen. They make something random, then come up with a backstory that makes it somewhat interesting. I wouldn't call your relationship with art "appreciation". Sounds more like undisguised disdain.
- craftinator 7y ago
  I appreciate art, not artists. You seem to either have misread what I said, or are actively trying to misattribute my words.
  - TheGrassyKnoll 7y ago
    > "I appreciate art, not artists." Can you have one without the other ? Apparently, now, you can...
friendlybus 7y ago
Interpreting the random is a fair form of art. Like a sports commentator or video game mechanic.

mhh__ 7y ago

https://youtu.be/9PKp4q5-Aww?t=289 https://youtu.be/9PKp4q5-Aww?t=289 Watch this video of an art dealer looking at the "efforts" of the Top Gear trio - He's looking for premeditation, emotion, and inspiration, it's arguably a bit pretentious, but you can see his change in the thought process when James May starts to explain how his big metal face is a deconstruction of a car into a display of his emotions while driving it. A piece of art is different to different people, but you are consuming the artist's opinions both directly (if you are aware of the artist's previous work, i.e. Francis Bacons paintings are pretty interesting if you know a bit about his life) and indirectly (The Video game Pathologic is very polarising but is so utterly alien to the archetypal video game - especially when it first came out - that it really resonates with some of those who play it). Imitation and technique only go so far - Erik Satie wasn't particularly well regarded as a composer (or even a musician, he often referred to himself as a Phonometrician) when he produced his most famous works but he is known to this day for his command of minimalism, repitition and a surprisingly Jazz-like use of "horizontal" harmony from simple scales (Potentially constructed by stacking triads but I don't know)

TheGrassyKnoll 7y ago

(pastiche: I had to look it up) pastiche n 1: a musical composition consisting of a series of songs or other musical pieces from various sources [syn: medley, potpourri, pastiche] 2: a work of art that imitates the style of some previous work http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=pastiche http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=pas...

flarg 7y ago

A lot of art is exactly that, but it's usually very obvious. As it is in these pictures.

gwd 7y ago
I find this whole discussion quite interesting: There seem to be many people who think these photos are pretty much just like what you see in an art gallery, and others who say that it's obviously just inspirationless imitation. Comparing this to generated music -- every time there's a "quiz" challenging to distinguish computer-generated snippets of music from real classical music, I've gotten 100%. The key difference is that the computer-generated music I've heard so far is just one musical idea after the other; it doesn't seem to have intent or motion. (Much like GPT-2 style text: a single sentence looks reasonable; once you get to several paragraphs, it completely stops "hanging together".)
- tartoran 7y ago
  > it doesn't seem to have intent or motion Because it does not have any. It’s a tool. Can we say a cool brush creates paintings, a complex instrument creates music? By itself Im afraid it’s far from it. A human hand must be involved somewhere (im literal about the hand part, but a brain nonetheless)