3 ms·

How much of that profoundness is within our own heads because we know someone made it. We might imagine their intent, working back from the final representation

by nkrisc 7y ago

How much of that profoundness is within our own heads because we know someone made it. We might imagine their intent, working back from the final representation to imagine what they might have felt creating it. So in that regard, as long as we're honest with the viewer, I imagine your point holds; it won't ever be the same. Yet I have to imagine that how most art is consumed these days already does away with any notion of "intent of the artist." Did the artist intend for their work to be displayed in large galleries, alongside countless other works, hundreds of years later? Who knows? We're constantly re-imagining these works by placing them in new contexts and priming viewers in different ways. However it is different when the artist is still with us. Would cubist paintings have the same depth if the viewer was lead to believe that a computer had generated them?

52-6F-62 7y ago
Context. You said it with context. I don't think art is experienced in one way only, and context is important (as almost always). In the case of cubism—it was a response to the mode of the time. Form was being questioned. It was a philosophical effort expressed and communicated in its own way. That's one experience. Another is purely aesthetic. Much the same with music.A computer wouldn't likely [at this stage, anyway] developed the blues. It's not purely algorithmic, though the resulting form can be used to develop one. A lot of that kind of music only developed as a result of empathy and the ability to relate to the poetry and the mood and feelings imbued by it. Likewise, that's one experience. Another is purely aesthetic. Another yet begins with the aesthetic and might explore the history to develop a more profound experience through the attempt at understanding. I'm quite brazenly biased here. I don't resent the efforts, nor would I disparage the results of computer generated music. But I don't think it compares. By that I don't mean one is objectively better or worse than the other; I mean quite strictly that I don't think they compare. It wasn't experience that resulted in the emergence—just mild variations on a "consciously" used algorithm. (I know I'm oversimplifying—it's not meant to degrade the author's or other commenters' work in the field)
- nkrisc 7y ago
  Fair enough, that's a good point. Art is constantly given new meaning, whether initially by the artist, or those who choose to display it, and finally by those who view it (and in some cases those who then try to ban or suppress it!). I do see the argument that a human element is required. Is computer generated noise "music" until someone selects and features it? I'm not necessarily arguing for one view over the other, I'm just not yet entirely convinced that a computer can't generate art, without devolving into debating what is and isn't art altogether.
  - 52-6F-62 7y ago
    I think in that case, and also without getting too into the weeds, I'd put forward that a precursor to art would be consciousness. Until then I figure it's pattern matching—or instruction-following. Origin I guess I also consider important... but we'll get into the weeds if I do go one (as I was about to start questioning if a child learning drawing techniques from a 'how-to' book is creating art in that moment) That's my quick first thought, anyway.
    - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
      Yes - the real medium of art is culture itself. "Content" is just a means to that end. AI is culturally blind, tone deaf, and dumb. So although it's going to be capable of generating adequate content at some point, it's not going to be changing the foundations of the cultural currents around it in the way a groundbreaking work of art does. (And no - producing "content" mechanically is culturally trivial. It's a change of medium, not a change of message.) That won't happen until it understands and can influence cultural processes as a personality with agency and something original to say, and isn't just spinning its wheels on MIDI notes and virtual paint splotches.

by nkrisc 7y ago

52-6F-62 7y ago

Context. You said it with context. I don't think art is experienced in one way only, and context is important (as almost always). In the case of cubism—it was a response to the mode of the time. Form was being questioned. It was a philosophical effort expressed and communicated in its own way. That's one experience. Another is purely aesthetic. Much the same with music.A computer wouldn't likely [at this stage, anyway] developed the blues. It's not purely algorithmic, though the resulting form can be used to develop one. A lot of that kind of music only developed as a result of empathy and the ability to relate to the poetry and the mood and feelings imbued by it. Likewise, that's one experience. Another is purely aesthetic. Another yet begins with the aesthetic and might explore the history to develop a more profound experience through the attempt at understanding. I'm quite brazenly biased here. I don't resent the efforts, nor would I disparage the results of computer generated music. But I don't think it compares. By that I don't mean one is objectively better or worse than the other; I mean quite strictly that I don't think they compare. It wasn't experience that resulted in the emergence—just mild variations on a "consciously" used algorithm. (I know I'm oversimplifying—it's not meant to degrade the author's or other commenters' work in the field)

nkrisc 7y ago
Fair enough, that's a good point. Art is constantly given new meaning, whether initially by the artist, or those who choose to display it, and finally by those who view it (and in some cases those who then try to ban or suppress it!). I do see the argument that a human element is required. Is computer generated noise "music" until someone selects and features it? I'm not necessarily arguing for one view over the other, I'm just not yet entirely convinced that a computer can't generate art, without devolving into debating what is and isn't art altogether.
- 52-6F-62 7y ago
  I think in that case, and also without getting too into the weeds, I'd put forward that a precursor to art would be consciousness. Until then I figure it's pattern matching—or instruction-following. Origin I guess I also consider important... but we'll get into the weeds if I do go one (as I was about to start questioning if a child learning drawing techniques from a 'how-to' book is creating art in that moment) That's my quick first thought, anyway.
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    Yes - the real medium of art is culture itself. "Content" is just a means to that end. AI is culturally blind, tone deaf, and dumb. So although it's going to be capable of generating adequate content at some point, it's not going to be changing the foundations of the cultural currents around it in the way a groundbreaking work of art does. (And no - producing "content" mechanically is culturally trivial. It's a change of medium, not a change of message.) That won't happen until it understands and can influence cultural processes as a personality with agency and something original to say, and isn't just spinning its wheels on MIDI notes and virtual paint splotches.