5 ms·

Computers Do Not Make Art, People Do

21 points by raleighm 6y ago

Daub 6y ago
From the article: "I do not believe any software system in our current understanding could be called an "artist." Art is a social activity, and our "AI" software is still just software, mechanically following the instructions we give it." Well yes... art is a cultural outcome, and culture comes from humans. Thereafter from the time and place in which humans live. What makes computer art interesting is its properties as a medium. For the most part, it is rather good at impersonating other mediums. The same beige box can be a video editor, a painting app, a piano etc. This makes it unique in the world of mediums. In my opinion, if it can be anything, then it is also kinda nothing (medium-wise). The author mentions the impact that Photography had on art. This cannot be over-stated. Essentially, artists were put out of a job, or at least obliged to re-define their job description. For me, it is amazing the impact that computers had on photography. Photographers are now the ones that are re-defining their jobs.
- dkersten 6y ago
  I find it funny that people don’t think computers can be artists, yet get fooled by paintings “painted” by an animal walking over the paint or a toddler or other such things. I think they’re just snobs. To me, anything that can evoke an emotion from someone looking at the art piece (even if just appreciation) is art. Computer-generated content can do this for me, therefore I consider it art.
  - dntbnmpls 6y ago
    Not to mention animals that actually do create art. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B91tozyQs9M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B91tozyQs9M Art isn't exclusive to humans though we excel at it. And certainly computers can create paintings, music, etc which is art. There was a time when "artists" claimed photographs weren't art and photographers weren't artists. It's just people selfishly trying to ward off competition and protect their financial interests. They needn't worry. Just because computers can create art doesn't mean human artists will disappear no more than computers playing chess put an end to human chess players.
    - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
      At best, computers can create art-lite commodities. They can't create art (yet), because art is not about creating objects. Or content. Or any of those other words. The only medium that matters in art is the culture around the art itself. That's what real artists really work with - cultures of perception, social context, and imagination. The objects produced are just souvenirs. Computers - with or without AI - have exactly zero creative agency. Until that changes they won't be making art. Randomly exploring a creative space a human has defined is not the same as creating an original artistic or cultural insight, dramatising it with art objects, defending it against cultural attacks, and leaving a lasting legacy. Of course most artists don't do that either. But they do distill and concentrate human experiences into a saleable form. Computers can't even do that, because they don't have any experiences to distill.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - dkersten 6y ago
        I disagree. There is plenty of abstract art that's considered art that is visually no different from what a computer might generate. There's plenty of art made by small children, animals or spilled paint and its considered art. None of these things distill any human experiences or creative agency or anything, but are considered art. Computers can totally do that.
      - wkearney99 6y ago
        I can't quite put my finger on the best response to all that, other than to say "get a shovel, there's a lot of bullshit piled up here". "Real artists", oh, now THERE'S a shining bit of arrogance. Likewise the notion that the artist is somehow creating a distillation the audience themselves wouldn't be able to otherwise find revelatory and enjoyable from any number of other random AI influences. Because they quite probably would, and this no doubt presents a terrifying possibility to the merchants of your art "culture". But works of true value maintain currency over time. This, however, doesn't make everything else created in-between worthless. It's just different. AI art is likewise.
miscPerson 6y ago
Someone can reasonably be called an artist if, having listened to thousands of hours of music and training to replicate it, can create a new piece using a request from a patron — “make me a song that reminds me of my youth in Saxony” or whatever. What’s the difference between that and a GAN transforming the request? It sounds like worrying if submarines swim. Not that I believe computers have quite reached the level that an expert artist does — being able to suggest modifications to a request — but saying they don’t produce “art” also seems incorrect.

21 points by raleighm 6y ago

Daub 6y ago

From the article: "I do not believe any software system in our current understanding could be called an "artist." Art is a social activity, and our "AI" software is still just software, mechanically following the instructions we give it." Well yes... art is a cultural outcome, and culture comes from humans. Thereafter from the time and place in which humans live. What makes computer art interesting is its properties as a medium. For the most part, it is rather good at impersonating other mediums. The same beige box can be a video editor, a painting app, a piano etc. This makes it unique in the world of mediums. In my opinion, if it can be anything, then it is also kinda nothing (medium-wise). The author mentions the impact that Photography had on art. This cannot be over-stated. Essentially, artists were put out of a job, or at least obliged to re-define their job description. For me, it is amazing the impact that computers had on photography. Photographers are now the ones that are re-defining their jobs.

dkersten 6y ago
I find it funny that people don’t think computers can be artists, yet get fooled by paintings “painted” by an animal walking over the paint or a toddler or other such things. I think they’re just snobs. To me, anything that can evoke an emotion from someone looking at the art piece (even if just appreciation) is art. Computer-generated content can do this for me, therefore I consider it art.
- dntbnmpls 6y ago
  Not to mention animals that actually do create art. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B91tozyQs9M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B91tozyQs9M Art isn't exclusive to humans though we excel at it. And certainly computers can create paintings, music, etc which is art. There was a time when "artists" claimed photographs weren't art and photographers weren't artists. It's just people selfishly trying to ward off competition and protect their financial interests. They needn't worry. Just because computers can create art doesn't mean human artists will disappear no more than computers playing chess put an end to human chess players.
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    At best, computers can create art-lite commodities. They can't create art (yet), because art is not about creating objects. Or content. Or any of those other words. The only medium that matters in art is the culture around the art itself. That's what real artists really work with - cultures of perception, social context, and imagination. The objects produced are just souvenirs. Computers - with or without AI - have exactly zero creative agency. Until that changes they won't be making art. Randomly exploring a creative space a human has defined is not the same as creating an original artistic or cultural insight, dramatising it with art objects, defending it against cultural attacks, and leaving a lasting legacy. Of course most artists don't do that either. But they do distill and concentrate human experiences into a saleable form. Computers can't even do that, because they don't have any experiences to distill.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - dkersten 6y ago
      I disagree. There is plenty of abstract art that's considered art that is visually no different from what a computer might generate. There's plenty of art made by small children, animals or spilled paint and its considered art. None of these things distill any human experiences or creative agency or anything, but are considered art. Computers can totally do that.
    - wkearney99 6y ago
      I can't quite put my finger on the best response to all that, other than to say "get a shovel, there's a lot of bullshit piled up here". "Real artists", oh, now THERE'S a shining bit of arrogance. Likewise the notion that the artist is somehow creating a distillation the audience themselves wouldn't be able to otherwise find revelatory and enjoyable from any number of other random AI influences. Because they quite probably would, and this no doubt presents a terrifying possibility to the merchants of your art "culture". But works of true value maintain currency over time. This, however, doesn't make everything else created in-between worthless. It's just different. AI art is likewise.

miscPerson 6y ago

Someone can reasonably be called an artist if, having listened to thousands of hours of music and training to replicate it, can create a new piece using a request from a patron — “make me a song that reminds me of my youth in Saxony” or whatever. What’s the difference between that and a GAN transforming the request? It sounds like worrying if submarines swim. Not that I believe computers have quite reached the level that an expert artist does — being able to suggest modifications to a request — but saying they don’t produce “art” also seems incorrect.