4 ms·

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 exclusiv

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.
Daub 6y ago
Yes... some animals paint, when enabled by humans. but painting on its own is just an activity. The way that elephants would have painted 100 years ago is the same in which they paint now. On the other hand, paintings by humans vary according to the time and place they were made. This is culture at work. Defined in the most general way possible, culture is ‘the way we do things here’. I’m not saying that animals have no culture at all. But Compared to humans, it would be a trace amount.

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.

Daub 6y ago

Yes... some animals paint, when enabled by humans. but painting on its own is just an activity. The way that elephants would have painted 100 years ago is the same in which they paint now. On the other hand, paintings by humans vary according to the time and place they were made. This is culture at work. Defined in the most general way possible, culture is ‘the way we do things here’. I’m not saying that animals have no culture at all. But Compared to humans, it would be a trace amount.