3 ms·
I do some generative evolutionary art as an ongoing side project, and sometimes take my art to art shows, galleries, and conferences, and also publish academica
by dahart 5y ago
I do some generative evolutionary art as an ongoing side project, and sometimes take my art to art shows, galleries, and conferences, and also publish academically on the techniques. It has happened on multiple occasions that someone either said directly to me or loudly to a friend nearby “Oh, well, this was just made by a computer”, as if my contribution was nothing more than turning it on and pressing a button. More or less the same as suggesting a painting was created by the paintbrush.
I don’t mind that some people don’t understand digital art, and I think it’s true that it’s harder to determine what an artist actually does when looking at digital art. But jumping to conclusions about it without understanding the first thing about it is pretty funny.
- monkeybutton 5y agoYou guide your computer, interact with it and are involved in the process, no? The camera maker is not, and I think that is what makes the distinction here. If a true AGI woke up one day, decided to study medicine and created a break through all on its own then yes, it deserves the credit. But if an AI is being trained, tested, guided, fixed, debugged, re-written, tuned and fixed again until good results are found, the people doing that work deserve the credit. They are the ones who "know" what they are doing, not the AI.
- dahart 5y agoYeah exactly, but in fairness I think it can sometimes be legitimately difficult to know who's doing the work. Sometimes the tool maker's contribution really does setup an environment where the next step is inevitable. Scientists have always known that the context of their work - their peers' publications - provide the springboard to 'ask the right question'. Our tendency to anthropomorphize computers certainly contributes to getting confused about who did the work and who deserves credit, but humans have always had a hard time giving credit where credit is due when multiple people are involved, even outside of cases where contributors are excluded or snubbed. We humans tend to like clean simple narratives about breakthrough geniuses. We don't as much like listening to or trying to explain long histories of incremental improvements by many that culminate in a big change.
- andi999 5y agoI think the same discussion was about if photography is art.
- andersource 5y agoOT but would you mind sharing some of it? That sounds really interesting.
- dahart 5y agoSure here are some image samples: https://flickr.com/photos/biv4b/albums/576553 https://flickr.com/photos/biv4b/albums/576553 and a paper: https://dahart.com/research.html https://dahart.com/research.html
- andersource 5y agoThose are incredible, thank you!
- mensetmanusman 5y agohttps://flickr.com/photos/biv4b/70775796/in/album-576553/ https://flickr.com/photos/biv4b/70775796/in/album-576553/ Cool, these remind me of atomic orbitals.