4 ms·

AI-Art Isn't Art

5 points by sebg 4y ago

PaulHoule 4y ago
"X isn't Art" isn't literature.
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
Define "art". Yesterday we had an article on Duchamp's urinal. The art world consensus, after that incident, seemed to be that what made it "art" was the intention of the artist. (Never mind that Duchamp's intent was to point out that non-art was the same as art...) But if you accept the art world's definition, the AI doesn't have "intent". Since there is no artist's intent, does that make it non-art? Does the AI programmer's intent count for anything?
- detaro 4y ago
  Someone recently failed to get copyright registration in the US for a work that he claimed was entirely the work of a program and he had no relevant involvement - the copyright office said human participation was required. And in reverse, I think a lot of "AI art" we get shown does have human participation - people do pick the prompts and often iterate on them and only show the interesting results.
- weeksie 4y ago
  Read the article, he addresses this exact objection.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    Perhaps I expressed it badly, but no, he did not address my objection. My objection isn't to the article. It's not to saying that "AI-Art Isn't Art". My objection is to an art world that accepted Duchamp's "ready-mades" as art. They are not art, for the exact same reason that the article gives. It's not just the intention of the artist at a superficial level - someone intending something to be art, therefore it's art. As the article says, it's a skillful artist intending us to think and feel and experience what the artist did, and creating something that will make us do so. Signing a urinal doesn't do that, no matter how much the artist "intended" it to be art. So what I'm saying is that, in the same way that AI-art is not art, the working definition of much of the art world for the last century has been labeling other things "art" that also are not art.
    - weeksie 4y ago
      Ah, I guess I misunderstood. Would it be fair to characterize your point as: AI art isn't art but neither is most conceptual 20-21st century art so why does it matter, we're already living in a world without art? If that's your position, I have some sympathy for that but I'd say that the difference is that in a world where AI art can be generated at the push of a button, we end up in a world where it's impossible to determine if a piece has been made by human hands. The cultural equivalent of grey goo. To me there's a big qualitative difference between some art being bullshit and (effectively) 100% of it being bullshit. Of course that includes narrative art as well, since GPT-N language models are already pretty capable in that department and will only be getting better.
      - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
        We're living in a world where we've lost the idea of art. There is still real art being produced, but the dominant philosophy of art no longer has any connection to humans. There's no place for humans as producers or viewers of art in their philosophy any more. Well, as a human, that idea (and the "art" it produces) seems literally inhuman to me.
        weeksie 4y ago
        In that case I disagree strongly with your premise, but that's fine. I don't argue past epistemological closures but (sincerely) thanks for the discussion!
        AnimalMuppet 4y ago
        > I don't argue past epistemological closures... Let's talk about that instead, if you don't mind. I think that might be a really useful thing to have in my mental toolbox, if I understood it. What is "epistemological closure"? How do you know when a conversation has hit it? Why do you stop there?
        weeksie 4y ago

5 points by sebg 4y ago

"X isn't Art" isn't literature.

Define "art". Yesterday we had an article on Duchamp's urinal. The art world consensus, after that incident, seemed to be that what made it "art" was the intention of the artist. (Never mind that Duchamp's intent was to point out that non-art was the same as art...) But if you accept the art world's definition, the AI doesn't have "intent". Since there is no artist's intent, does that make it non-art? Does the AI programmer's intent count for anything?

detaro 4y ago
Someone recently failed to get copyright registration in the US for a work that he claimed was entirely the work of a program and he had no relevant involvement - the copyright office said human participation was required. And in reverse, I think a lot of "AI art" we get shown does have human participation - people do pick the prompts and often iterate on them and only show the interesting results.
weeksie 4y ago
Read the article, he addresses this exact objection.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  Perhaps I expressed it badly, but no, he did not address my objection. My objection isn't to the article. It's not to saying that "AI-Art Isn't Art". My objection is to an art world that accepted Duchamp's "ready-mades" as art. They are not art, for the exact same reason that the article gives. It's not just the intention of the artist at a superficial level - someone intending something to be art, therefore it's art. As the article says, it's a skillful artist intending us to think and feel and experience what the artist did, and creating something that will make us do so. Signing a urinal doesn't do that, no matter how much the artist "intended" it to be art. So what I'm saying is that, in the same way that AI-art is not art, the working definition of much of the art world for the last century has been labeling other things "art" that also are not art.
  - weeksie 4y ago
    Ah, I guess I misunderstood. Would it be fair to characterize your point as: AI art isn't art but neither is most conceptual 20-21st century art so why does it matter, we're already living in a world without art? If that's your position, I have some sympathy for that but I'd say that the difference is that in a world where AI art can be generated at the push of a button, we end up in a world where it's impossible to determine if a piece has been made by human hands. The cultural equivalent of grey goo. To me there's a big qualitative difference between some art being bullshit and (effectively) 100% of it being bullshit. Of course that includes narrative art as well, since GPT-N language models are already pretty capable in that department and will only be getting better.
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      We're living in a world where we've lost the idea of art. There is still real art being produced, but the dominant philosophy of art no longer has any connection to humans. There's no place for humans as producers or viewers of art in their philosophy any more. Well, as a human, that idea (and the "art" it produces) seems literally inhuman to me.
      - weeksie 4y ago
        In that case I disagree strongly with your premise, but that's fine. I don't argue past epistemological closures but (sincerely) thanks for the discussion!
        AnimalMuppet 4y ago
        > I don't argue past epistemological closures... Let's talk about that instead, if you don't mind. I think that might be a really useful thing to have in my mental toolbox, if I understood it. What is "epistemological closure"? How do you know when a conversation has hit it? Why do you stop there?
        weeksie 4y ago