2 ms·

My point is that art comes from emotion, experience, and expression – not from arranging matter into a certain geometry. A photo of the Mona Lisa, taken by a hu

by p-e-w 4y ago

My point is that art comes from emotion, experience, and expression – not from arranging matter into a certain geometry. A photo of the Mona Lisa, taken by a human, can be art. A photo of the Mona Lisa, taken by an automated security system, can't be.

PurpleRamen 4y ago
If the human made picture is evaluated by an AI, is it still art? If the security cam-picture is indistinguishable from the human-made, how could you evaluate it as non-art?
- p-e-w 4y ago
  It doesn't matter whether you are able to distinguish human-made from computer-made "art". The distinction exists by definition, irrespective of whether you can actually tell the difference in practice. Just like many past events are now lost to time and will never be remembered, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen.
  - gilleain 4y ago
    One possibly interesting sidenote are the fake Vermeers made by Han van Meegeren (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_van_Meegeren https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_van_Meegeren) So accurate were these fakes - not copies, but new paintings in Vermeer's style - that several experts verified them as real, and then tried to sue to save their reputations. These fakes were certainly made by a human, but are somewhat mechanical in the sense that they were copying someone else, much like an AI copy of existing artists.
    - dagw 4y ago
      The interesting thing here is that once van Meegeren was exposed he became famous in his own right and his 'fakes' became valuable, not as fakes, but as genuine Han van Meegeren originals.
  - PurpleRamen 4y ago
    Just to be clear. Your idea is that something is art when it was made by a human. And a perfect replication of it somehow loses the trait, and becomes non-art? This makes zero sense. This would make only the physical object itself the art, and it wouldn't matter what form it has?
    - monknomo 4y ago
      Of course it makes sense - a print is different than an original, they have a different price, they have a different impact. Even when it is a very good print. For that matter, a limited run print has a different impact and value than an unlimited run print. Compare an original warhol print of a can of soup, to a modern repr print, to an actual can of soup, to an I <3 NY t-shirt.
      - pixl97 4y ago
        So digital art cannot exist?
jodrellblank 4y ago
Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson, July 1993 - https://imgur.com/a/JdHlOxm https://imgur.com/a/JdHlOxm : Calvin: "A painting. Moving. Spiritually enriching. Sublime. High art!" Calvin: "The comic strip. Vapid. Juvenile. Commercial hack work. Low art." Calvin: "A painting of a comic strip panel. Sophisticated irony. Philosophically challenging. High art." Hobbes: "Suppose I draw a cartoon of a painting of a comic strip?" Calvin: "Sophomoric. Intellectually sterile. Low art."
stale2002 4y ago
Ok, well AI art is also created by the human, in the same way that a photograph is taken by a human, but goes through the camera machine.

by p-e-w 4y ago

PurpleRamen 4y ago

If the human made picture is evaluated by an AI, is it still art? If the security cam-picture is indistinguishable from the human-made, how could you evaluate it as non-art?

p-e-w 4y ago
It doesn't matter whether you are able to distinguish human-made from computer-made "art". The distinction exists by definition, irrespective of whether you can actually tell the difference in practice. Just like many past events are now lost to time and will never be remembered, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen.
- gilleain 4y ago
  One possibly interesting sidenote are the fake Vermeers made by Han van Meegeren (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_van_Meegeren https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_van_Meegeren) So accurate were these fakes - not copies, but new paintings in Vermeer's style - that several experts verified them as real, and then tried to sue to save their reputations. These fakes were certainly made by a human, but are somewhat mechanical in the sense that they were copying someone else, much like an AI copy of existing artists.
  - dagw 4y ago
    The interesting thing here is that once van Meegeren was exposed he became famous in his own right and his 'fakes' became valuable, not as fakes, but as genuine Han van Meegeren originals.
- PurpleRamen 4y ago
  Just to be clear. Your idea is that something is art when it was made by a human. And a perfect replication of it somehow loses the trait, and becomes non-art? This makes zero sense. This would make only the physical object itself the art, and it wouldn't matter what form it has?
  - monknomo 4y ago
    Of course it makes sense - a print is different than an original, they have a different price, they have a different impact. Even when it is a very good print. For that matter, a limited run print has a different impact and value than an unlimited run print. Compare an original warhol print of a can of soup, to a modern repr print, to an actual can of soup, to an I <3 NY t-shirt.
    - pixl97 4y ago
      So digital art cannot exist?

jodrellblank 4y ago

Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson, July 1993 - https://imgur.com/a/JdHlOxm https://imgur.com/a/JdHlOxm : Calvin: "A painting. Moving. Spiritually enriching. Sublime. High art!" Calvin: "The comic strip. Vapid. Juvenile. Commercial hack work. Low art." Calvin: "A painting of a comic strip panel. Sophisticated irony. Philosophically challenging. High art." Hobbes: "Suppose I draw a cartoon of a painting of a comic strip?" Calvin: "Sophomoric. Intellectually sterile. Low art."

stale2002 4y ago

Ok, well AI art is also created by the human, in the same way that a photograph is taken by a human, but goes through the camera machine.