8 ms·
Museum displays artwork created by AI in place of Girl with a Pearl Earring
- bawolff 4y agoI mean, art is supposed to make people emotional. Seems like by that metric this piece has been a success.
- tmikaeld 4y agoYou're right, it's about what it conveys to the observer. Everyone seems to be so focused on art being a matter of hard work, it's not, if it where, a lot of abstract artist wouldn't be selling paintings.
- stemlord 4y agoSo is clickbait
- klodolph 4y agoI think we may have radically different ideas about what art is or what it is supposed to do.
- jdmtheNth 4y agoArt is meant to provoke feelings and reactions. In people, anyway.
- klodolph 4y agoI would definitely consider that a misconception of what art is or what it is supposed to do. It's the kind of thing Aristotle said, but our conceptions of art have changed since Aristotle's time. Here's an introduction to the topic: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/
- lsaferite 4y ago> The definition of art is controversial in contemporary philosophy. Whether art can be defined has also been a matter of controversy. The philosophical usefulness of a definition of art has also been debated. Your own link _starts_ with a statement about the controversial nature of a definition of art. Are you surprised you disagree with someone on the nature of art?
- klodolph 4y ago> Are you surprised you disagree with someone on the nature of art? I think we both agree here that the obvious answer to this question is "no", and that's the correct answer... is there some specific point you're trying to make?
- jdmtheNth 4y agoGood article. The entry for "Traditional" seems closest to correct.
- klodolph 4y agoThose definitions generally exclude works by Duchamp and many other modern artists which do not fit into the narrow traditional definitions of art. (There are some overbroad traditional definitions, I don't think you're talking about those.) Just to give some wider social context--the backlash against modern art is something of a right-wing talking point, and it has been for nearly a hundred years if not longer, for complicated reasons that would fill an entire book. These days I see those definitions the most in those Twitter accounts with ancient roman/greek sculpture as their profile pictures, which post about the decline of society and how modern art is bad, classical art is good. I like modern art. You may not like it, but it seems weird and distasteful to reach for a definition of "art" that excludes things you don't like.
- throwaway4aday 4y ago> the backlash against modern art is something of a right-wing talking point, and it has been for nearly a hundred years if not longer You are most definitely blaming the wrong axis of the political compass. Preference for or opposition to modern art has no political leaning and varies widely between people of all political stripes. Modern art has been notably suppressed by authoritarian regimes[0] however but this is not due to their politics, rather it's entirely due to their personal opinions which become law in a dictatorial government. More evidence against your claim also comes from the fact that was mentioned in this thread that the CIA, who by most measures would be traditionally considered right wing, promoted modern art as a propaganda weapon against America's enemies[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_realism [1] https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artcurious-cia-art-excerpt-1909623 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artcurious-cia-art-excerpt...
- tokai 4y agoWe're to soft on AI. Had a human done them they would hopefully not have been hanged in a museum. Bland and soulless as they are.
- IanCal 4y agoThat doesn't seem to be the case > The jury did not look at the ethical issues behind the entries. “We purely looked at what we liked. Is this creative? That’s a tough question.
- dale_glass 4y agoMuseums aren't a "top 100 most popular" display. They have curators, who can use pretty much any method conceivable of selecting what to display. Just like the rest of the world, artists have their own community, in-jokes, memes and contentious people. It's very possible that a whole bunch of stuff is on display because the author is the curator's friend, or the curator thinks it makes some particularly good point, or even because the curator decided to troll people a little.
- isoprophlex 4y ago> Artist Eva Toorenent advocates for legislation and rules for what she calls “unethical technology” with her organization, European Guilt for Artificial Intelligence Regulation This typo ('guilt') is just too juicy
- cout 4y agoOh is it supposed to be Guild? I was wondering about that and figured it was an obscure use of the word Guilt that I was not familiar with.
- causi 4y agoI'm curious if there was a similar rebellion among traditional-medium artists when digital art started becoming widespread a couple decades ago. Was there similar hand-wringing over how being able to use layers was cheating, how a smoothing filter or a clone tool made you "not a real artist"?
- tudorw 4y agoyes
- tudorw 4y agoit was probably the same for whoever came up with perspective, 'oh yes, well, I see what you've done, isn't that, erm, cheating, and anyway, my painting looks more like a real painting...etc etc'
- Karawebnetwork 4y agoIt was, yes. Part of it was calling digital artists lazy and a lot of it was the fear that galleries would cease to exist because everyone would just look at free art online and art itself would die. Of course, it wasn't everyone, but the sentiment was there.
- oneeyedpigeon 4y agoI'm curious about where 'real artists' would draw the line. Would it be cheating to use a paintbrush unless you've crafted it yourself? I also find it ironic that some of the biggest detractors of AI art are, themselves, exclusively digital artists.
- another2another 4y agoSome of these look fun and interesting, but I still much prefer the original. So I would argue humans not totally replaced yet.
- LanceH 4y agoThey would lose a lot of the fun part without the context of the original, as well.
- jdmtheNth 4y ago[flagged]
- rutierut 4y agoAs usual, news outlets can't help themselves insinuating the model _contains_ these images. I feel like this partially an honest mistake, partially because otherwise the conclusion would be obvious and the article boring. Source article for people that read Dutch: https://13ft.io/www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/mauritshuis-hangt-kunstwerk-gemaakt-door-algoritme-op-plek-vermeer-gewoon-mooi-of-onethisch~ba60c70b/ https://13ft.io/www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/maurits...
- Gys 4y agoWhy does this link start with 13ft.io here? It should be https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/mauritshuis-hangt-kunstwerk-gemaakt-door-algoritme-op-plek-vermeer-gewoon-mooi-of-onethisch~ba60c70b/ https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/mauritshuis-han...
- throwaway290 4y agoWhen I was young I thought art is what looks pretty but over years I learned art can be anything. Ugly, pretty, political, abstract, a framed drawing, a dirty bidet placed in the middle of an empty room. Now the core property of art to me is that it is always self-expression. The question becomes, there's no self to express, how is it art?
- wccrawford 4y agoThe self is still there. The artist is the person who commanded the AI to make the work, and then selected that work as something they liked. In addition, that person can also take it further and modify the art, either with the AI or with more traditional programs, or even more creative means. The AI didn't decide on its own to produce this art. Someone directed it. That person is an artist.
- mring33621 4y agoThe human is the artist. The AI is the helper. I can't speak for everyone, but I really enjoy playing with AI-aided creation. The things I make with these tools reflect my personality and feelings at the time of creation. There the self remains.
- throwaway290 4y agoThat's kind of what I'm saying. "AI" "created" an "artwork" is nonsensical. It's like saying it was "created by Photoshop".
- imranq 4y agoI think we will likely want to know the story that accompanies a painting more than ever. Aesthetics and composition alone will not make a great piece since we can no longer trust that some work was created by a human artist. We know that AI paintings are simply points in the latent space between human-created artworks, so there cannot be any information gain from such representations and therefore have nothing new to say about the human condition without adding real-world context and story. Paintings will be judged by how well they fit in the context of nature and society. "I trudged through the Grand Canyon to paint this landscape in Spring" is much more compelling than "I just typed in these words in MidJourney and this is what came out".
- michaelscott 4y agoArt has been seen as an outcome of context, rather than simply a combination of aesthetics and composition, for a long time already. The movements of Dadaism, Surrealism, Abstract Expressionism and, maybe most famously, Cubism have all already questioned the purpose of art in the recent-ish past. That purpose of art is what will need to be determined now. In the early Middle Ages of Europe or the Islamic Golden Age, for example, art served a religious purpose. In more modern times, art has served to question or criticise the status quo in the context from which it's born. I don't think this purpose necessarily needs to be abandoned, but it will definitely need to be re-assessed in light of this new tool we've developed.
- mouse_ 4y agoLet's not forget how much the CIA messed up our interpretation of art in recent times. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artcurious-cia-art-excerpt-1909623 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artcurious-cia-art-excerpt...
- spaced-out 4y agoDamn, the CIA had good taste in art, who knew...
- nestorD 4y ago
- dorkwood 4y agoAnyone who has spent time with Midjourney knows that it can take hours to fine tune a prompt to get exactly what you’re after. It also says the artist adjusted the result in Photoshop, which means it likely took an additional few hours on top of that. It’s possible they spent an entire day on this.
- thejohnconway 4y agoI whole day? Now that’s artistic commitment!
- FranzFerdiNaN 4y agoArt takes time to create, and the more time it takes to create the more art it is of course. Makes sense.
- throwaway4aday 4y agoI know this is sarcasm but still... is the value of art how long it takes or the artistic sense and judgement that goes into it? Or perhaps none of that matters and it is entirely preference on the part of the person appreciating it.
- expazl 4y agoThe value of "art" goes down with the number of people able to create it. If it takes someone a week of training and a days work to create a Mona Lisa replica with glowing teeth, then that's worthless art, even if it does look better than the original. Makes for a great publicity stunt for the museum to put something like that up, and there's only one person who can be the first to do it. So in other words, there cannot be a large number of people able to do that. Therefore this time it's art that has some worth, the next time someone does it its worthless.
- neilellis 4y agoIt's actually very good.
- aresant 4y agoReal story is the original is out on loan. So museum asked public to submit their ideas to hang as replacements and they chose several A group of the best ones here - some very creative ideas: https://www.mauritshuis.nl/nu-te-doen/tentoonstellingen/mygirlwithapearl/ https://www.mauritshuis.nl/nu-te-doen/tentoonstellingen/mygi...
- YeGoblynQueenne 4y agoIt seems there were many more than one of those images that were created by a neural net image generator.
- moomoo11 4y agoCool and I’m going to purchase it for a billion AI generated dollars in a cryptocurrency
- greenhearth 4y agoThis piece has all of the human mysteries of a stock photo in a shampoo commercial.
- dr_dshiv 4y agoIt was a decent MidJourney effort but the one earring is placed in a manner that is anatomically incorrect. Watch on RTL tonight — I’ll be showing off “Rembrandt taking a selfie” which I made in 5 minutes. Unlikely to hang in any museum, but about the same level of art.