18 ms·

Picasso's Guernica was born of hate, his hate of war, of dehumanization for petty political ends. No computer will ever empathize with the senseless inhumanity

Picasso's Guernica was born of hate, his hate of war, of dehumanization for petty political ends. No computer will ever empathize with the senseless inhumanity of war to produce such a work. It must forever parrot.

petralithic 1y ago
A human might generate a piece of media using AI (either via a slot machine spin or with more advanced workflows like ComfyUI) and once they deem it looks good enough for their purpose, they might display it to represent what they want it to represent. If Guernica was AI generated but still displayed by Picasso as a statement about war, it would still be art. Tools do not dictate what art is and isn't, it is about the intent of the human using those tools. Image generators are not autonomously generating images, it is the human who is asking them for specific concepts and ideas. This is no different than performance art like a banana taped to a wall which requires no tools at all.
- aspaviento 1y ago
  And let's not forget that people call "art" to more things than the popular masterpieces. A guy sold an invisible sculpture¹ clamming it was art. If things like this can be called art, whatever AI makes can be called art too. 1: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/italian-artist-auctioned-off-invisible-sculpture-18300-literally-made-nothing-1976181 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/italian-artist-auctioned-o...
  - bonoboTP 1y ago
    "What is or isn't art" didn't simply become a topic because people like to philosophize about the meaning of words. Over the 20th century the art world took fascination with the subversive, transgressive, the postmodern, rejecting authority and standards of beauty that were deemed limiting and oppressive etc. One direct contributing component was photography. Skill of realistic depiction became deemphasized, with mass production, plastic etc., the focus became abstract ideas. It was also a protest against the system that brought the two world wars. It was considered "anti-art" at the time, but basically took over the elite art world itself and the overall movement had huge impact on what is considered art today, on performance art, sculptures, architecture that looks intentionally upsetting etc. It's not useful to try to think of the sides as "expansive definitionists" who consider pretty much anything art just because, and "restrictive definitionists" who only consider classic masterpieces art. The divide is much more specific and has intellectual foundation and history to it. The same motivations that led to the expansive definition in the personally transgressive, radical and subversive sense today logically and coherently oppose the pictures and texts generated in huge centralized profit-oriented companies via mechanization. Presumably if AI was more of a distributed hacker-ethos-driven thing that shows the middle finger to Disney copyrightism, they may be pro-AI.
    - petralithic 1y ago
      By this same logic, AI will also become accepted as art in 50 years. And by the way, no one who's serious about AI "art" uses commercial generators, they use local AI with workflow managers like ComfyUI. They are not just typing into a box like Midjourney. Therefore these are the hackers who're showing the middle finger to Disney, they dislike copyright as much as anyone.
      - bonoboTP 1y ago
        That's right, and a lot of stuff is being conflated and the "debate" is mostly on the level of soundbites and emotional vibes. Many have strong opinions who have never tried the models or seen someone skilled using them (easy to find YouTube streams), combining LoRAs, ControlNets, etc. I generally find the specific debate around "whether it's art" super boring. People have squeezed all the juice out of "what even is art" decades before the banana taped to a wall. Duchamp's Fountain, Manzoni's Artist's Shit, John Cage's 4′33″, the Red Square by Malevich, Jackson Pollock etc. I simply don't care if it's art. It's not an inherently prestigious label to me given this history.
- AlotOfReading 1y ago
  This is a debate that existed long before LLMs with things like action painting. If I give you a Jackson Pollock and a piece from someone who randomly splattered paint on a canvas until it looked like Jackson Pollock, are they the same?
  - petralithic 1y ago
    Same in what sense? That is the real question, and perhaps not even the important one when it comes to art. Because, if the Pollock is more "important," there is an implication that it's better because it's by a more famous person, while art should be able to come from anywhere and anyone.
    - AlotOfReading 1y ago
      The same in whatever sense you want to compare the art rather than the creators. Pollocks try to convey the action and emotion of the creation process. Our hypothetical copycat lacks that higher level meaning, even though they've created an otherwise similar physical product. As an aside: ...art should be able to come from anywhere and anyone. is an immensely political view (and one I happen to agree with). It's not a view shared by all artists, or their art. Ancient art in particular often assumes that the highest forms of art require divine inspiration that isn't accessible to everyone. It's common for epic poetry to invoke muses as a callback to this assumption, nominally to show the author's humility. John Milton's Paradise Lost does this (and reframes the muse within a Christian hierarchy at the same time), although it doesn't come off as remotely humble.
      - petralithic 1y ago
        It depends what the copycat was thinking, maybe they wanted to follow in Pollock's footsteps, maybe they wanted to showcase the point you're making, whether a copycat is as good as the real thing and therefore also considered art, perhaps even as important (apprentices often copied their masters, such as da Vinci's), maybe they are just creating it because it looks good. If there's no other reasoning, then I'd still say they're the same, because how can one say they're not art too? Even as an observer of the art, what if I like the copycat more? These are all open questions to the philosophy of art and I'm glad it's accessible today to everyone rather than only to the historically abled.
- s1mplicissimus 1y ago
  Agreed, tools do not dictate what art is and isn't - but using those tools for art doesn't relieve them from being ethically justified. If generating the piece costs half a rain forest or requires tons of soul crushing badly paid work by others, it might be well worth considering what is the general framework the artist operates in. Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is.
  - petralithic 1y ago
    There are tons of examples of art that take much more energy than what an AI does, such as an architectural monument. It is not necessarily the case that "Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is." as not all artists will agree and even those that do might not follow it. For example, certain pigments in painting could be highly unethically sourced but people still used them and some still do, such as mummy brown, Indian yellow, or ivory black, all from living organisms.
    - s1mplicissimus 1y ago
      You are mixing up what artists do and what is considered artful. Not everything artists do is artful, even by their own standard. > It is not necessarily the case that "Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is." as not all artists will agree and even those that do might not follow it. For example, certain pigments in painting could be highly unethically sourced but people still used them and some still do, such as mummy brown, Indian yellow, or ivory black, all from living organisms. I put forward the proposition "Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is." - yet you argue "but there are exceptions" - i know that, hence my usage of the term "generally". I'll be glad to learn how my proposition is wrong, but not inclined to defend your strawman
      - petralithic 1y ago
        It's more that I reject your premise of "Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is." because there is no backing behind that statement except your opinion and so I provided counter examples, but I did not need to do so because your statement has no rationale itself and can thus not need to be heeded.
- fooqux 1y ago
  I read what you wrote, and it seems to me you think these two things are equal: A human using their creativity to create a painting showcasing a statement about war. A human asking AI to create a painting showcasing a statement about war. I do not wish to use strawmen tactics. So I'll ask if you think the above is equal and true.
  - petralithic 1y ago
    Is a banana taped to a wall "art?" Your answer to that is the answer to your question.
    - saltcured 1y ago
      And, is the artist the one who taped it, the one who told them to tape it, or the one who created the banana?
      - petralithic 1y ago
        It's the person who had the idea to do so and did so. AI doesn't do anything you don't tell it to, it is the banana creator in this case. It is still up to you to get the best looking banana you can then display it.
        Jensson 1y ago
        Why end there, why isn't the manager who told the artist to make a piece the artist? > AI doesn't do anything you don't tell it to, it is the banana creator in this case So if I tell the AI "create me a piece of art", and it gives me a cool image, I am the artist? So, if a manager tells a person "create a piece of art", the person goes and tapes a banana to the wall, the manager was the one who created the art? Edit: And if you think an AI can't handle that question, I just gave it to an image model and got this. Did I create this art-piece? If not, who did? Did the AI create it? https://imgur.com/aWT8YCb https://imgur.com/aWT8YCb
        1y ago
- belorn 1y ago
  Art is not art. Art is the thought manifested into something which convey the thought. If an artist is using an AI to manifest a thought, then that can be art. Similar, music is not music, but rather the thought of an musician manifested is what we call music. This is why silence can be music, but silence without the thought is not. Images generated through an AI that lacks the human thought is not art. It can look like art, have similarities to art, but it is no more art than silence is music. Same goes to music and text generated by AI. People can inject defective thoughts into the process like "what generates me most money" or "how can I avoid doing any thinking", in which case the output of the AI will reflect that.
  - joquarky 1y ago
    What about musical synthesizers? Can they be used to create art?
    - teddyh 1y ago
      Cavemen probably once had the same argument about whether musical instruments could be considered “music”; something previously only possible by singing. Obviously, the answer is yes; musical instruments, including synthesizers, can be music and art.
perching_aix 1y ago
To honor the "spirit" of OP's post: I looked up Picasso's Guernica now out of curiosity. I don't understand what's so great about this artwork. Or why it would represent any of the things you mention. It just looks like deranged pencilwork. It also comes across as aggressively pretentious. What makes that any better than some highly derivative AI generated rubbish I connect to about the same amount?
- didibus 1y ago
  I'm not an art historian, but I think Picasso invented an entire art style. When you use AI, you might now prompt "in the style of Picasso".
- jacquesm 1y ago
  That a human made it to express their feelings.
  - perching_aix 1y ago
    What do I care? Can't even tell what feelings are supposedly being expressed there.
    - jacquesm 1y ago
      That goes for all art. It either stirs you or it doesn't. I find https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tjstsWoQiw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tjstsWoQiw to be one of the most beautiful pieces ever recorded, others can't listen to it and think it is bland and a terrible recording. You can't argue about taste.
      - perching_aix 1y ago
        But then why wouldn't AI generated art be able to stir me? Why is a human being in the loop so important as to be supposedly essential?
        1y ago
jondwillis 1y ago
We must unironically give the computer pain sensors. :( don’t hurt me mr. Basilisk, I’m just parroting someone else’s idea.
exoverito 1y ago
Needless to say, most humans are unoriginal parrots too, one need only look at the prevalence of memetic desire. Few are capable of artistic genius like Picasso. One technical definition of empathy is understanding what someone else is feeling. In war you must empathize with your enemy in order to understand their perspective and predict what they will do next. This cognitive empathy is basically theory of mind, which has been demonstrated in GPT4. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01882-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01882-z If we do not assume biological substrate is special, then it's possible that AIs will one day have qualia and be able to fully empathize and experience the feelings of another. It could be possible that new AI architectures with continuously updating weights, memory modules, evolving value functions, and self-reflection, could one day produce truly original perspectives. It's still unknown if they will truly feel anything, but it's also technically unknowable if anyone else really experiences qualia, as described in the thought experiment of p-zombies.
- freehorse 1y ago
  > it's possible that AIs will one day have qualia As the article says, then we can discuss about it that day. "One day AI will have qualia" is no argument in discussing about AI nowadays.
kelseyfrog 1y ago
> No computer will ever empathize with the senseless inhumanity of war My computer does. What evidence would change your mind?
- saint_yossarian 1y ago
  What evidence convinced you?
  - kelseyfrog 1y ago
    I performed an "Affective Turing Test" with null results.
dragonwriter 1y ago
> No computer will ever empathize with the senseless inhumanity of war to produce such a work. Neither will a paintbrush. The tool does need to, though.
andybak 1y ago
The same Picasso that was notorious for churning them out towards the end of his career? I'm being slightly flippant but I do think this is a motte and bailey argument. Not even painting is a Guernica nor does it need to be. And not every aesthetically pleasing object is art. (And finally - art doesn't even have to be aesthetically pleasing. And actually finally "art" has a multitude of contradictory meanings)
racl101 1y ago
Monkey's paw closes. Now, just like you can with Studio Ghibli art, you can generate new images in the style of Guernica.

petralithic 1y ago

A human might generate a piece of media using AI (either via a slot machine spin or with more advanced workflows like ComfyUI) and once they deem it looks good enough for their purpose, they might display it to represent what they want it to represent. If Guernica was AI generated but still displayed by Picasso as a statement about war, it would still be art. Tools do not dictate what art is and isn't, it is about the intent of the human using those tools. Image generators are not autonomously generating images, it is the human who is asking them for specific concepts and ideas. This is no different than performance art like a banana taped to a wall which requires no tools at all.

aspaviento 1y ago
And let's not forget that people call "art" to more things than the popular masterpieces. A guy sold an invisible sculpture¹ clamming it was art. If things like this can be called art, whatever AI makes can be called art too. 1: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/italian-artist-auctioned-off-invisible-sculpture-18300-literally-made-nothing-1976181 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/italian-artist-auctioned-o...
- bonoboTP 1y ago
  "What is or isn't art" didn't simply become a topic because people like to philosophize about the meaning of words. Over the 20th century the art world took fascination with the subversive, transgressive, the postmodern, rejecting authority and standards of beauty that were deemed limiting and oppressive etc. One direct contributing component was photography. Skill of realistic depiction became deemphasized, with mass production, plastic etc., the focus became abstract ideas. It was also a protest against the system that brought the two world wars. It was considered "anti-art" at the time, but basically took over the elite art world itself and the overall movement had huge impact on what is considered art today, on performance art, sculptures, architecture that looks intentionally upsetting etc. It's not useful to try to think of the sides as "expansive definitionists" who consider pretty much anything art just because, and "restrictive definitionists" who only consider classic masterpieces art. The divide is much more specific and has intellectual foundation and history to it. The same motivations that led to the expansive definition in the personally transgressive, radical and subversive sense today logically and coherently oppose the pictures and texts generated in huge centralized profit-oriented companies via mechanization. Presumably if AI was more of a distributed hacker-ethos-driven thing that shows the middle finger to Disney copyrightism, they may be pro-AI.
  - petralithic 1y ago
    By this same logic, AI will also become accepted as art in 50 years. And by the way, no one who's serious about AI "art" uses commercial generators, they use local AI with workflow managers like ComfyUI. They are not just typing into a box like Midjourney. Therefore these are the hackers who're showing the middle finger to Disney, they dislike copyright as much as anyone.
    - bonoboTP 1y ago
      That's right, and a lot of stuff is being conflated and the "debate" is mostly on the level of soundbites and emotional vibes. Many have strong opinions who have never tried the models or seen someone skilled using them (easy to find YouTube streams), combining LoRAs, ControlNets, etc. I generally find the specific debate around "whether it's art" super boring. People have squeezed all the juice out of "what even is art" decades before the banana taped to a wall. Duchamp's Fountain, Manzoni's Artist's Shit, John Cage's 4′33″, the Red Square by Malevich, Jackson Pollock etc. I simply don't care if it's art. It's not an inherently prestigious label to me given this history.
AlotOfReading 1y ago
This is a debate that existed long before LLMs with things like action painting. If I give you a Jackson Pollock and a piece from someone who randomly splattered paint on a canvas until it looked like Jackson Pollock, are they the same?
- petralithic 1y ago
  Same in what sense? That is the real question, and perhaps not even the important one when it comes to art. Because, if the Pollock is more "important," there is an implication that it's better because it's by a more famous person, while art should be able to come from anywhere and anyone.
  - AlotOfReading 1y ago
    The same in whatever sense you want to compare the art rather than the creators. Pollocks try to convey the action and emotion of the creation process. Our hypothetical copycat lacks that higher level meaning, even though they've created an otherwise similar physical product. As an aside: ...art should be able to come from anywhere and anyone. is an immensely political view (and one I happen to agree with). It's not a view shared by all artists, or their art. Ancient art in particular often assumes that the highest forms of art require divine inspiration that isn't accessible to everyone. It's common for epic poetry to invoke muses as a callback to this assumption, nominally to show the author's humility. John Milton's Paradise Lost does this (and reframes the muse within a Christian hierarchy at the same time), although it doesn't come off as remotely humble.
    - petralithic 1y ago
      It depends what the copycat was thinking, maybe they wanted to follow in Pollock's footsteps, maybe they wanted to showcase the point you're making, whether a copycat is as good as the real thing and therefore also considered art, perhaps even as important (apprentices often copied their masters, such as da Vinci's), maybe they are just creating it because it looks good. If there's no other reasoning, then I'd still say they're the same, because how can one say they're not art too? Even as an observer of the art, what if I like the copycat more? These are all open questions to the philosophy of art and I'm glad it's accessible today to everyone rather than only to the historically abled.
s1mplicissimus 1y ago
Agreed, tools do not dictate what art is and isn't - but using those tools for art doesn't relieve them from being ethically justified. If generating the piece costs half a rain forest or requires tons of soul crushing badly paid work by others, it might be well worth considering what is the general framework the artist operates in. Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is.
- petralithic 1y ago
  There are tons of examples of art that take much more energy than what an AI does, such as an architectural monument. It is not necessarily the case that "Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is." as not all artists will agree and even those that do might not follow it. For example, certain pigments in painting could be highly unethically sourced but people still used them and some still do, such as mummy brown, Indian yellow, or ivory black, all from living organisms.
  - s1mplicissimus 1y ago
    You are mixing up what artists do and what is considered artful. Not everything artists do is artful, even by their own standard. > It is not necessarily the case that "Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is." as not all artists will agree and even those that do might not follow it. For example, certain pigments in painting could be highly unethically sourced but people still used them and some still do, such as mummy brown, Indian yellow, or ivory black, all from living organisms. I put forward the proposition "Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is." - yet you argue "but there are exceptions" - i know that, hence my usage of the term "generally". I'll be glad to learn how my proposition is wrong, but not inclined to defend your strawman
    - petralithic 1y ago
      It's more that I reject your premise of "Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is." because there is no backing behind that statement except your opinion and so I provided counter examples, but I did not need to do so because your statement has no rationale itself and can thus not need to be heeded.
fooqux 1y ago
I read what you wrote, and it seems to me you think these two things are equal: A human using their creativity to create a painting showcasing a statement about war. A human asking AI to create a painting showcasing a statement about war. I do not wish to use strawmen tactics. So I'll ask if you think the above is equal and true.
- petralithic 1y ago
  Is a banana taped to a wall "art?" Your answer to that is the answer to your question.
  - saltcured 1y ago
    And, is the artist the one who taped it, the one who told them to tape it, or the one who created the banana?
    - petralithic 1y ago
      It's the person who had the idea to do so and did so. AI doesn't do anything you don't tell it to, it is the banana creator in this case. It is still up to you to get the best looking banana you can then display it.
      - Jensson 1y ago
        Why end there, why isn't the manager who told the artist to make a piece the artist? > AI doesn't do anything you don't tell it to, it is the banana creator in this case So if I tell the AI "create me a piece of art", and it gives me a cool image, I am the artist? So, if a manager tells a person "create a piece of art", the person goes and tapes a banana to the wall, the manager was the one who created the art? Edit: And if you think an AI can't handle that question, I just gave it to an image model and got this. Did I create this art-piece? If not, who did? Did the AI create it? https://imgur.com/aWT8YCb https://imgur.com/aWT8YCb
        1y ago
belorn 1y ago
Art is not art. Art is the thought manifested into something which convey the thought. If an artist is using an AI to manifest a thought, then that can be art. Similar, music is not music, but rather the thought of an musician manifested is what we call music. This is why silence can be music, but silence without the thought is not. Images generated through an AI that lacks the human thought is not art. It can look like art, have similarities to art, but it is no more art than silence is music. Same goes to music and text generated by AI. People can inject defective thoughts into the process like "what generates me most money" or "how can I avoid doing any thinking", in which case the output of the AI will reflect that.
- joquarky 1y ago
  What about musical synthesizers? Can they be used to create art?
  - teddyh 1y ago
    Cavemen probably once had the same argument about whether musical instruments could be considered “music”; something previously only possible by singing. Obviously, the answer is yes; musical instruments, including synthesizers, can be music and art.

perching_aix 1y ago

To honor the "spirit" of OP's post: I looked up Picasso's Guernica now out of curiosity. I don't understand what's so great about this artwork. Or why it would represent any of the things you mention. It just looks like deranged pencilwork. It also comes across as aggressively pretentious. What makes that any better than some highly derivative AI generated rubbish I connect to about the same amount?

didibus 1y ago
I'm not an art historian, but I think Picasso invented an entire art style. When you use AI, you might now prompt "in the style of Picasso".
jacquesm 1y ago
That a human made it to express their feelings.
- perching_aix 1y ago
  What do I care? Can't even tell what feelings are supposedly being expressed there.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    That goes for all art. It either stirs you or it doesn't. I find https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tjstsWoQiw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tjstsWoQiw to be one of the most beautiful pieces ever recorded, others can't listen to it and think it is bland and a terrible recording. You can't argue about taste.
    - perching_aix 1y ago
      But then why wouldn't AI generated art be able to stir me? Why is a human being in the loop so important as to be supposedly essential?
      - 1y ago

jondwillis 1y ago

We must unironically give the computer pain sensors. :( don’t hurt me mr. Basilisk, I’m just parroting someone else’s idea.

exoverito 1y ago

Needless to say, most humans are unoriginal parrots too, one need only look at the prevalence of memetic desire. Few are capable of artistic genius like Picasso. One technical definition of empathy is understanding what someone else is feeling. In war you must empathize with your enemy in order to understand their perspective and predict what they will do next. This cognitive empathy is basically theory of mind, which has been demonstrated in GPT4. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01882-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01882-z If we do not assume biological substrate is special, then it's possible that AIs will one day have qualia and be able to fully empathize and experience the feelings of another. It could be possible that new AI architectures with continuously updating weights, memory modules, evolving value functions, and self-reflection, could one day produce truly original perspectives. It's still unknown if they will truly feel anything, but it's also technically unknowable if anyone else really experiences qualia, as described in the thought experiment of p-zombies.

freehorse 1y ago
> it's possible that AIs will one day have qualia As the article says, then we can discuss about it that day. "One day AI will have qualia" is no argument in discussing about AI nowadays.

kelseyfrog 1y ago

> No computer will ever empathize with the senseless inhumanity of war My computer does. What evidence would change your mind?

saint_yossarian 1y ago
What evidence convinced you?
- kelseyfrog 1y ago
  I performed an "Affective Turing Test" with null results.

dragonwriter 1y ago

> No computer will ever empathize with the senseless inhumanity of war to produce such a work. Neither will a paintbrush. The tool does need to, though.

andybak 1y ago

The same Picasso that was notorious for churning them out towards the end of his career? I'm being slightly flippant but I do think this is a motte and bailey argument. Not even painting is a Guernica nor does it need to be. And not every aesthetically pleasing object is art. (And finally - art doesn't even have to be aesthetically pleasing. And actually finally "art" has a multitude of contradictory meanings)

racl101 1y ago

Monkey's paw closes. Now, just like you can with Studio Ghibli art, you can generate new images in the style of Guernica.