Can an AI create art?

[Darat]

Only rarely does any of my artwork have anything like a "message", does that mean most of my artwork isn't art.

There's a thread here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=261085 that has a ton of "art" us members have created over the years. Some of mine can be found here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13576878#post13576878

Only one of those artworks has anything like a message (the deckchair one) is that the only one that counts as "art".

My view is that what is art has nowt to do with the artist once it is released into the wilds, it is all in the eye of the beholder so however the artwork is produced by whom or what if folk call it art it is art.

 

[Masque]

But you can tell the difference between a spider web (not art) and a really eye-catching photograph of a spider web with dewdrops on it, gleaming in the morning sunlight (art).

And you can tell the difference between a Jackson Pollock and a house-painter's drop cloth.

I want to be snide and say, "Yeah, a house painter doesn't throw that much paint around." Un-snidely, though, the difference between the spider web and the picture of the spider web is that, in the latter, someone is saying, "Here is something I think is beautiful (or numinous, or in some way meaningful or maybe just eye-catching)", so even if the subject of the picture doesn't convey anything to me, the fact that the artist presents it conveys to me something about the artist. I find it harder to see something beyond "Here's a pretty design" in a Pollock, though that could well be a failing in me. (And, if it is, I hope someone will educate me.)

Not that I think there's any thing wrong with pretty designs; I once did a bunch of photographs of a pair of old jeans I wore to paint in that had a very pretty pattern of random drips and splashes on them. But if I took a picture of a Jackson Pollock, and I took a picture of a painter's drop cloth that I thought was pretty, would one picture convey more of a message than the other? And, if so, can someone tell me how?

 

[TragicMonkey]

I guess I just don't see the difference between "This is art and this isn't art" and "This is art and this isn't art but it's indistinguishable from art."

For centuries people believed the Giants Causeway in Ireland was artificially constructed. They couldn't distinguish between natural and artificial. Does that mean the entirely natural rock formation was art up until people realized it was natural?

Whether you are thinking correctly about a thing doesn't change that thing.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Only rarely does any of my artwork have anything like a "message", does that mean most of my artwork isn't art.

The message was to yourself, and the message was "I'm enjoying making something". It doesn't have to be profound communication in order to be communication. A painting you do aimlessly is still art, the bowel movement you do because you have to is not art. Even if it ends up looking prettier than your painting!

My view is that what is art has nowt to do with the artist once it is released into the wilds, it is all in the eye of the beholder so however the artwork is produced by whom or what if folk call it art it is art.

edited: I think you're confusing two different questions: what does a piece of art mean vs whether a piece is art or not.

 

[xjx388]

The AI was programmed with the intent to create art; therefore, it is art.

The chimp has no intention, but the human that gave him the paintbrush, chose the paints and laid them out did, so why not? It’s art.

The random splatterings of house painters is not art. Finding a discarded drop cloth and cutting out a particularly pleasing arrangement of paint is art.

Intention to create art is what defines art. Everything else is just quibbling about whether or not one likes the particular art or not.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The AI was programmed with the intent to create art; therefore, it is art.

The chimp has no intention, but the human that gave him the paintbrush, chose the paints and laid them out did, so why not? It’s art.

The random splatterings of house painters is not art. Finding a discarded drop cloth and cutting out a particularly pleasing arrangement of paint is art.

Intention to create art is what defines art. Everything else is just quibbling about whether or one like the particular art or not.

I disagree about the chimp. It might not have a sophisticated intelligence, but they are pretty smart. A chimp might, having discovered the tools it was given can make colors and patterns, deliberately act to create shapes it finds pleasing.

 

[xjx388]

I disagree about the chimp. It might not have a sophisticated intelligence, but they are pretty smart. A chimp might, having discovered the tools it was given can make colors and patterns, deliberately act to create shapes it finds pleasing.

Fair enough. But it had to be given the tools in the first place -it couldn’t form an intent to seek out a way to express itself through art.

 

[Meadmaker]

I disagree about the chimp. It might not have a sophisticated intelligence, but they are pretty smart. A chimp might, having discovered the tools it was given can make colors and patterns, deliberately act to create shapes it finds pleasing.

If I had more time, I might look into how Congo was trained. I saw some of his "art" and, frankly, it looked pretty good. In this case, what I mean was that it didn't look random. It didn't look like he was just throwing brush strokes on a page because someone gave him a banana when he did it.

I would be interested to see what his trainers and other observers say on the subject. Did Congo have a sense of color or composition? Did he find some patterns aesthetically pleasing? Or did he just want bananas?


In the case of the AI from the OP video, we can be certain that it did not find anything "pleasing", but it still created some really good art. Or, maybe it was just a tool used to create really good art.

 

[Meadmaker]

Fair enough. But it had to be given the tools in the first place -it couldn’t form an intent to seek out a way to express itself through art.

I work with high school students. I could say the same thing about sophomores.

 

[Tassman]

I'm using the Turing Test. If you show a bunch of people a bunch of paintings and they can't reliably tell which ones are human and which ones are AI, there's nothing else to discuss.

Hell you don't even need AI. You can knock over a paint can and make a Jackson Pollock.

Or hell not even AI. Without cheating, without Googling, which of these is Composition (1990) by French painter Jean Miotte and which... was done by a chimp?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1083&pictureid=13090[/qimg]

The one on the left is by French painter Jean Miotte - I know because I have a reproduction of it hanging in my house. The chimp one is also interesting and yes it is art

 

[arthwollipot]

Is there a "message" to this?

I'd say no. And I'd say that because I painted it, by pouring acrylic paints onto a canvas, and I had absolutely no message in mind when I did it other than to make an aesthetically pleasing arrangement of colours. I didn't even know what it was going to look like when I started.

 

[theprestige]

Is there a "message" to this?

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/QCa2MRMl.jpg[/qimg]

I'd say no. And I'd say that because I painted it, by pouring acrylic paints onto a canvas, and I had absolutely no message in mind when I did it other than to make an aesthetically pleasing arrangement of colours.

Of course there's a message to it. You're literally contributing to the ongoing, millennia-spanning conversation about aesthetics and pleasure.

 

[arthwollipot]

Of course there's a message to it. You're literally contributing to the ongoing, millennia-spanning conversation about aesthetics and pleasure.

So what's the message? That random patterns of yellow, black and red can be pretty? That's not much of a message.

 

[TragicMonkey]

So what's the message? That random patterns of yellow, black and red can be pretty? That's not much of a message.

It doesn't have to be "much" of a message. You did a thing, and you found it pretty or at least interesting enough to keep doing it. By contrast, if you happened to grow a very fascinating cyst in a beauteous range of colors that simply dazzled the eye and made the beholders gasp in wonder at its sheer magnificence it wouldn't be art at all because you didn't intend it. In fact, I bet you would even seek medical assistance to work against that magnificent cyst! Which would only be a crime against nature, not art.

 

[arthwollipot]

It doesn't have to be "much" of a message. You did a thing, and you found it pretty or at least interesting enough to keep doing it. By contrast, if you happened to grow a very fascinating cyst in a beauteous range of colors that simply dazzled the eye and made the beholders gasp in wonder at its sheer magnificence it wouldn't be art at all because you didn't intend it. In fact, I bet you would even seek medical assistance to work against that magnificent cyst! Which would only be a crime against nature, not art.

So it's intent that defines art, not "meaning".

 

[TragicMonkey]

So it's intent that defines art, not "meaning".

Since I define art as a form of communication there's not much distinction between intent and meaning -- there's got to be a conscious will behind the piece, so that's the intent, and the meaning is what it's trying to put in there. (Which may not be the meaning the audience picks up, but again, mistaken a meaning is not absence of meaning.)

 

[arthwollipot]

Since I define art as a form of communication there's not much distinction between intent and meaning -- there's got to be a conscious will behind the piece, so that's the intent, and the meaning is what it's trying to put in there. (Which may not be the meaning the audience picks up, but again, mistaken a meaning is not absence of meaning.)

So again I ask what is the meaning of a random arrangement of colours that I created with intent?

 

[Robin]

The trouble with questions like this is that the answer is always "yes" for a suitable definition of artificial intelligence and a suitable definition of art.

How intelligent does it have to be? Can't I decide if something is art or not?

Here is my candidate. This is purely the choices of the AI and not any stylistic parameters I have added to it:

 

[xjx388]

So again I ask what is the meaning of a random arrangement of colours that I created with intent?

Poured acrylics are a form of abstract art. The meaning is simply the aesthetics of the piece. I do them myself with some chemical formulas, drops, sprays, splashes, etc along with physical manipulation with knives, combs, brushes, rulers, etc that allows the paints to mix in interesting ways. Others who have seen them either just smile and say it’s cool or tell me that I must have been angry, sad, peaceful, etc that day. I don’t know, maybe the end result does reflect my inner state … But I just make it because it’s relaxing and I like the way it looks.

The Aesthetic Movement in art was the idea that art could exist simply for its own beauty rather than any overt or subtextual message. Although there were no abstract painters in the Aesthetic Movement, I feel like its principles and popularity allowed for abstract art to gain acceptance.

 

[arthwollipot]

Poured acrylics are a form of abstract art. The meaning is simply the aesthetics of the piece...

I don't think that qualifies as a "meaning".

Others who have seen them either just smile and say it’s cool or tell me that I must have been angry, sad, peaceful, etc that day. I don’t know, maybe the end result does reflect my inner state … But I just make it because it’s relaxing and I like the way it looks...

When they say those things, were you actually feeling that way when you painted them? Because that's interpretation on their part, not any intent on your part. With abstracts in particular, and especially aleatoric art like pouring, the artist can have almost no say in how their work will be interpreted. If someone derives something like a "meaning" in them, that's entirely their own work and not inherent to the art itself.