Can an AI create art?

[erwinl]

I think I agree with TM, just with the provision that intent doesn’t have to be with the creator; just somewhere in the process. I’d think AI stuff counts because the AI creators added the intent in designing it. Likewise differentiates between a waterfall (no intent, not art) and a picture of a waterfall (intent added by the photographer).

Even ‘found’ art could be covered by this. A photograph taken as part of a documentation effort, say, (maybe particle traces from a collider) may later be presented as art by someone else; they add the intent to it.

Seems a workable idea to me.


Sent from my volcanic island lair using carrier pigeon.

Wouldn't that mean that an art piece can't be art when seen totally by itself?
That it has to have the story of the artist (whatever that story or feeling might have been) added, in order to turn it into art?
And in that case. Doesn't this mean that it is not the painting that is the art, but the story/feeling?
Wouldn't this also mean if, that, for whatever cause, the story/feeling/name of the artist, is lost from the art piece, it would stop being art?

Or is there art that can transcend that and stand on its own? And would this not be superior art than the other one?

 

[arthwollipot]

My personal opinion is that if art requires a lot of contextual information in order to be appreciated, then it hasn't done its job very well. I recognise that other people may have different opinions.

 

[MRC_Hans]

So an artist is required, but not intention or meaning from that artist. Does the artist have to participate in any action at all, or just be there? If the artist has to commit an action to produce art, does the action have to be conscious? Is something the artist does in his sleep art? If unintentional actions while unconscious aren't art, then why would unintentional actions while conscious be art?

What I'm driving at is that the artist has to be sentient being deliberately intending to do something in order for the end product to be art. Intention's got to be in the mix or else every snore is music and every fart an act of theater. I don't see getting away from that, no matter what the beholder thinks of the item or event.

Yes, sure. Now define 'artist'.

Oh, and 'sentient'

Hans

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes, sure. Now define 'artist'.

An artist is someone who creates art.

Oh, and 'sentient'

This is one that a lot of people get wrong. A creature is "sentient" if it has senses. The word that TragicMonkey should have used is "sapient", which, yes, has a formal definition: having or showing self-awareness.

 

[erwinl]

An artist is someone who creates art.
This is one that a lot of people get wrong. A creature is "sentient" if it has senses. The word that TragicMonkey should have used is "sapient", which, yes, has a formal definition: having or showing self-awareness.

But it has to be art, in order for the artist to be able to say that art was created.

And then you get right back to the beginning.
What is art?

 

[Darat]

But it has to be art, in order for the artist to be able to say that art was created.

And then you get right back to the beginning.
What is art?

Whatever the beholder considers to be art.

 

[erwinl]

Whatever the beholder considers to be art.

That would mean anything between Bernini's 'Apollo and Daphne' and a large splut of peanut butter on a museum's floor.

With a range that wide, it is almost impossible for something to not be art. And thus the word art would have lost its meaning.

 

[Darat]

That would mean anything between Bernini's 'Apollo and Daphne' and a large splut of peanut butter on a museum's floor.

With a range that wide, it is almost impossible for something to not be art. And thus the word art would have lost its meaning.

How would that mean it would have "lost" its meaning? "Piles of bricks" have won one of the art world's most prestigious art prizes, a piece of graffiti is cut out from a wall and sold for millions, all considered art by many.

 

[erwinl]

How would that mean it would have "lost" its meaning? "Piles of bricks" have won one of the art world's most prestigious art prizes, a piece of graffiti is cut out from a wall and sold for millions, all considered art by many.

Lost its meaning as in 'if everything is art, then nothing is art'.

I had to look up this 'Piles of bricks'. I suspect you mean the one from Carl Andre? This falls smack in the middle of the peanut butter spread over a museum floor kind of art.

 

[Darat]

Lost its meaning as in 'if everything is art, then nothing is art'.

I had to look up this 'Piles of bricks'. I suspect you mean the one from Carl Andre? This falls smack in the middle of the peanut butter spread over a museum floor kind of art.

But it isn't saying "everything is art" - it is saying "art is what the beholder decides". If I see a mediocre painting in the local pub - pubs always have crap artwork seems to be a rule - that is art because a) created b) I consider it to be art.

Now this skirts close to "the emperor's new clothes" style of definition and yes many people only call something art because they are told it is art. I'm quite happy telling people that a bisected cow and its calf ('Mother and Child (Divided)') isn't art but I know many people think it is art. I don't find it wrong that something can be art to some people* and not-art to other people.

*Obviously if they disagree with me they are wrong - that's an objective fact!

 

[Cheetah]

You are complicating things unnecessarily. Here is my proposal for how it works. It’s simple.

Art is in the perception of it. IOW it is the experience.

Art can be simple or complex. Simple like a pretty stone or complex like a symphony. For some art you merely have to be able to appreciate a pretty thing, for more complex art you may need prior knowledge and/or experience.

When someone creates art they are selecting the best example of the experience that is the art they wish to covey.
You select the prettiest stone from the pile, take a photo of the prettiest sunset and frame and compose it in the most pleasing way you can, compose a song you think sounds great, paint a great painting etc. It doesn’t matter if you recreate something found, like taking a photo, or put your own spin on it in a painting, or even create it from your imagination.
Whether your skills and creativity are up for the task and whether you created good art depends on how other people perceive it.

 

[Hellbound]

Wouldn't that mean that an art piece can't be art when seen totally by itself?
That it has to have the story of the artist (whatever that story or feeling might have been) added, in order to turn it into art?
And in that case. Doesn't this mean that it is not the painting that is the art, but the story/feeling?
Wouldn't this also mean if, that, for whatever cause, the story/feeling/name of the artist, is lost from the art piece, it would stop being art?

Or is there art that can transcend that and stand on its own? And would this not be superior art than the other one?

I don’t see how you draw that conclusion. What is and what we know are not delays the same thing. And you don’t need the story to view it as art, but you must have at least one person who thinks of it that way (provides intent).

Your question seems to me like asking “But how can it be a crime if no one knows you did it”. There may well be unrecognized works of art, if a story is lost, but that’s a limit on knowledge. And there have been changes of perspective through the years where things that weren’t recognized as art have since been viewed differently.

Think of it more as a self-defining term: it’s art if someone presents it as art ( which can be the creator of it, but doesn’t have to be).


Sent from my volcanic island lair using carrier pigeon.

 

[gnome]

Lost its meaning as in 'if everything is art, then nothing is art'.

I shudder to think what the hellish consequences of that would be, if anything could be art. What would the world be like that's different?

Thing is, just because anything can be art doesn't mean it automatically collects vast acclaim. People are free to say, "Looks like a pile of bricks dumped on the floor" and move on.

 

[Robin]

There was a philosopher whose blog I used to sometimes join in the comments section of.

I once suggested that a finger painting done by a child with a profound intellectual disability might be considered art.

He was absolutely furious with me for suggesting this and said that in future I should keep my ignorant anti intellectual opinions to myself.

The picture in question was one that my mum had framed and put on her wall. She was a qualified art teacher and the painting had been done by one of her students when she taught in a school for special needs children.

The picture's apparent quality (unfortunately I never took a photograph) was almost certainly accidental. All of this I had explained when I expressed the opinion.

Now here is a painting, painted by someone using art materials, in an art class taught by a qualified art teacher and selected as being worthy of displaying by that art teacher but it is not art.

In that case it probably does not matter what is art or not. The much criticised view of "I don't know much about art but I know what I like" may be the only tenable view after all.

 

[arthwollipot]

In that case it probably does not matter what is art or not. The much criticised view of "I don't know much about art but I know what I like" may be the only tenable view after all.

I mean, yeah. That's basically what it comes down to. All arguments over what is and isn't art are basically irrelevant when deciding what I want to hang on my wall.

 

[erwinl]

Anecdote,

The mrs, when she was younger, had wanted to go to art school, because she liked making drawings so much and wanted to do something with her talent.
She got the following answer (I paraphrase) 'You can draw very well, and have a lot of talent. Unfortunately you draw much too lifelike and make thing look beautiful. If you can ditch this you can come study here, but if not we will not accept you'.
(as said paraphrased and translated into English, but I guess you can understand).
She didn't want to make things that were not how she felt about art and thus never got admitted to art school.

There's no denying that present art is much more inclined into the 'pile of bricks' or 'peanut butter on the floor' type of art and looks down on things like 'Daphne and Apollo' kind of art.

 

[xjx388]

There was a philosopher whose blog I used to sometimes join in the comments section of.

I once suggested that a finger painting done by a child with a profound intellectual disability might be considered art.

He was absolutely furious with me for suggesting this and said that in future I should keep my ignorant anti intellectual opinions to myself.

The picture in question was one that my mum had framed and put on her wall. She was a qualified art teacher and the painting had been done by one of her students when she taught in a school for special needs children.

The picture's apparent quality (unfortunately I never took a photograph) was almost certainly accidental. All of this I had explained when I expressed the opinion.

Now here is a painting, painted by someone using art materials, in an art class taught by a qualified art teacher and selected as being worthy of displaying by that art teacher but it is not art.

In that case it probably does not matter what is art or not. The much criticised view of "I don't know much about art but I know what I like" may be the only tenable view after all.

That view is just art snobbery.

Good art or bad art, that’s all in the eye of the beholder.

 

[xjx388]

I mean, yeah. That's basically what it comes down to. All arguments over what is and isn't art are basically irrelevant when deciding what I want to hang on my wall.

Sure. But the universe of art is larger than whatever you decide to hang on your wall. Even if you hate a particular piece, it’s still art.

 

[xjx388]

Anecdote,

The mrs, when she was younger, had wanted to go to art school, because she liked making drawings so much and wanted to do something with her talent.
She got the following answer (I paraphrase) 'You can draw very well, and have a lot of talent. Unfortunately you draw much too lifelike and make thing look beautiful. If you can ditch this you can come study here, but if not we will not accept you'.
(as said paraphrased and translated into English, but I guess you can understand).
She didn't want to make things that were not how she felt about art and thus never got admitted to art school.

There's no denying that present art is much more inclined into the 'pile of bricks' or 'peanut butter on the floor' type of art and looks down on things like 'Daphne and Apollo' kind of art.

I’d say that’s true for the “fine art,” world. That’s the world inhabited by the art snobs -critics, professors, gallerists, collectors, etc. They are always looking forward to something new they can work up some excitement and hype about. They don’t recognize “talent,” per se, as much as they do novelty. The fine arts world isn’t looking for the same old same old; you could paint like Rembrandt and they would say, “been there; done that.” But encase a dead shark in glass and formaldehyde and you are a genius-visionary-millionaire.

The fine art world is just a part of the art universe. It doesn’t get to define what art is anymore than arth does by choosing what to put on his wall.

 

[arthwollipot]

Sure. But the universe of art is larger than whatever you decide to hang on your wall. Even if you hate a particular piece, it’s still art.

Oh, absolutely. No question.