Can an AI create art?

[erwinl]

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.

Somewhat true.

But if you look at modern art museums, there's no denying that what is presented there is trying to get as far as possible away from 'ordinary people's' taste in art.
On the other hand. Show the same ordinary people through the Vatican museums or the Ufizzi in Florence and most would have a clear view about what is beautiful.

I do acknowledge that what is present in those musea is the creme de la creme of the art from that era and that there would have been a lot of lower quality art present back then (just visit the Parco dei Mostri in Bomarzo for an example of lower quality art).

 

[Meadmaker]

I tried out DALL-E mini, the free version. That program cannot create art. The results were thoroughly unimpressive.

 

[catsmate]

A true AI? Certainly.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

sure it can - art is in the eye of the beholder.

the real question is: can it appreciate it?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Somewhat true.



But if you look at modern art museums, there's no denying that what is presented there is trying to get as far as possible away from 'ordinary people's' taste in art.

On the other hand. Show the same ordinary people through the Vatican museums or the Ufizzi in Florence and most would have a clear view about what is beautiful.



I do acknowledge that what is present in those musea is the creme de la creme of the art from that era and that there would have been a lot of lower quality art present back then (just visit the Parco dei Mostri in Bomarzo for an example of lower quality art).

I'm reminded of Sturgeon's Law: "90 percent of everything is crap." It was a retort to a criticism of science fiction literature in its early days, that 90 percent of it was crap. I also consider that many artistic methods now highly praised -to say nothing of the celebrated artists who pioneered them- were scoffed at and snubbed by the contemporary masters of the day (I'm looking at you salons of Paris). Choral music is another example. At one time it was believed everyone should be singing in the same pitch and on the same note together. Interwoven melodies were considered "incomprehensible cacophony." Concert venues designed with understanding of acoustic principles were considered rather awful at first, in no small part because it revealed how out of time and/or tune many of the performers really were. The previous spaces had so much reverberant energy that blurred the mistakes into obscurity. And so on... ETA: on the other hand, I do enjoy responding to every Jasper (AI blogger/"influencer" content creation) ad on Facebook with semi-humorous autocomplete pablum.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Nobody, not even the programmer, understands exactly how an AI produces its output. The programmer does not tell the AI what to do, the way I would use a paintbrush. The programmer sets up the conditions under which the output is produced, but does not influence the form that the output takes.

This is why an AI producing art is different from a human using Photoshop to produce art.

You haven't seen me trying to use Photoshop.

 

[dellarte]

TV Series (1979-1981): Buck Rogers in the 25th Century. Buck gets stuck in the 25th Century. He arranges for potted plants to be placed at his residence. The future natives consider it odd concept.

 

[PitPat]

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.

Well, in my opinion one must be sentient to create art. And you bring up a good point TragicMonkey. It's based on personal love, experience, and life struggles.