AI music getting much better

[Secret Chief]

But cave paintings still have the power to move us, millennia after they were done. Is that likely to be the case with Grayson Perry, do you think?

I can love both. Can't speak for the distant future!
Have you watched his Ch4 Art Club (3 series)? I knew nothing of his work until I saw them. And his exposing of amazing talent across the country, and the stories behind the paintings was always interesting and sometimes very moving. Watching them again currently.

 

[Secret Chief]

it has absolutely no value and anyone can do it

There are of course lots of paintings in that kind of genre, painted by humans, and they too do nothing for me.
Yes, anyone can do art. (And should, imo).

Make abstract art and everyone can be fooled.

Ouch.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I can love both. Can't speak for the distant future!
Have you watched his Ch4 Art Club (3 series)? I knew nothing of his work until I saw them. And his exposing of amazing talent across the country, and the stories behind the paintings was always interesting and sometimes very moving. Watching them again currently.

Not overly familiar tbh. Though I did watch a tv show where he went for a night on the town in Sunderland, first with the lads then, dolled up in drag, with the lasses. He seemed to be a genuinely very warm person, no idea really about his art though. JMW Turner, and the French Impressionists more my thing tbh. Oh, and Jackson Pollock. And Lucien Freud. Painters basically, isn’t yer man more of a sculptor/installation artist?

 

[Secret Chief]

Not overly familiar tbh. Though I did watch a tv show where he went for a night on the town in Sunderland, first with the lads then, dolled up in drag, with the lasses. He seemed to be a genuinely very warm person, no idea really about his art though. JMW Turner, and the French Impressionists more my thing tbh. Oh, and Jackson Pollock. And Lucien Freud. Painters basically, isn’t yer man more of a sculptor/installation artist?

He uses various media, but does do quite a bit of pottery. I also love Turner. Seen the film with Timothy Spall?

 

[Nimos]

There are of course lots of paintings in that kind of genre, painted by humans, and they too do nothing for me.
Yes, anyone can do art. (And should, imo).


Ouch.

My point is that me generating this has no value, you write the name of a famous artist on it and it sells for I don't know how much. So it doesn't matter if there are 10 million AI generate oil paintings of landscapes, only the one by the famous artist matters, because it is considered an original piece and handcrafted.

Im not being mean about abstract art, but one of the easiest ways to see if an image is AI-generated is when there are objects/humans in them. I have created enough AI images, that when looking at the photographer's image, there are things in it that suggest that it is AI-generated. But I guess that during the competition none of the judges expected one of them to do it, and so they got fooled.

 

[Secret Chief]

My point is that me generating this has no value, you write the name of a famous artist on it and it sells for I don't know how much. So it doesn't matter if there are 10 million AI generate oil paintings of landscapes, only the one by the famous artist matters, because it is considered an original piece and handcrafted.

The whole financial value based on the level of fame of the artist is rather meaningless to me anyway. Personally I wouldn't pay ten pence for a Damien Hirst work. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Nimos]

The whole financial value based on the level of fame of the artist is rather meaningless to me anyway. Personally I wouldn't pay ten pence for a Damien Hirst work. But that's just my opinion.

I think a majority of people buying these expensive art pieces do it as an investment, but in that case, we are talking about very famous artists. I honestly don't know how much these artists sell directly to customers or if they make their money from displaying what they make in museums etc.

I can understand painters selling their paintings, but a lot of these artists make huge installations, some require special lighting or it might be a movie etc.

But I looked up Damien Hirst and you can buy this painting for only 59500 pounds / 74660,60 dollars, artist name definitely matters :

Or if you are fast this one for only 24450 pounds:

 

[PureX]

There are of course lots of paintings in that kind of genre, painted by humans, and they too do nothing for me.
Yes, anyone can do art. (And should, imo).


Ouch.

It’s not art.

 

[Secret Chief]

It’s not art.

If one were to walk into a room and it was hanging on a wall, how can one tell whether or not it is art?

 

[PureX]

If one were to walk into a room and it was hanging on a wall, how can one tell whether or not it is art?

By it's apparent purpose.

The purpose of humans engaging in the art endeavor is to create a 'document' that allows other human beings to experientially glimpse the world through the mind and heart of the artist. Art is how we see ouselves and each as who we really are. AI cannot create art because AI has no individual experiential view if the world: it has no mind or heart through which to experience it. Animals have minds and hearts, but they lack the conscious (meta) self-awareness necessary to generate the kind of over-view that art documents and tried to share.

AI cannot make art. All it can do is mimic the 'look' of art without ever actually being art. Which makes it an excellent tool for deception. And that is exactly what it will be used for. There are already many fakers and posers pretending to be artists making art. And AI is only going to flood the zeitgeist with a whole lot more. The result being that people will become even more ignorant of what art is then they already are. Our society is already grotesquely ignorant in that regard and it will continue to suffer for it. Because art provides an essential function in any healthy society. And when that function is lost, the society will become blind to itself. And that never ends well.

Incidentally, eliminating art and replacing it with propaganda is the FIRST thing fascists do when they are staging a coup. So just imagine how much they're going to appreciate AIs ability to deceive people into thinking their lies are "art".

 

[Secret Chief]

By it's apparent purpose.

The purpose of humans engaging in the art endeavor is to create a 'document' that allows other human beings to experientially glimpse the world through the mind and heart of the artist. Art is how we see ouselves and each as who we really are. AI cannot create art because AI has no individual experiential view if the world: it has no mind or heart through which to experience it. Animals have minds and hearts, but they lack the conscious (meta) self-awareness necessary to generate the kind of over-view that art documents and tried to share.

AI cannot make art. All it can do is mimic the 'look' of art without ever actually being art. Which makes it an excellent tool for deception. And that is exactly what it will be used for. There are already many fakers and posers pretending to be artists making art. And AI is only going to flood the zeitgeist with a whole lot more. The result being that people will become even more ignorant of what art is then they already are. Our society is already grotesquely ignorant in that regard and it will continue to suffer for it. Because art provides an essential function in any healthy society. And when that function is lost, the society will become blind to itself. And that never ends well.

Incidentally, eliminating art and replacing it with propaganda is the FIRST thing fascists do when they are staging a coup. So just imagine how much they're going to appreciate AIs ability to deceive people into thinking their lies are "art".

I'm sorry but I need to repeat my question. When a person is confronted for the first time by an image hanging on a wall how does the person determine if it is art or not? "Purpose" is not visible.

 

[Secret Chief]

Most of us are idiots

dilettantes. Hobbyists. Posers and hucksters.

I take it you're not one of these?

 

[Nimos]

AI cannot create art because AI has no individual experiential view if the world: it has no mind or heart through which to experience it.

I get what you are saying, but I don't think it matters because it is in the eyes/ears of the beholder.

IN a low-key, musical version of the match between Garry Kasparov and the chess-playing machine called Deep Blue, a musician at the University of Oregon competed last month with a computer to compose music in the style of Johann Sebastian Bach. Steve Larson, who teaches music theory at the university, listened anxiously while his wife, the pianist Winifred Kerner, performed three entries in the contest -- one by Bach, one by Dr. Larson and one by a computer program called EMI, or Experiments in Musical Intelligence.

Dr. Larson was hurt when the audience concluded that his piece -- a simple, engaging form called a two-part invention -- was written by the computer. But he felt somewhat mollified when the listeners went on to decide that the invention composed by EMI (pronounced ''Emmy'') was genuine Bach.

''Bach is absolutely one of my favorite composers,'' Dr. Larson said. ''My admiration for his music is deep and cosmic. That people could be duped by a computer program was very disconcerting.''

We as humans are easily fooled. And we can only conclude that at least the audience thought that the AI was actually Bach. So now that they know that, did the piece suddenly get worse? And therefore not art.

If I look at that drawing above, which cost 24450 pounds, I would consider that a ripoff, in most cases people would throw something like that in the bin. Yet because it was created by a human and in this case a famous one, it is clearly considered art and a very expensive one.

I don't think there is an easy answer, but simply saying that AI can't make art, just seems too easy. Obviously, you need a human to put it in motion, but ignoring that, I think it difficult to really make a good argument against it, when people are so easily "fooled".

 

[PureX]

I take it you're not one of these?

No, I'm not. I have a masters degree in fine art from two very good art schools and a lifetime living and working as a fine artist in a major art market.

I'm sorry but I need to repeat my question. When a person is confronted for the first time by an image hanging on a wall how does the person determine if it is art or not? "Purpose" is not visible.

The purpose is always visible (or it's a failed work of art), but one needs to be able to really look at a thing and think carefully about what they are seeing, and consder why it is the way it is. Why would someone would go to the trouble to create something just for you to look at it? It's not about "do I like it"? Someone is sharing their experience of the world with you through that object. But you have to be willing to "read" the object. To understand it as a record of deliberate choices that can tell you about the person that made those choices.

This usually takes some effort and practice. Something most people are not willing to give to art. And so therefor never learn to 'see' it.

 

[libre]

I do think there is reason to be concerned that AI art will destroy contemporary art scene the way that the steam engine and spinning jenny killed much traditional handicraft.

I am optimistic that there will always be a market for live-music.
For instance, Chess computers have been able to beat human masters for some decades now, but fans of the game still come out in droves to follow the best players around the world compose games live.

 

[Secret Chief]

No, I'm not. I have a masters degree in fine art from two very good art schools and a lifetime living and working as a fine artist in a major art market.

The purpose is always visible (or it's a failed work of art), but one needs to be able to really look at a thing and think carefully about what they are seeing, and consder why it is the way it is. Why would someone would go to the trouble to create something just for you to look at it? It's not about "do I like it"? Someone is sharing their experience of the world with you through that object. But you have to be willing to "read" the object. To understand it as a record of deliberate choices that can tell you about the person that made those choices.

This usually takes some effort and practice. Something most people are not willing to give to art. And so therefor never learn to 'see' it.

Imagine two very similar images are hanging on a wall (say like the one in post 60). One is by a person that utilised AI and one is by a person who did not. Both pieces are by career artists. Presumably you would say that one is art and one is not. How would you make the determination of which was which?

 

[PureX]

I get what you are saying, but I don't think it matters because it is in the eyes/ears of the beholder.

IN a low-key, musical version of the match between Garry Kasparov and the chess-playing machine called Deep Blue, a musician at the University of Oregon competed last month with a computer to compose music in the style of Johann Sebastian Bach. Steve Larson, who teaches music theory at the university, listened anxiously while his wife, the pianist Winifred Kerner, performed three entries in the contest -- one by Bach, one by Dr. Larson and one by a computer program called EMI, or Experiments in Musical Intelligence.

Dr. Larson was hurt when the audience concluded that his piece -- a simple, engaging form called a two-part invention -- was written by the computer. But he felt somewhat mollified when the listeners went on to decide that the invention composed by EMI (pronounced ''Emmy'') was genuine Bach.

''Bach is absolutely one of my favorite composers,'' Dr. Larson said. ''My admiration for his music is deep and cosmic. That people could be duped by a computer program was very disconcerting.''

We as humans are easily fooled. And we can only conclude that at least the audience thought that the AI was actually Bach. So now that they know that, did the piece suddenly get worse? And therefore not art.

It was a test of mimicry, so of course AI won. That's what AI does. That's ALL it does.

A proper contest would have been to charge two human composers and AI with the task of composing a piece of music with no outside input. AI would fail every time. Because it could not identify or decide on it's own what the goal of the task is.

If I look at that drawing above, which cost 24450 pounds, I would consider that a ripoff, in most cases people would throw something like that in the bin. Yet because it was created by a human and in this case a famous one, it is clearly considered art and a very expensive one.

Damien Hirst is a clever con-artist. Every era gets a few of these people who manage to bamboozle the boogie elites and pseudo-intellectuals of the "art world" into thinking that their nonsense and gibberish is some new ingenious take on art-making. When all it really is, is nothing more than the empty novelty of 'nothingness' pretending it's art.

That's what Damien Hirst does. He deliberately makes artworks that say and mean nothing at all, and then he pretends this this is some sort of wise intellectual statement on the state of modern art. It's not. And he's just a 'flim-flam man', But even in the upper echelons of the art world there are plenty of small minds with big egos that are just waiting to be fooled. And now that we have this new super class of classless billionaires looking to throw big piles of money at whatever they think will make them look clever and respectable, the art world is cluttered with these charlatans and hucksters pretending to be artists. There's big money to be gotten, after all, for those that can pull off the big illusion.

I don't think there is an easy answer, but simply saying that AI can't make art, just seems too easy.

AI can't make art. It lacks the essential components. All it can do is mimic the art that has already been made, and rearrange and recombine it's parts.

Obviously, you need a human to put it in motion, but ignoring that, I think it difficult to really make a good argument against it, when people are so easily "fooled".

That is the argument against it ... that people are so easily fooled.

 

[PureX]

Imagine two very similar images are hanging on a wall (say like the one in post 60). One is by a person that utilised AI and one is by a person who did not. Both pieces are by career artists. Presumably you would say that one is art and one is not. How would you make the determination of which was which?

I don't care about artists "utilizing" AI. It's a tool. If it serves the art endeavor, the artist will use it. Why not?

The point, though, is that the AI didn't make any art, the artist did. The decisions are all ultimately his, and are intended to serve his endeavor to create an art 'document' that represents him. When I see that document being presented to me as a work of art, I will try to read it in that way. If he allowed the AI to make all his decisions for him, then he didn't make art, and he will not be in it. He just had a machine create an imposter. A fake. No real artist would do that. It's antithetical to who they are and why they are artists.

 

[Secret Chief]

I don't care about artists "utilizing" AI. It's a tool. If it serves the art endeavor, the artist will use it. Why not?

The point, though, is that the AI didn't make any art, the artist did. The decisions are all ultimately his, and are intended to serve his endeavor to create an art 'document' that represents him. When I see that document being presented to me as a work of art, I will try to read it in that way. If he allowed the AI to make all his decisions for him, then he didn't make art, and he will not be in it. He just had a machine create an imposter. A fake.

And how can you tell which is which as you stand in front of them? You're saying it's a tool that an artist may use. Fine. But you said earlier that the item was not art, so I'm trying to elucidate how one can make the distinction. Either an artist is using AI as a tool OR it is not art (as you claimed earlier).

 

[PureX]

And how can you tell which is which as you stand in front of them? You're saying it's a tool that an artist may use. Fine. But you said earlier that the item was not art, so I'm trying to elucidate how one can make the distinction. Either an artist is using AI as a tool OR it is not art (as you claimed earlier).

A good cheat can create a forgery that can fool everyone. But what he created is still a forgery. And the creator is still a cheat. You seem to be wanting to say that if the cheater is that good, and everyone gets fooled, then he didn't actually cheat at all. He became what he was pretending to be.

And this is exactly why this issue is so important, and why AI is so dangerous. Because the cheaters ARE going to use it. And they ARE going to fool a whole lot of us with it. And because many of us ARE going to then presume the cheaters to be the 'originators' when they are really just phonies. And because we couldn't tell, we won't care anymore.