If it's AI is it Art?

[Jayhawker Soule]

... what "some people" think is art in a society is of no relevance to what the majority should be thinking is art in an honest, healthy society.

Or, perhaps, in a healthy society "some people" would think twice before pontificating on what the majority should think is art.

 

[Secret Chief]

Yes, but real human artists found ways of expressing their own unique views and experiences of the world within those commercial constraints. It's what made their artworks, art. AI has no individual views or experiences to interject into such an endeavor. The best it could do would be to interject the mimicked uniqueness of other humans from the past, and fob them off as "art". Yet by definition it is not art. And it never could be.

We'll have to disagree then, I see AI simply as another tool for utilisation.

 

[Watchmen]

I keep seeing posts about “creativity” and “impersonation,” but how are humans any different? Humans aren’t really creating from nothing. They are taking styles, and ideas, and techniques that they e watched and learned, consciously or unconsciously, and then putting something to canvas based on their brain processing and applying that information. How is that any more “creative” than AI?

 

[F1fan]

AI is art like masturbation is sex.

 

[PureX]

Much as true Scotsmen find ways to eat their porridge without sugar.

Not being a Scotsman, I wouldn't know. Being an artist, however ...

Which definition might that be?

The real one.

See post #110.

Given the question "If it's AI is it Art?"​

​

• The atheist is more likely to say -- Perhaps.
• The theist is more likely to insist -- God NO!

Well of course, the atheists worship science instead of God. So naturally they will want to accept AI as another miracle from their god-replacement in much the same way a theist will accept his favored scripture as a miracle from his God.

 

[PureX]

Or, perhaps, in a healthy society "some people" would think twice before pontificating on what the majority should think is art.

In our society, everyone thinks it's their right and even their obligation to pontificate about what is and isn't art. Regardless of how little they actually know about the endeavor. And then when corrected, they will fight to maintain their ignorant opinions, instead of bothering to learn anything.

It's a clear example of how living in a consumer culture has damaged our ability to question ourselves, and to learn. Instead, the 'customer' is always right, even when he's wrong (so long as he keeps buying).

 

[HonestJoe]

And if so, what does that say about art ... or, for that matter, about AI?

AI is a tool and that tool can be used to create art. Today, AI still needs some level of human input and guidance to generate anything and humans can (and typically will) select the best output. Plenty of existing art has random or uncontrolled elements used in it's creation and arguably, all art inevitably has some random aspects. The fact the artist isn't in complete consciously control of the output doesn't in itself prevent that output being considered art.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

AI can be art in the same way Found art can be art.
The art is as much in there observer as the maker.

 

[PureX]

We'll have to disagree then, I see AI simply as another tool for utilisation.

Any "artist" that chooses to use that tool will be a poser. I have no doubt that it will happen. There are plenty of posers trying to pass themselves off as artists out there. Many of them don't even know that they ARE posers because they have no idea what art is. And some of them will collect their supporters, because there are plenty of people in general that have no idea what art is. It'll be propaganda, titillation, entertainment, nostalgia, decoration, or whatever else they think will sell, but it won't be art. And they won't be artists.

 

[PureX]

AI can be art in the same way Found art can be art.
The art is as much in there observer as the maker.

"Found art" isn't art until until it's found, and very specifically coceptualized and contextualized and re-presented to the audience as a work of art.

This could happen with some example of AI, of course, but real artists aren't going to bother. Especially when the hucksters and posers will have already turned that idea into a big con job.

 

[Secret Chief]

Any "artist" that chooses to use that tool will be a poser. I have no doubt that it will happen. There are plenty of posers trying to pass themselves off as artists out there. Many of them don't even know that they ARE posers because they have no idea what art is. And some of them will collect their supporters, because there are plenty of people in general that have no idea what art is. It'll be propaganda, titillation, entertainment, nostalgia, decoration, or whatever else they think will sell, but it won't be art. And they won't be artists.

Poser? I reject your elitist dismissal.

 

[PureX]

Poser? I reject your elitist dismissal.

Of course you do.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

It'll be propaganda, titillation, entertainment, nostalgia, decoration, or whatever else they think will sell

Almost all the artists I know make a living doing these very things you deny to be art...a very few are hobbyists, who because of their day jobs can engage in their 'art' independently...and some supplement their day jobs by producing marketable materials that you deny to be art...but they do very much the same sorts of things as the 'professionals.'

Am I hearing you correctly, that only Artists(TM) can determine what art is and is not?

 

[Secret Chief]

Of course you do.

Of course I do. You don't get to decide for others.

 

[Secret Chief]

Almost all the artists I know make a living doing these very things you deny to be art...a very few are hobbyists, who because of their day jobs can engage in their 'art' independently...and some supplement their day jobs by producing marketable materials that you deny to be art...but they do very much the same sorts of things as the 'professionals.'

Am I hearing you correctly, that only Artists(TM) can determine what art is and is not?

I don't create art. I'm a part-time poser.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I don't create art. I'm a part-time poser.

Apparently, I am, too.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In our society, everyone thinks it's their right and even their obligation to pontificate about what is and isn't art.

^ projection ?

 

[Secret Chief]

Apparently, I am, too.

We should form a support group.

 

[Secret Chief]

In our society, everyone thinks it's their right and even their obligation to pontificate about what is and isn't art

When of course what we ignoramuses should do is ask you.

 

[PureX]

Almost all the artists I know make a living doing these very things you deny to be art...a very few are hobbyists, who because of their day jobs can engage in their 'art' independently...and some supplement their day jobs by producing marketable materials that you deny to be art...but they do very much the same sorts of things as the 'professionals.'

Am I hearing you correctly, that only Artists(TM) can determine what art is and is not?

Art is a specific and unique kind of human endeavor. It is defined by it’s purpose and evaluated by how well it fulfills that purpose; not by whether one gets paid for it, or how popular they are, or how technically complex or proficient it is, or how often one engages in it. If the purpose one engages in it is profit, it’s not art. If the purpose is to decorate, or titillate, or entertain, or proselytize, or aggrandize, it’s not art. Because that’s not why artists make art.

These other purposes may be why a benefactor commissions an artist, and an artist may choose to fulfill their desired task. But that does not mean that what results from this is art. Though it could be. Even though it might also fulfill one or more of these other functions.

I know it’s confusing for people, but that’s just how it is. Humans engage in creating works of art for the primary purpose of expressing to other humans what, and how they are experiencing and understanding the world. The artist is offering us a glimpse of existence through their eyes, mind, and heart. This glimpse may be beautiful or it may not be, it may be entertaining or it may not be. It may be educational or it may not be. It may be poignant or it may not be. It may be popular or it may not be. It may be titillating or intriguing or it may be revolting. It may be masterfully executed or it may be crude. But none of these attributes are what define it as art. What defines it as art is it’s intent to share one human’s unique existential experience with other humans.

It’s a difficult task, and not everyone is able to receive this kind of gift. Their eyes and mind are just not open to it. And that’s just the way it is.