If it's AI is it Art?

[Eddi]

human endeavor

Yes!

That is central to the definition of art and is why AI will never produce art

Giving an AI a prompt for it to produce an image from is in no way human endeavour!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The point here is that 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.

What high horse did you ride in to insist their is a proper way that people "should be thinking" about art?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

You sound like an art tyrant. You'd make it not fun by taking away some of the functions of art. Like decorations. You position dismisses Islamic art wholesale. It dismisses, whole sale, all the statues that have decorated places. You dismiss, wholesale, many of my favorites because they got paid. But HR Giger is still definitely fine, great art even if you want to turn your nose up at. Amd if you took an art appreciation class you wouldn't only realize how wrong you are you'd also see how things like architecture are considered art.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes!

That is central to the definition of art ...

Which definition might that be?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Has anyone else noticed the frightened dogmatism that tends to characterize one side of the discussion?

​

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Has anyone else noticed the frightened dogmatism that tends to characterize one side of the discussion?

​

Here, in this topic, no because I've known art snobs in real life who think it's their place to dictate what "proper" art is. It shouldn't have this, it shouldn't do that, what I have noticed though is most often these people themselves are not artists. They don't paint, draw, write, sculpt, sing, weave, screen, throw, nothing.
Macrame is a great example. We consider it artful. The sailors who began it called it practice and then extra money when people on land interpreted their knot tying as an asthetic jewelry and and decoration (or so I was told by my highschool art teacher, anyways).
Yes, of course art does have rules and theories, but the whole point of learning those is to effectively break them and take the reigns to make your art your own.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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?

Good question.

We have emotions, and AI does not. The presence of emotion in a picture could be evidence that it is an imitation and not art. How is it that AI can express emotional designs? You can say "I want a sad picture of a tree," and the AI will produce something using its training on human made images of sadness. We know that it doesn't feel sadness, so it must be imitating sadness. That at least is imitation, because it cannot feel.

 

[Watchmen]

Good question.

We have emotions, and AI does not. The presence of emotion in a picture could be evidence that it is an imitation and not art. How is it that AI can express emotional designs? You can say "I want a sad picture of a tree," and the AI will produce something using its training on human made images of sadness. We know that it doesn't feel sadness, so it must be imitating sadness. That at least is imitation, because it cannot feel.

Emotion is nothing more than chemical reactions and firing neurons. The brain is a computer. Not sure there’s much difference.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Emotion is nothing more than chemical reactions and firing neurons. The brain is a computer. Not sure there’s much difference.

The AI does not have these reactions. It has no feelings. Therefore if there are feelings in the art then the feelings are imitations.

 

[Watchmen]

The AI does not have these reactions. It has no feelings. Therefore if there are feelings in the art then the feelings are imitations.

I suppose. But can a human create art without emotion? What if AI created art elicits an emotion?

 

[Brickjectivity]

I suppose. But can a human create art without emotion? What if AI created art elicits an emotion?

I have no answer to that, but I can share some of the technical side.

An AI is mostly a storage and retrieval device. It is information, organized and compressed, but the information is damaged by the process. This type of compression is called lossy compression. It is still storage and retrieval though. You can mostly get back what you put in. Compression and organization are the upsides, the lossy damage is the downside.

Suppose you train your AI to paint. What you actually are doing is doing lossy compression of many paintings together. You can extract them again, somewhat damaged. The originals can almost be retrieved perfectly, and some might be retrieved perfectly but not all. You can also get mixes of them, because they are all compressed together. This what happens when you ask for a rabbit with dog ears. The AI retrieves a mixture of imperfectly preserved data. One thing about it is that retrieval is haphazard. The dog ears may be distorted or may for some reason appear in the wrong place etc. That isn't purposeful. It is just because unless you know exactly what prompt to use your results will be somewhat random.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That at least is imitation, because it cannot feel.

Though just one person's opinion ...

During the Renaissance, when they wished to imitate Immortal Greece, they produced Raphael. Ingres wished to imitate Raphael, and became Ingres. Cézanne wished to imitate Poussin, and thus became Cézanne. Dali wanted to imitate Meissonier and the result was Dali Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing.
- Salvador Dali

This what happens when you ask for a rabbit with dog ears. The AI retrieves a mixture of imperfectly preserved data.

As do we.

I would also caution against viewing questions concerning AI art through the lens of today's AI. Compare, for example, the synthesized speech of today's GPS with that of just a few decades ago.

 

[Nakosis]

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

I suspect most feel "art" is a form of "self" expression. There is no self involved AI as far as I know.

I think some people need to feel a connection to the artist and feel cheated to find out there is no "self" behind the art.

I never really connected to art in this way. Feeling some kind of human bond to the artist. To me, the idea of a bond to the artist is just an illusion.
To me, a painting is a painting. I might like it, I might not. Has nothing to do with the person who painted it.

Although I understand if I create something it is an expression of self. What others feel about it has more to do with their own internal process than me.

If a person didn't know it was AI would they still assume a human bond with the artist? IMO, it doesn't require an actual human artist for this.

So it'd be art unless until the person found out it was AI. Then it would simply be a a picture/painting as it is to me.

Does art require that human bond? It is all the same to me.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I would also caution against viewing questions concerning AI art through the lens of today's AI. Compare, for example, the synthesized speech of today's GPS with that of just a few decades ago.

Point taken! Yes, I think I see what you mean.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, not art, but a useful tool in comedy. From a very recent Stephen Colbert Show. They used AI to create:

'this picture of Scooby-Doo making out with Ronald Reagan on a jet ski!'

I think that I have it set up to go straight to the image.

Yep! Mission accomplished. Just click and it will be there.