This makes me think somewhat on what can and should be considered art. Obviously this is a fundamental and broad question, and there us no shortage of analysis on this point. I can only offer some...
This makes me think somewhat on what can and should be considered art. Obviously this is a fundamental and broad question, and there us no shortage of analysis on this point. I can only offer some personal thoughts on what 'feels' right - maybe I would have more well defined ideas if I sat on it a bit.
On one extreme, I don't think I would be inclined to call patterns, vistas, or other objects art if they are produced via natural means. Surely a great sunset or a repeating crystal can be beautiful, and often this beauty can transcend what we are capable of making, but art it is not. On the other extreme, I am willing to acknowledge most human creations as being art in some sense, and particularly those that contain some intentional aesthetic element beyond pure functionality. Paintings and songs and poems fall easily into this category, but great food, buildings, or even well planned cities can have artistic qualities in my opinion.
Somewhere near the middle of this spectrum are things like the linked AI paintings. They are surely beautiful, and to be honest if you had hung them alongside human produced works of art in a gallery I would be hard pressed to identify the fakes. But they lack the intentionality that human produced objects have, the proverbial "artist's touch". Mechanically produced works of art are not necessarily even a new invention novel to the era of AI. Jacquard looms produced wonderfully intricate designs long before modern computers existed, and indeed their punch card mechanism served as an early inspiration for pioneers like Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelace.
The case of the Jacquard loom raises an interesting tangential point.
Where in the process of running the loom is the artistry done? Is the piece of art the final patterned fabric, or is it the information contained in the punch card, and the final patterned fabric is just a representation of the underlying informational form? When you walk through a museum gift shop, are you looking at many independent pieces of art, each produced with mechanical precision (like the loom), and is the machine that does the printing exhibiting the same skill as the artist? Or are you looking at copies of some true Platonic work that existed in the mind of the artist? Is all art similarly just information?
But obviously modern AI is quite different than a Jacquard loom. AI has the ability to produce myriad designs, and not all need to be hardcoded in by some programmer. But I suppose in a real sense is this that different than the case of AI? Sure, the results we get are unexpected, but both the AI and the loom operate within a narrow boundary dictated by their source. Modern AI is a far cry from a true synthetic consciousness, and I personally have doubts we'll ever get there. Stripping away the details, are these AI generated works just more surprising spirographs that independently create intricate designs provided we've set them up and gotten them going properly?
Personally, the human element of art and design means something to me beyond what is contained in the actual form of the piece. I think knowing that something was intentionally created, by someone like me, most likely with the intent of evoking a certain sense of feeling or emotion, meaningfully changes how I respond to a piece. Art is very much a form of communication, and I don't think something could make a piece of art without having something to communicate. AI surely doesn't.
Imagine I came to you and showed you this image (a randomly selected result from the site linked above). You ask me what it means, and I say I've studied cubist art methodically. This piece is a...
Imagine I came to you and showed you this image (a randomly selected result from the site linked above). You ask me what it means, and I say I've studied cubist art methodically. This piece is a synthesis of what I recall. It seems you would say it is not art. Separately, as a viewer of my own art, I call it beautiful. I can tell you it reminds me of my grandmother's garden. Would you still tell me it's not art?
Art happens in the mind of the viewer. It's just that most art is created by humans, and they can also act as viewers of their own creations. Even if they don't create a work of art with any meaning in mind, they can interpret it an prescribe meaning retroactively.
When I go to an art museum there are a lot of pieces that don't make me think. I have no connection to them yet. I walk by them, unchanged and uninspired. But there are usually enough works for at least one to give me pause. Something will remind me of a moment in my past, or build upon a thought I've been toying with. All the works that I dismiss are not art to me. They're just pieces of ceramic, canvas, rope, or cloth that are placed on display. If someone was there to provide an interpretation when I have don't have my own, then maybe it could all become art.
In that sense, maybe none of the images on this site are art until a viewer gives them meaning. The site isn't an artist, it's a muse.
Can't find it also, try messaging the author, he's got a twitter link on website. Here source, so it might contain more info there or you can generate pictures yourself.
Can't find it also, try messaging the author, he's got a twitter link on website. Here source, so it might contain more info there or you can generate pictures yourself.
This makes me think somewhat on what can and should be considered art. Obviously this is a fundamental and broad question, and there us no shortage of analysis on this point. I can only offer some personal thoughts on what 'feels' right - maybe I would have more well defined ideas if I sat on it a bit.
On one extreme, I don't think I would be inclined to call patterns, vistas, or other objects art if they are produced via natural means. Surely a great sunset or a repeating crystal can be beautiful, and often this beauty can transcend what we are capable of making, but art it is not. On the other extreme, I am willing to acknowledge most human creations as being art in some sense, and particularly those that contain some intentional aesthetic element beyond pure functionality. Paintings and songs and poems fall easily into this category, but great food, buildings, or even well planned cities can have artistic qualities in my opinion.
Somewhere near the middle of this spectrum are things like the linked AI paintings. They are surely beautiful, and to be honest if you had hung them alongside human produced works of art in a gallery I would be hard pressed to identify the fakes. But they lack the intentionality that human produced objects have, the proverbial "artist's touch". Mechanically produced works of art are not necessarily even a new invention novel to the era of AI. Jacquard looms produced wonderfully intricate designs long before modern computers existed, and indeed their punch card mechanism served as an early inspiration for pioneers like Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelace.
The case of the Jacquard loom raises an interesting tangential point.
Where in the process of running the loom is the artistry done? Is the piece of art the final patterned fabric, or is it the information contained in the punch card, and the final patterned fabric is just a representation of the underlying informational form? When you walk through a museum gift shop, are you looking at many independent pieces of art, each produced with mechanical precision (like the loom), and is the machine that does the printing exhibiting the same skill as the artist? Or are you looking at copies of some true Platonic work that existed in the mind of the artist? Is all art similarly just information?
But obviously modern AI is quite different than a Jacquard loom. AI has the ability to produce myriad designs, and not all need to be hardcoded in by some programmer. But I suppose in a real sense is this that different than the case of AI? Sure, the results we get are unexpected, but both the AI and the loom operate within a narrow boundary dictated by their source. Modern AI is a far cry from a true synthetic consciousness, and I personally have doubts we'll ever get there. Stripping away the details, are these AI generated works just more surprising spirographs that independently create intricate designs provided we've set them up and gotten them going properly?
Personally, the human element of art and design means something to me beyond what is contained in the actual form of the piece. I think knowing that something was intentionally created, by someone like me, most likely with the intent of evoking a certain sense of feeling or emotion, meaningfully changes how I respond to a piece. Art is very much a form of communication, and I don't think something could make a piece of art without having something to communicate. AI surely doesn't.
Imagine I came to you and showed you this image (a randomly selected result from the site linked above). You ask me what it means, and I say I've studied cubist art methodically. This piece is a synthesis of what I recall. It seems you would say it is not art. Separately, as a viewer of my own art, I call it beautiful. I can tell you it reminds me of my grandmother's garden. Would you still tell me it's not art?
Art happens in the mind of the viewer. It's just that most art is created by humans, and they can also act as viewers of their own creations. Even if they don't create a work of art with any meaning in mind, they can interpret it an prescribe meaning retroactively.
When I go to an art museum there are a lot of pieces that don't make me think. I have no connection to them yet. I walk by them, unchanged and uninspired. But there are usually enough works for at least one to give me pause. Something will remind me of a moment in my past, or build upon a thought I've been toying with. All the works that I dismiss are not art to me. They're just pieces of ceramic, canvas, rope, or cloth that are placed on display. If someone was there to provide an interpretation when I have don't have my own, then maybe it could all become art.
In that sense, maybe none of the images on this site are art until a viewer gives them meaning. The site isn't an artist, it's a muse.
What's the license on this? Editing these could be kinda fun but I don't see any license info on the website.
Can't find it also, try messaging the author, he's got a twitter link on website. Here source, so it might contain more info there or you can generate pictures yourself.