Do Machines Make Art? | The Art Assignment | PBS Digital Studios

100 thoughts on “Do Machines Make Art? | The Art Assignment | PBS Digital Studios”

  • The question is s sound one and provides a stable base for a discourse in the subject. Artists have 'gleaned' ideas from other artists and their environments for centuries. The machine is a man-made devise as real as the paint brush and palate. Outside of the fact that there is a human element in art; art infuses a sense of humanity in all art while sometimes providing a historical record of the art and society. If you base your answer upon this then yes, it is in fact art because machines where made by humans. You can program a machine to create a "human" interaction or a human emotion based off data it has analyzed, but essentially the creator of the machine is the creator of the art. The machine is a bi-product of the the human creator.

  • As a photographer I have seen huge changes in my field. there are some who don't think digital photography is as "pure" as analogue (film) photography. It is just an arbitrary line. Yes you can use incredible tools like Photoshop but a person is still in control.
    Partly to experiment with this, I created a website that randomly generates an image. The resultant image is unique, but not generally interesting. This may be the anti-machine art….

    http://alanklughammer.com/millionmonkeys/index.php

  • simulacrums = art?
    hmm ..
    ok, the artist designed the machine that made the art, is that different than the output of a machine as art?
    i can find beauty in the spillage around a cement truck, but wouldn't call it art..
    and speaking mystically, one can feel the energy of the artist, as in the congo piece, and context doesn't matter at all, nor does intellectual understanding … much digital art has no shakti, no juice ..

  • I was going to comment "Art is shared experience" then it appeared in the video. I once read that nature can't be art and that somehow is true. Is the Angel Falls art? I don't see how it can be. But there's shared experience of appreciating it's beauty and power. Short answer: Don't know.

  • Maybe one key point is the choice. The algorithms made the piece. But they also made dozens or hundreds, thousands, or millions of other pieces. But someone chose that specific one. Maybe that's where the art, the shared experience comes from. It's another person saying, "Look at this." The art is not in the creating of the object, the art is in the creating of the shared experience.

  • hey sarah! a hopeful tangent: have you ever encountered the school of speculative design that originated about 15y ago at the rca (if you can call it that by now)? starting with dunne&raby and then spreading out to question what design can be other than luxury good production. it's still such a hardly known and emerging field but people make fantastic projects in it's context. i'd adore a video about them.
    here some links:
    http://www.dunneandraby.co.uk/content/projects
    http://www.auger-loizeau.com
    http://hefinjones.co.uk/welsh-space-campaign/
    http://www.billierehwald.com/avaectogenesis

  • I'm inclined to think that if a human creates a machine designed to make art then the machine is part of the art. Looking at that sonnet 'And be very careful crossing the streets,' I think you can engage with that by thinking of the artist as someone who designed the machine that made it.

    Like, there was no intention to the poem, yet as I read it I went looking for meaning, only half-conscious that I was playing a pointless game. And I think maybe that's the intent of the artist: to deliberately provoke the audience to search for meaning that obviously isn't there and also to explore this question of machines as artists.

    It's also interesting to me how the sonnet kind of does invoke a sort of tone and sense of place, albeit an inconsistent one, and that the jumps in logic resemble the sort of thing a human poet would choose to put on the page to achieve an effect. Language devoid of meaning sounds remarkably similar to language which is deliberately not formalised so as to represent a disjointed thought process.

    It's also really interesting how it accidentally starts slap-bang in the middle of a dramatic monologue in a way that I quite enjoy even though it's only a coincidence of the algorithm.

    I've wandered a bit. My point is that the artist is still the artist. I suppose the artist is part-engineer but I wouldn't have a problem with that at all since I quite like engineers. It's not a sexy job but they've built the world.

    This also reminds me of Nora Reed who makes Twitter bots like Thinkpiece Generator. They're all really very funny. They're not one to get up on a high horse but they've responded poorly to the suggestion that no work goes into the bots and that they can't lay claim to the results. I think there's sense to that so long as you understand the machine or algorithm to be part of the work of art.

  • Great video! I really liked the historical context and the discussion of "what's compelling" being a personal decision. For me, I love the visual possibilities of style transfer. Not all of the results are compelling, but many have a quite beautiful abstract quality. Here is a video I love that my friend Isaac made, transferring the style of Monet to NYC: https://vimeo.com/175269046

  • Machines can definitely be used to manufacture/generate art but I'm not convinced that they can' "make" art… because it takes human perception to recognise something as art. Can machines recognise a piece of art, or even think about the various factors that create its value as an artistic object/experience, which is in turn completely subject to irrational human perception/judgment? I'm not convinced that machines can even recognise what art is… because art is is so arbitrary.

  • On the question of originality: Setting aside for the moment the question of whether the AI needs to be 'conscious' for its creation to be considered 'art', I think the degree to which its programmer(s) is responsible for the AI's work varies, and isn't binary. Even if all the causes of the work can be traced back to a human, that human didn't exist in a vacuum either. It's like…if someone has a kid who grows up to be an artist after the parent encourages artistic pastimes and signs them up to art classes, or even teaches it all themselves. We'd still call a work of art made by the kid at least partially 'original'. So why not the art made by a programmer's brainchild?

  • Someone noted below, you could just as easily ask if nature creates art – a sea shell, a sunset, a waterfall, etc. We enjoy them for their beauty the same as a work of art. We can contemplate them. They have context and back stories, the same as anything else. You can extract philosophical tidbits from them. But, do they have intent, and doesn't intention matter? What do we connect to more, a beautiful sunset, or a beautiful piece of music? Which makes us more human? Which makes us more proud to be human? Which teaches us more about who we are? Which expresses our emotions and condition better? Which is more useful?

    In the end, it's up to you if you consider nature art, the same as any other machine. But, as an artist, what would you rather dedicate your life to? A practice where you choose what you want to make, how the work will look, and what it will communicate? Or, do you really want to produce failed experiments of goop on a conveyor belt? Art is about attempting perfection, excellence. Why give up control to an unthinking machine? The effects are cheap gimmicks, like the background music of this video. The digital images produced by algorithms and shown here are just curios. Dog eyes mean nothing without expression, gleaned by an artist who cares enough to capture it.

    That's what all this boils down to – do you care enough to make art or not? I could care less if a robot designed my mattress, so long as it's safe and comfy. A road sign? Sure, go ahead, as long as it's easy to read and understand. But, my art? My music? Are we really that lazy? A good way to think of AI art at this point in time is to consider the spell checking function that Youtube uses as we type here. It's smart enough to tell me that Youtube is not a word, but it can't tell the difference between 'its' and 'it's', or which is correct, because it really has no idea what we're saying. Until that changes, I say we should be thankful for the help, but roll our eyes at calling AI an artist.

  • Maybe i come as kind of close minded on this topic , but everytime i think about robot made art…even if it consists of an AI that learns by itself , i get this feeling that resembles to the uncanny valley, i always feel like there is something off going on there. I think there is an important human element in art, that an artist must be human. Can art be made with robots? yes , but the author is still the human who built, taught , or designed that robot. For me, at this point, a robot cannot be independent enough as an inteligence to be a creator of the complex thing that art is. And if one day this changes , we would get to see something totally new to the discipline , as long as robots are just human copycats , they will not be " making " anything related to art.

  • I like art, but I'm not a huge art buff. However, what Sarah said about part of the appeal of art being a sense of connection to another person hit a chord with me. I had always thought that perhaps I liked more "traditional" art as compared to more abstract or modern art was because I just found it more aesthetically pleasing. However, that comment made me realize that perhaps some of what I find lacking in those forms of art is a more direct connection to someone–whether it's an artist through whose art I can see snippets of their life, environment, or history or the subject of the art itself, which may be a person, object, or landscape I can more easily connect to the experiences of both myself and others. Thanks for prompting me to re-examine my feelings on art in this way!

  • perhaps, in the end, it is a matter of taste on the part of the beholder. i'd prefer an AI generated art over any of damien hirst's so-called works any day. money is not a reliable yardstick for measuring the artistic merit of anything.

  • please make a "the case for" daniel johnston, not enough people know about his music and art. He makes beautiful inspiring works and he is truly an artist. He doesn't get enough of the recognition he deserves. He has schizophrenia and bpd and is such a strong and inspiring human being, anyone who knows his music will say the same.

  • I Make machine enhanced A.I. art. Im using the AI to enhance my drawings that i do from live models, and also for digital painting effects. , i posted some examples on my youtube if anyone is curious. I call it cybernetic art and i believe there will be a cybernetic art renaissance. I think AI is just another technology that we can harness. like the paint brush or the camera. Im not sure if a machine will ever make art sentient, but do think it is possible. i hope to keep experimenting with AI neural networks. I am a self taught fine art draftsman, and self taught python programmer. I hack my own tools that make the art.

  • "Let's assume for a moment that there is a work of art that we can accept as truly separate from human involvment": can nature produce art by itself? Are rock formations or clouds art?

  • What im interested in about computer generated art is that… it may be the only thing that can achieve true originality, i hate to think that theres no such thing ans originality, nothing new under the sun, i generally willingly decide its not true, but in a sense it is and i know it, but computers arent bound by human avoidances or patterns… at least the ones they dont have
    Also unpredictablity, such as random generation, fascinates me.

    Also something, as an artist myself, albeit usually in a more design oriented area, i know sometimes i mindlessly do some things cause i like the way they look, or base it on ideas of something in a purely aesthetic way, but then someone might say later that it seems to mean something or feel like something, but it really didnt mean anything to me when i made it, is that much different from a machine?
    An artist may have a lot of intent in a piece but surely theres something they did from subconcious habit or muscle memory or cause its easier to base something on a framework, not necessarily because it was a concious decision toward the goal of the piece, should you ignore those things?
    I guess it comes down to a bit of where does something become art, is it when the artist makes it or is it when the viewer sees something in it, its really all vague, even price isnt really determined by the kinds of things that make a piece art so it isnt a good judge.
    I take the dualistic approach, its both, even if it might seem contradictory sometimes, some things just contradict, so id say yes, it probably is art

  • i think this is kind of what you were alluding to in the video, but It's my belief that AI in itself is the art, never mind it's application. One must concept, concoct, then write an AI to achieve goal(s) that will then become compelling a group or individuals, & thus I think it's the execution of this process that is the art in question. You for example in the video used Deep Dream to make a piece with a selfie, you essentially used a tool to make art in which you can then take that art & share to compel others, you should be credited the artist of your deep dream image I'd argue, just as I wouldn't credit After Effects or the programming team behind the software if I make some sweet graphical art; In summary I think art is the summation of tools & assets used to evoke, which often can be a deeply nested equation. But I mean, what do I know, I am open to any & all rebuttals. bring it on 😁

  • I'm not very qualified to comment on such a complex question but I think I can share my views. When I look at a piece of art, I usually consider two things."How it made me feel and what it was meant to share?" Sometimes the first one matters more than the second and other times the opposite. But most often I tend to search for the prologue of an art piece because it meant something to me and I wonder what it meant to the one, whoever or whatever it maybe, who made it. It doesn't really matter to me if the art is made by a human or a machine but I do want to know the backstory of an art when I see one. I want to know how the artist felt while making it and how similar or different it is from my experience. This helps me make a connection beyond all odds. In fact, I would like to think of the machine that makes art as an art in itself. Thank you for such a great video. I've developed my interest in art through Art Assignment. So, thank you! :)💗

  • Why should the existence of creators and programmers of the machines be taken into consideration? Do we look at the influences of parents and other artists as relevant to the question of whether what humans make is art? It would be an artless world indeed if that were the litmus test.

  • "If you think it's art, then it's art." <= Thank you for admitting that "art" is an utterly useless term, totally subjective, in which there is no real meaning to be had. I have long maintained that "art" in an academic sense, does not exist, thanks to some very simple thought experiments: "I have a box. Inside this box, I have put some art. Knowing only that, what can you tell me about the contents of the box?" The answer is "nothing," because, as this video demonstrates, even that it is "human-made" is not necessarily a qualifier for art. Similarly, one could do the thought experiment with a box containing something that is "not art." Again, nothing can be said for certain about the box's contents.

  • I've always taken issue with the assertion that having a designer of the algorithm invalidates the creative agency of that algorithm. I mean, people have lots of factors affecting them which they have no control over yet deeply influences the things they create. People are acted upon by the people they spend time around, the art they consume, and the area they live in. All of these are external factors that act on people to adjust their ideas about what they would like to create. In my mind this is hardly any different from an AI artist setting a group of initial rules for creation and preferences, then letting the machine generate new content by acting on data sets. And just like all those external factors I mentioned above, how the machine will interpret and use those external influences is often unpredictable.

    I think when you talk about future AI with personality, that's really getting at the heart of why people don't think of machine-generated art as art; we want an identifiable human-like entity to be the creator because we want to think of art as something unique to the human experience. But I think it's very likely that when we get to strong artificial intelligence, its experience of the world is going to be drastically different from our own, and it's possible that it won't really be anything we can relate to. Would that meaning gap preclude anything they create from being art? That seems a bit…closed minded.

  • Imo, art is self-expression first and foremost. And the further it gets detached from the author, the less I like it. These machines do not express anything though, they just work the programs they were given, they don't have conscience. I don't think a machine could ever create a piece of art, because human nature is chaotic and flawed. And those flaws we make when creating an art work, are part of the work itself. A human can decide to paint a couple of dots in a corner of a painting, representing moles on his/her lover's face, or decide to not finish drawing a boat, conveying how he/she never had a chance to finish building a boat with the deceased father. There's so much inconcievable in the human mind, that computer would never get. You can program it to reflect implanted memories, but it's never gonna be eccentric about it, it's never gonna shock or surprise people with it, it can never be truly creative.

  • What I appreciate when I look at AI art is the unique perspective of something that is not quite alive. It makes me question the truth and validity of the human viewpoint I've been brought up thinking to be absolute fact. But being able to see reality through a completely different lens brings me to a greater understanding of the universe. It's true that there's a lot to be gleaned about the algorithm's creators from the specific manifestation of this new perspective, but that doesn't mean we can't appreciate this other worldly view of our world for its take on truth.

  • Just out of curiosity, how many subscribers have taken an art history course?

    It would be great if you could make a poll to find out this info, mayne stratify, by how much formal art history training they have. Highschool, some uni, masters, etc

  • I think to me it really doesn't matter who or what created the art. Through this show I really got a new perspective towards what art is or can be. In my opinion we all construct the definition of art ourselves and that's why what is art to me, might not be for you. That seems unsatisfying and we'll still generalize, but I just don't think there is an one-size-fits-all answer to the question.. #constructivism

  • Recall "AARON" in the annals of computer art.

    http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/harold-cohen-and-aaron-a-40-year-collaboration/

  • People are too optimistic about A.I. it the single most significant and obvious threat to humanity. Once it is unleashed it will out evolve us in a matter of weeks. One of the last things we will have that makes us unique is our ability to create art and be spontaneous. , But with people allowing their digital brushstrokes, music and the like to be recorded and all kinds of craft and engineering being done digitally soon the machines will out evolve us there also. Then what will be left? We will be the #1 drag on machine evolution; the only way for us to keep up will be to plug in. I'm afraid that is our future.

  • Detective Del Spooner: Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot turn a… canvas into a beautiful masterpiece? 
    Sonny: Can you?
    (I, Robot 2004)

  • Whats important about art for me is the feeling it gives me. Typically absract / modern art doesnt give me the feeling I look for in art. I can appreciate some but not all and I suppose that goes for more realistic art.

  • I think in order to be art, it has to be a product of consciousness..so if AI ever becomes self-aware, then they will be truly capable of creating art

  • This is a good question, and I'm of many minds, almost simultaneously. On the one hand, art is a self-expression for the creator, a creation into the world born of their consciousness and a collection of their intent, message, emotions, feelings, skill, and personality. Can an AI have this? Likely not yet, which would nullify the idea of AI created art. On the other hand… art is also a self-expression for the viewer/experiencer, a creation into their inner world born from their consciousness and the context they bring to it, developing message, meaning, feelings, and intermingling with their personality, largely independent of the artist's intent. Given that, does it matter if the artist had no intent (or if we get a different feeling or meaning out of what they wanted)? I'd say no, it doesn't matter if it still connects with you on a certain level — so by that then AI created art can most certainly be art. Like many things, in the end I come to rest in that there's a middle ground between these two, and I'd say it's even more like in the middle of a polygon rather than a single line, with many other aspects of what art might or might not be that don't involve the species/aliveness of the creator. An AI may not be able to share something or themselves the way we think of it from a human perspective, but if a viewer can derive emotion and meaning from it, then I'd say its art. 🙂

  • Thank you for such a thought provoking video on current debates – what interests me about works of art (in all their mediums) is their narrative – to me that means anything from the artist's life, creation of the work, material, reason why it was made and ultimately the viewer's emotional and/or physical experience. AI-created work has a rich narrative for me, setting itself firmly in the 21st century, an expression of the power and creativity of science and it's exciting to see how this will develop and change art and art galleries in the future.
    Also makes me think about how we archive this work. Archives used to be letters, documents and objects and will now become digital memories … I haven't decided if that's exciting or problematic!

  • The whole point of appreciating the most labor-intensive forms of art is human limitation. Seeing people do things, with dots or lines, or certain mediums or materials, that seem very difficult and intense, gives you a certain feeling. It being done by a machine, which doesn't get tired, and whose sole purpose is most likely doing that thing, makes the piece miss the point.
    This isn't to say that machine-made art isn't valid, it just can't be looked at in the same light as human-made art — especially not while we live in a world where we're not yet able to have sentient AIs, since much of our understanding and appreciation from stems from emotion and intent.

  • I love watching your videos. I just started teaching in university and I feel like I'm still learning a lot. I feel like I get a new appreciation for art because of these videos.

  • Since human beings don't have freewill and are nothing more than a complex series of chemical reactions governed by the laws of physics, then everything is art, and the author that set it in motion is the universe.

  • Great video thanks. I especially like how you allocate the person at the end of the thread yet you do not comment on what contains that personality. That is a beautiful mindset (and by extension rethorik) which may be way ahead of this time!

  • I'm afraid that machines will slowly replace artists. Shouldn't art be the last place where machines cannot be superior because they probably lack the kind of careful intent that we value in art?

  • As I remember definition of art from school – art is everything what human creates, so I believe machines is art. Otherwise if we think that things machines creates by themselves is art as well, it changes everything and for me seems rather terrifying.

  • This is a topic I had never really thought of before watching this video but is very interesting to me. Personally, I feel as though machine generated art is not truly art. For art to excite me, it has to represent something that the artist is feeling emotionally about something or someone. For an art piece to truly grab my eye and interest, I want to know the thought process and meaning behind the piece. Everything from the inspiration of the work, to the duration it took to complete the piece, and the authors thought on the final product are all important to me when determining what I view as art that interests me. Machines will not be able to produce true art until they have the programming to be able to build emotions and personal feelings for themselves.

  • IT does matter; wheather a human or Machine does make things either way. The reason is because gnome adder what channels we receive creative beauty through, our Phil ter will then be able to harmonize in a unique weigh.

  • One definition of art by the british young artists is "Anything declared as art by the person who created it" but what if it wasn't created but rather discovered like the Mandelbrot set? It has complexity and coherence but no intentionality. The surrealists tried to remove intentionality from work by using dice or darts thrown at a dictionary. To summarize, on single definition of art will work for everything. I look forward to computer generated art that helps me understand myself.

  • As an artist, and someone who is generally very interested in these sorts of topics, the answer, I think, is no: machines cannot create art. I say this because I firmly believe that art is an act of the will. Art, essentially, is someone deciding to create a thing that they recognize as " art. " They WILL the art into being, through whatever medium or means they deem fit. Machines, at least, not yet, have our sort of intent, not even " AI ". They have ones, zeroes, algorithms, commands, data, coding and so on. They are missing a soul, you could say. The machine is not deciding on it's own to make something it personally believes to be art. Machines do not say " Hey, bro's! Imma make some sweet digital art without any one or anything programming me to do so and it will MEAN something!!! " No. They are just that: programs. They were fed data, told to essentially " do a thing " with that data, and the person telling them to do that " thing " didn't intend to make art with the AI as their medium. Their is no meaning, no emotion, no independent intent, no choice in that " thing " the computers generate, no aesthetic direction due to the machines personal tastes, and so on. There is no act of WILL from the machine, or the humans who built them (presumably no act of will on the part of the humans, might I add. Perhaps some programmers did and do intend to create art using AI. I do't know) Machines are not free. Human beings are free to do whatever we want. We can destroy ourselves, starve ourselves, make governments, join a religion, brag all day long about that Kanye West T I just bought for, like, a million dollars, make abstract rectangles in a certain medium to represent our concept or harmony, etc. These AI can't do that. Like that program the host used on Instagram that is directed to see dog faces in everything. Perhaps you could say that she willed art into existence through the program, but the machine definitely didn't. It was made to make a bunch of dog faces, and that's what it tried to do, nothing more, nothing else. Now, I am making many assertions about the definition of art, free will and I do have a limited knowledge of AI, and so on, but this is my stance. 🙂 P.S I forgot to mention this, but a question has been raised in the comments about whether or not seeing a piece of art that I adore, then found out was generated by AI, would lessen my appreciation for it. For me, it does, because there's nothing there. I read the poem at the beginning of this video, and I felt disappointment and sadness wash over me. It was, indeed, beautiful, seemingly masterfully crafted with a deep message or story behind it. Yet, in reality, it's nonesense. It was a gorgeously generayed puff of smoke signififying nothing. It's empty and hollow inside by nature. The words I read contained literary meaning, but meant nothing.

  • Interesting video, I think that question concerning who set the reaction in motion is integral to the idea of authorship, though some may argue authorship has no pertinence to value. Regardless, I find those unexpected flaws and marks from the maker to be part of the joy of experiencing art, which is inevitably why I'm slower to be interested in fully digital art. I find digital to be the most interesting when process is at the forefront, as you can usually load that process with commentary and allegory, and in that narrative and the "how" to it being played out seems so much more compelling than pixelated images designed to meet a pre-programmed aesthetic taste. Plus there is a quality to the traditional processes (film especially comes to mind) that simply can't be replicated through the work of a machine. But I digress, and I'm always open to new ideas and processes, so one may come along and change my mind eventually.

    Although as a side note/plea: can we not give Damien Hirst more airtime (however brief it may be)? He's a plagiarising hack who got big due to a combination of trends and shock jock tactics, and his work just takes up space for other artists doing similar and more interesting work either before or during his current trend-hopping. He seems more of a cult of personality/celebrity than of creative force.

  • I love this video, especially the questions it asks about why art is compelling. I find archaeological artifacts and anthropological study compelling the same way I find art compelling–it's part of why I love to tell stories. To quote you in this video, "It's a connection between you and another human being." Art and Anthropology foster empathy across "centuries or continents."

  • I feel like to answer this question, first we need to think about what art is. I generally divide art into two: what brings us a sense of beauty and what brings us a perspective about ourselves, or about humanity. In our time we generally come across art that brings us a sense of beauty because of the social media and the popularity of art. people generally dont look deeper into art these days, they just like it and it passes. and i feel like the art that brings us a perception, a point of view must be a higher form of art than the first one. Because it can be both beautiful and it can also evoke your consciousness to a next level. and the second category generally becomes what it is through time. i feel like the art generated by the machines are just beautiful things that gives us a sense of beauty, but it can also be more valuable in the future, regarding what will happen in the future. If we look at the old art works that are really popular and we dont understand why, it is because they give us a perception of our past and that is why they are more valuable now, then before. AI is a new and a topic to discuss and i am still not sure because it doesnt have the emotions, the desire, the passion of a art that is made by a human, but it still has a complexity of its own and AI is basically a artificial consciousness and the artificial in this context means the information is gathered from us, the humans. i feel like they can be considered as collages, the art that we made is being re-written by the machines.

  • I notice this woman that narrates these videos seems to be in somewhat of a quandary. She seems to have a very analytical mind in a world where analytics doesn't apply and tries desperately to categorize, quantify, analyse, explain, etc all of the inexplicable facets of art. I say just enjoy art and leave it at that. She rambled on in a desultory manner for the better part of 10 minutes trying to describe art and instead left everyone bewildered as to what the heck she was saying and trying to convey.

    Categorizing is necessary for humans, but it becomes pathological when the category is seen as definitive, preventing people from considering the fuzziness of boundaries, let alone revising their categories.
    ~ Nassim Nicholas Taleb

  • Cory Arcangel’s “Super Mario Clouds” is presented here as a “video” artwork?
    Seriously? Why does all recent art history end up under Video Art label?

  • Perhaps none of it is original. Essentially robots or 'AI' (in any of its forms shown here in the video) is 'made in the image of man' if you will. We created it. So no matter what we give it the ability to do, however sophisticated or hands free, perhaps it will always be an extension of us – and the robot will not have any true creativity….. Then the same may be said of ourselves. Are we truly creative? Are we really creating anything with complete originality on our own? Perhaps – like the ai 'creates' as an extension of man's creativity, perhaps mankind is only creating as an extension of an even greater creative force.. Didn't some of the Romantics believe something like this? Like God, or the muse/s or the lifeforce of the universe or something — is just channeling through the painter/musician/poet or whatever? Like 'art' and 'beauty' exist as Realities beyond us, and we are just the vessels that bring it into the material plane?…. Interesting to think about.

  • Im a bit confused about Ai. As I understand it is experiemental at the moment- it is coming very soon? can you help to clarify I get mixed messages on this.

  • lol that Damien Hirst quote 6:40 "Every single spot painting contains my eye (sure he only glanced if he even saw), my hand (you mean you're assistance), and my heart." (Available at sotheby's xD)

  • DAMN YOU WILLIAM GIBSON! In particular the novels Count Zero and Mona Lisa Overdrive. A very compelling argument for AI created art.

  • i always thought of art as communication, which i reckon is two way. So if someone tries to say something, thats art, anything we do is sorta art. If someone tries to understand something, thats art too. eg. if you can see something not man made, you make it art by trying to understand it, by just paying attention to it.
    but what's good art, and what's worthwhile art?? that's the sort of thing i'm trying to figure out.. any suggestions?

  • well it motivates me and inspires me, and so does the art by people but yeah i do feel there is a lack of connection cuz i dont completely get algorithms but it's inspiring nevertheless

  • I really enjoy your youtube channel, it has indeed opened my eyes to the world of arts and humanities, I would really appreciate if you can share with us your thoughts on Non – Western artists. I ask because I have come in contact with a few people who dismiss African or Indian artform just because they think it is too simplistic and amateur when compared with the European school of art. Once again love your work.

  • "Does it matter if an artist is sentient or not" …. better question … do non-sentient entities intend "art" or is it more that we assign that value to an entity manufactured object or event?

  • Art is, for me, anything that conveys a deeper meaning than the object itself.. If this algorithm wants to convey dog faces, it's alright, but it's crappy art. The machine that makes those wax drippings? The machine itself is the piece of art, not the product

  • 3:24 – I'm not Hungarian, but I'm pretty sure that 'Nagy' is not pronounced 'nage' (as in 'barrage'), but rather something like 'nah-gee' (as in 'geezer'). I think a suggestion might be just to google the name before and see the artist's nationality, then put that into Google Translate to have it read out loud to see what it'd sound like in the artist's language. It might not be perfect, but I'm sure that it'll come out better than 'nage'.

  • I think it's interesting, too, to think about how we misunderstand one another, and how that overlaps with how we perceive artists and their work. Like, when we see a work of art, we can't possibly understand everything the artist put into their work (stylistically, practically, emotionally, etc.)–and so how does that experience of imagining an artist differ depending on whether the artist was sentient or not?

  • To the extent that humans are electrochemical machines, yes, machines make art.

    One artist uses a brush to place the pigment, another uses a machine. The machine artist may have made an algorithm that generates the art pieces.

    The answer to the question depends on how you define 'art'. You can define it in a way to get whatever answer you want.

    Looking at paintings and photographs of scenery in the gallery, I walked outside, turned and saw storm clouds forming over the nearby mountains. Is that art? If I made a photo of it, would that be art? In each case, who is the artist? If an artistic scene occurs in nature and there is no one there to see it, is it still art?

    Art is whatever someone puts out and calls art.

    Art encompasses a lot of territory; from oils carefully placed on a canvas to paint dripped and splashed on a canvas, found objects, drawings, prints, sculpture, literature, theater and performance art. Art performs many functions and uses many forms of media.

    The artist and the viewer may not care whether academics classify it as art. The artist cares only that it catches and holds the viewer's attention. The viewer cares only that he gets something from the experience, whether it is a simple sensory experience or something more though provoking.

  • Huge problem here. To me art is what communicates. It's communication. It can be a simple aesthetic ideal or preference, it can be a concept or a feeling, but it communicates. There isn't art that doesn't communicate, that because of the artist beeing human and having feelings or ideals that he/she puts consciously or not in art, there is the artist's subjectitvy. So the problem is, if there is an artificial intelligence doing it, that has learned how to put together what is for humans art and how to make it, is there a communicative intent or originality in its thinking and creative process? Does it have a subjectivity? And if there isn't, can we consider it real art or we should consider it an artificious fake art? Or is the observer not the maker that gives the art a meaning and finds a communicative intent in it therefore it's art independently from the maker's subjectivity?

  • I used to make jewelry for Tiffany & Co. some of which was designed by Paloma Picasso.  While one could argue that I made mass produced copies of art in a sense, no one would argue that the machine was the artists.  The machine in question was a complex CNC turning center with a sophisticated computer for a brain and was following a program thousands of lines long to make the items in question.   Picasso designed the piece and a programmer interpreted that piece in lines of code.   So in this case it was a collaboration.   Clearly the authorship goes primarily to Picasso.  One day I was taking a stroll through a part of our city on my way to a park where I intended to take photographs of nature.  On the way I found an oil slick floating on a puddle.  The colors were an interesting random pattern of iridescent swirls.  I took several photographs of this oil slick.   Later I took hundreds of photos of nature, mostly birds.   I showed my photos to a friend who has an art gallery and he commented that he thought I was not a fan of abstract art yet here I had wonderful abstract art in my camera.  I was confused until he pointed at the oil slicks.  He was completely uninterested in any of my nature photos but bought the rights to three of the oil slick photos and has sold roughly a hundred and twenty to date and I've earned about 1700 in royalties from them.  They are interesting but I'm not sure I would call them art.   I think that at some point whether accidently or through some sort of deliberate act, artificial intelligence will create something  that someone will interpret as art if it has not already done so.   I'm more inclined to think that the paintings made by elephants and gorillas are more authentically art than what could be produced by a machine intelligent or not.  But then art is defined by each individual not by consensus or by a limited number of official art appreciators.  One can frame virtually anything and hang it on their wall and call it art and perhaps to them it is.   I have poster copies of a handful of my favorite paintings hanging on my walls.  I have some of my own work hanging on my walls.  I have photos and other things hanging on my walls.  Not everything that hangs on my walls is art nor does it have to be.   Not everything is beautiful that is on my walls nor does it have to be.   But I think that there has to be something visually satisfying about a work to be able to call it art.   That's it.  The definition of art, the only one that really matters is that it is visually satisfying to the person looking at it and critics be damned.

  • So I generally prefer conventional art, and while I understand that for other people newer forms like abstract art might be beautiful, I generally don't get it. But I got surprised seeing how much I loved Paine ''s artwork! The liquid falling and solidifying, each time into a unique piece, is just so amazing and beautiful! It actually reminds me of something I read "At home in the universe" , as sand falls grain by grain, most grains fall uneventfully, some bring about smaller catastrophes, and others bigger as the entire structure falls and start anew, and how it is difficult for us humans to predict which grain will cause which, due to the excessive detail of data required. Paine's artwork captures this. ❤

  • No, Machines Do Not make art, they merely replicate what they were programmed to do. Humans make art, machines make photocopies of art.

  • I love this conversation, but let us be clear, Artificial Intelligence DOES NOT EXIST, except as an idea. A computer is NOT a thinking machine, it is simply a mechanism that runs very fast. The loom was an early computer and todays computers are just a very fast version of that. So if you can say that cloth from a loom is art, then so is computer generated art. The mistake is that people are being sold that AI is a real thing, when it is not. The category of AI is just a heading for things people imagine the brain MIGHT do and they create imitations of these ideas in a computer. But that is all. You could argue that these AI algorithms are themselves ART; a reflection of us thinking about imitations of life.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *