A world where AI art is interesting to people is the same world as one where robotic bartenders or baristas are seen as cool - one where people forget the entire point is that on the other end is a human!
I need to find the exact quote from Jacques Maritain, but his gist is that art is rooted in a particular time and place. And, that the process of art changes and refines the artist. It is rooted in the physical. I believe that art comes from blood flow: in our brains and hands, eyes and ears, etc. When the blood stops flowing, there’s no life and hence no art. It’s fine that computers can make art-like things. But these are best appreciated as art-derivatives that can only be generated from massive amounts of electricity through tons of metallic products and refined minerals. Very impressive, but only in terms as an incredibly expensive derivative of work that originated from blood flow that occurred in a particular time and place in the context of human relationships. In this way, AI art is both dirt-cheap (produced with little direct effort and with no human relationships required!) as well as insanely expensive (just think of the resources and labor expended to build and maintain the system).
Great piece! I thought it interesting that you brought up the concept of art as conversation here. I don't disagree that is an important part of the art experience, but it is not the central feature IMO. I could imagine a future in which AI is sufficiently intelligent to produce text, sounds, or images with some kind of intent that could engage in a conversation like that - or at least attempt to convey some level of meaning. For me, the concept of art as conversation misses the mark. Remember, the earliest art we know of (cave art) was generally done in places where the artist would not have realistically thought anyone would ever see it. It was done to create an effect in the artist herself or himself, or among their close community. The speculation is that cave art was a sort of magic, a creative act intended to bring success in the hunt (i.e. this picture of us killing a saber toothed tiger will make it so we really do kill one on our hunt tomorrow). In this light, the question isn't weather AI art is good or bad or if it is in conversation with us, but would AI every create anything like art if we didn't tell it to in the first place. Art requires agency. So far, all I see in AI is pattern recognition and predictive ability, which is super cool technically, but not art.
A world where AI art is interesting to people is the same world as one where robotic bartenders or baristas are seen as cool - one where people forget the entire point is that on the other end is a human!
I need to find the exact quote from Jacques Maritain, but his gist is that art is rooted in a particular time and place. And, that the process of art changes and refines the artist. It is rooted in the physical. I believe that art comes from blood flow: in our brains and hands, eyes and ears, etc. When the blood stops flowing, there’s no life and hence no art. It’s fine that computers can make art-like things. But these are best appreciated as art-derivatives that can only be generated from massive amounts of electricity through tons of metallic products and refined minerals. Very impressive, but only in terms as an incredibly expensive derivative of work that originated from blood flow that occurred in a particular time and place in the context of human relationships. In this way, AI art is both dirt-cheap (produced with little direct effort and with no human relationships required!) as well as insanely expensive (just think of the resources and labor expended to build and maintain the system).
Great piece! I thought it interesting that you brought up the concept of art as conversation here. I don't disagree that is an important part of the art experience, but it is not the central feature IMO. I could imagine a future in which AI is sufficiently intelligent to produce text, sounds, or images with some kind of intent that could engage in a conversation like that - or at least attempt to convey some level of meaning. For me, the concept of art as conversation misses the mark. Remember, the earliest art we know of (cave art) was generally done in places where the artist would not have realistically thought anyone would ever see it. It was done to create an effect in the artist herself or himself, or among their close community. The speculation is that cave art was a sort of magic, a creative act intended to bring success in the hunt (i.e. this picture of us killing a saber toothed tiger will make it so we really do kill one on our hunt tomorrow). In this light, the question isn't weather AI art is good or bad or if it is in conversation with us, but would AI every create anything like art if we didn't tell it to in the first place. Art requires agency. So far, all I see in AI is pattern recognition and predictive ability, which is super cool technically, but not art.