Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
|
Post by Steve on May 21, 2024 11:15:49 GMT
But art didn't die. It reinvented itself. And it reinvented itself in a way that exalted humanity and human emotion. Art itself didn't die because the camera wasn't able to functionally replace it. With the best will in the world, it is hard to see how a camera would be used to create the illustrations in Winnie the Pooh or the Wind in the Willows good point |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on May 21, 2024 11:41:16 GMT
Art itself didn't die because the camera wasn't able to functionally replace it. With the best will in the world, it is hard to see how a camera would be used to create the illustrations in Winnie the Pooh or the Wind in the Willows good point Only if you accept that AI produced art can functionally replace human art. Expressionism is the communication of emotion. It's hard to see how something that doesn't have emotions could communicate them. And, even if it did have emotions, it's hard to understand why human beings would be interested in them to the point they would describe them as art. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 21, 2024 11:47:50 GMT
Only if you accept that AI produced art can functionally replace human art. Expressionism is the communication of emotion. It's hard to see how something that doesn't have emotions could communicate them. And, even if it did have emotions, it's hard to understand why human beings would be interested in them to the point they would describe them as art. There is no style or tone, that couldn't duplicated and re-applied infinitely by simply knowing where 'the sliders' need to be set. The value becomes zero (or near as dammit) |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on May 21, 2024 11:59:40 GMT
Only if you accept that AI produced art can functionally replace human art. Expressionism is the communication of emotion. It's hard to see how something that doesn't have emotions could communicate them. And, even if it did have emotions, it's hard to understand why human beings would be interested in them to the point they would describe them as art. There is no style or tone, that couldn't duplicated and re-applied infinitely by simply knowing where 'the sliders' need to be set. The value becomes zero (or near as dammit) Well, I suppose it depends on how you define art, then. Art is the expression of a human emotion. A machine could have splashed a canvas with paint in the style of Jackson Pollock. Would it have been art? A machine can give something the appearance of being created by a human. But if it hasn't been created by a human, it's not art. In short, a machine can replicate art, but it can't create it. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 21, 2024 14:28:29 GMT
There is no style or tone, that couldn't duplicated and re-applied infinitely by simply knowing where 'the sliders' need to be set. The value becomes zero (or near as dammit) Well, I suppose it depends on how you define art, then. Art is the expression of a human emotion. A machine could have splashed a canvas with paint in the style of Jackson Pollock. Would it have been art? A machine can give something the appearance of being created by a human. But if it hasn't been created by a human, it's not art. In short, a machine can replicate art, but it can't create it. I don't want to stray into the definition of art, but because the machine can function as a creator, the line drawn here becomes non-material. I don't disagree, but it is a line / delineation we are not used to being confronted with. The example I used earlier was the distinction between a conversation between two people about the weather and the same information being available on a weather app. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on May 21, 2024 15:54:51 GMT
Well, I suppose it depends on how you define art, then. Art is the expression of a human emotion. A machine could have splashed a canvas with paint in the style of Jackson Pollock. Would it have been art? A machine can give something the appearance of being created by a human. But if it hasn't been created by a human, it's not art. In short, a machine can replicate art, but it can't create it. I don't want to stray into the definition of art, but because the machine can function as a creator, the line drawn here becomes non-material. I don't disagree, but it is a line / delineation we are not used to being confronted with. The example I used earlier was the distinction between a conversation between two people about the weather and the same information being available on a weather app. I'm afraid I don't understand. Art is art because it is made by humans. We are interested in art because we are interested in our fellow man. Rothko paints a canvas to show an emotion. We consider his canvas to understand him. Also, for the sense of kinship we feel when we recognise that we've also experienced that emotion. AI doesn't offer that possibility. The analogy with the weather app has gone over my head. Weather is weather; art is art; there's no apparent connection between the two. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 21, 2024 16:29:15 GMT
I don't want to stray into the definition of art, but because the machine can function as a creator, the line drawn here becomes non-material. I don't disagree, but it is a line / delineation we are not used to being confronted with. The example I used earlier was the distinction between a conversation between two people about the weather and the same information being available on a weather app. I'm afraid I don't understand. Art is art because it is made by humans. We are interested in art because we are interested in our fellow man. Rothko paints a canvas to show an emotion. We consider his canvas to understand him. Also, for the sense of kinship we feel when we recognise that we've also experienced that emotion. AI doesn't offer that possibility. Is the art what the artist produces? If so, this can be duplicated - ie generated in such abundance that it swamps human ability. If the art has a relationship component, it is like the difference between a conversation about the weather and the same information being made available without a conversation with another person. There is no other place you can draw a line. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on May 21, 2024 17:04:24 GMT
I'm afraid I don't understand. Art is art because it is made by humans. We are interested in art because we are interested in our fellow man. Rothko paints a canvas to show an emotion. We consider his canvas to understand him. Also, for the sense of kinship we feel when we recognise that we've also experienced that emotion. AI doesn't offer that possibility. Is the art what the artist produces? If so, this can be duplicated - ie generated in such abundance that it swamps human ability. If the art has a relationship component, it is like the difference between a conversation about the weather and the same information being made available without a conversation with another person. There is no other place you can draw a line. Art isn't just what the artist produces. It's the emotion that goes into its production. Take Jackson Pollock as an example. The art isn't the paint on the canvas - it's the unconscious impulses that caused the canvas to look as it does. I'm still don't understand your meaning. What's a relationship component? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 21, 2024 17:25:15 GMT
Is the art what the artist produces? If so, this can be duplicated - ie generated in such abundance that it swamps human ability. If the art has a relationship component, it is like the difference between a conversation about the weather and the same information being made available without a conversation with another person. There is no other place you can draw a line. I'm still don't understand your meaning. What's a relationship component? It's a shorthand for the fact of a person being involved. (ie the difference between a conversation about the weather and identical information about the weather) If you genuinely don't understand what i mean here, then it's hard to make sense of anything you have said in the past four messages. Bear in mind, that the painting itself - ie it's physically qualities - wont be discernibly different.. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on May 21, 2024 18:27:58 GMT
I'm still don't understand your meaning. What's a relationship component? It's a shorthand for the fact of a person being involved. (ie the difference between a conversation about the weather and identical information about the weather) If you genuinely don't understand what i mean here, then it's hard to make sense of anything you have said in the past four messages. Bear in mind, that the painting itself - ie it's physically qualities - wont be discernibly different.. But you're not even talking about art. Art is art because it is an expression of the human spirit. Take the human element out and it's just a piece of canvas with some colours on it. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 21, 2024 18:55:48 GMT
It's a shorthand for the fact of a person being involved. (ie the difference between a conversation about the weather and identical information about the weather) If you genuinely don't understand what i mean here, then it's hard to make sense of anything you have said in the past four messages. Bear in mind, that the painting itself - ie it's physically qualities - wont be discernibly different.. But you're not even talking about art. Art is art because it is an expression of the human spirit. Take the human element out and it's just a piece of canvas with some colours on it. Something that looks exactly like a it is an expression of the human spirit is a functional replacement for something that is. The definition of art is pretty irrelevant |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on May 21, 2024 19:53:01 GMT
But you're not even talking about art. Art is art because it is an expression of the human spirit. Take the human element out and it's just a piece of canvas with some colours on it. Something that looks exactly like a it is an expression of the human spirit is a functional replacement for something that is. The definition of art is pretty irrelevant Okay, so something that looks like an expression of the human spirit but isn't an expression of the human spirit is a functional replacement for it? I don't think so. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 22, 2024 7:57:53 GMT
Something that looks exactly like a it is an expression of the human spirit is a functional replacement for something that is. The definition of art is pretty irrelevant Okay, so something that looks like an expression of the human spirit but isn't an expression of the human spirit is a functional replacement for it? I don't think so. I admire your plucky human defiance in the face of the meaningless void. However, I think you are going to find that opinion very hard to justify logically if we assume materialism. My point isn't to take a position here - more to highlight how stark and dichotomous the issues have become |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on May 22, 2024 8:09:37 GMT
Okay, so something that looks like an expression of the human spirit but isn't an expression of the human spirit is a functional replacement for it? I don't think so. I admire your plucky human defiance in the face of the meaningless void. However, I think you are going to find that opinion very hard to justify logically if we assume materialism. My point isn't to take a position here - more to highlight how stark and dichotomous the issues have become If we assume materialism? |
|
