Art has flaws that sometimes become features or even inspiration for new ideas within a body of work.
This is very apparent inside of a musical context. If you have a perfectly aligned drum beat made in a program vs a recording of a drummer, the real recording will sound better because of the tiny imperfections contained within.
A perfect drum beat will sound robotic while the recording will sound organic.
Artists will always have an important place within culture.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Site Moderator)
Program in random flaws?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman (Old Spike)
Still isn't the same. Art and the human element are inseperable.
At best this technology is an intellectuall property.
But never quite art.
Back a musical context it applies to all instruments but drums are easy to describe. A program can't account well for velocity of strike, some sound spectrums that are customized by individual drummers etc. For example Vinnie Paul Taped quarters to the heads of his kicks to get a distinctive clicking sound, Different sticks make different sounds, different heads etc. even random generation in the best DAWs today still can't get the human feel just right.
They can kind of get close, but there is always something missing.
Now I'm not pooh poohing this tool idea completely, perhaps it can be useful or amusing in certain contexts, such as you don't want to hand craft 10'000 different shapes of rocks for a path or something. But in games and animation the skill of the artists will always matter.
Many animators still perfer key frame animation as opposed to MOCAP. Though mocap is faster and argueably cheaper in labor. Key framing is real animation and gives you 100% percent control, and is particularly useful for unnatural movements or motion not found in nature.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Site Moderator)
"Still isn't the same. Art and the human element are inseperable."
What if I show you two images, one done by AI and the other by a real artist and you can't tell which one has the "human element"?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman (Old Spike)
So the A.I. just scanned the artist image and generated a copy?
I have so many doubts about the authenticity of the process behind that.
But let's say just for fun that an AI could make a "perfect" rendition of a description. It's still not art.
Art also requires the SKILL of an ARTIST. Art is about the PURSUIT of a result based on the artists inspiration. Not just the result of his inspiration. Let's say you made The sistine chapel with a stencil. It's still doesn't hold up against the original. Because of the pursuit and inspiration behind the original. Now if all you are concerned about is how good it looks, that's fine as that is your subjective opinion, however it is still a very shallow interpetation of what art is.
No artist no art. At best you would have a devalued intellectual property.
Maybe the following isn't the best example but I'll see if it fits. It's like believing that graphics are what make a game fun. They don't actually. They cant create fun by themselves if you have a poor mechanic. They can only add fun if you have a good mechanic first.
Just like art isn't the same without pursuit, struggle, passion, inspiration and emotion. These things AI is not capable of. It can't really create something new.
The human gift is the ability to create new things.
Art is an expression of creativity. AI is an expression of programming.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Site Moderator)
Not sure you got what I was getting at.
You have two pictures of what ever. Lets say a cat riding a bicycle and a dog eating spaghetti.
One is made by a human and the other by a machine.
If you can't tell which one is made by the human then all your definitions of what true art goes out of the window.
AI still is a human creation and what that AI creates is an extension of us. Sure it doesn't fit the traditional definition of art, but art is really subjective to begin with. It's just a definition we slap on to something.
"Art is an expression of creativity. AI is an expression of programming."
I think creating a program that can do this, requires quite a bit of creativity. Creativity can be expressed in almost any form you can imagine.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman (Old Spike)
I don't disagree that the development of AI is an art. An unholy one that should have never been touched, though that is a different conversation.
But telling a program to draw something for you vs learning to draw and doing it yourself is seperate entirely. It is the difference between art and a counterfeight.
Most of my adress is to your "tongue in cheek?" Title of artists being out of a job due to technology. That will never be the case.
Like I said, this can be a tool in the tool kit. Not a true replacement.
If Michaelangelo's David was made from a mold vs carved by hand it would be inherntly less valueable and compared to the orginal not art in any true sense. The mold itself would be art, just as the AI itself would be art. But what is created from it is not.
Comments
(Old Spike)
It's not art anymore.
Art has flaws that sometimes become features or even inspiration for new ideas within a body of work.
This is very apparent inside of a musical context. If you have a perfectly aligned drum beat made in a program vs a recording of a drummer, the real recording will sound better because of the tiny imperfections contained within.
A perfect drum beat will sound robotic while the recording will sound organic.
Artists will always have an important place within culture.
(Site Moderator)
Program in random flaws?
(Old Spike)
Still isn't the same. Art and the human element are inseperable.
At best this technology is an intellectuall property.
But never quite art.
Back a musical context it applies to all instruments but drums are easy to describe. A program can't account well for velocity of strike, some sound spectrums that are customized by individual drummers etc. For example Vinnie Paul Taped quarters to the heads of his kicks to get a distinctive clicking sound, Different sticks make different sounds, different heads etc. even random generation in the best DAWs today still can't get the human feel just right.
They can kind of get close, but there is always something missing.
Now I'm not pooh poohing this tool idea completely, perhaps it can be useful or amusing in certain contexts, such as you don't want to hand craft 10'000 different shapes of rocks for a path or something. But in games and animation the skill of the artists will always matter.
Many animators still perfer key frame animation as opposed to MOCAP. Though mocap is faster and argueably cheaper in labor. Key framing is real animation and gives you 100% percent control, and is particularly useful for unnatural movements or motion not found in nature.
(Site Moderator)
"Still isn't the same. Art and the human element are inseperable."
What if I show you two images, one done by AI and the other by a real artist and you can't tell which one has the "human element"?
(Old Spike)
So the A.I. just scanned the artist image and generated a copy?
I have so many doubts about the authenticity of the process behind that.
But let's say just for fun that an AI could make a "perfect" rendition of a description. It's still not art.
Art also requires the SKILL of an ARTIST. Art is about the PURSUIT of a result based on the artists inspiration. Not just the result of his inspiration. Let's say you made The sistine chapel with a stencil. It's still doesn't hold up against the original. Because of the pursuit and inspiration behind the original. Now if all you are concerned about is how good it looks, that's fine as that is your subjective opinion, however it is still a very shallow interpetation of what art is.
No artist no art. At best you would have a devalued intellectual property.
Maybe the following isn't the best example but I'll see if it fits. It's like believing that graphics are what make a game fun. They don't actually. They cant create fun by themselves if you have a poor mechanic. They can only add fun if you have a good mechanic first.
Just like art isn't the same without pursuit, struggle, passion, inspiration and emotion. These things AI is not capable of. It can't really create something new.
The human gift is the ability to create new things.
Art is an expression of creativity. AI is an expression of programming.
(Site Moderator)
Not sure you got what I was getting at.
You have two pictures of what ever. Lets say a cat riding a bicycle and a dog eating spaghetti.
One is made by a human and the other by a machine.
If you can't tell which one is made by the human then all your definitions of what true art goes out of the window.
AI still is a human creation and what that AI creates is an extension of us. Sure it doesn't fit the traditional definition of art, but art is really subjective to begin with. It's just a definition we slap on to something.
"Art is an expression of creativity. AI is an expression of programming."
I think creating a program that can do this, requires quite a bit of creativity. Creativity can be expressed in almost any form you can imagine.
(Old Spike)
I don't disagree that the development of AI is an art. An unholy one that should have never been touched, though that is a different conversation.
But telling a program to draw something for you vs learning to draw and doing it yourself is seperate entirely. It is the difference between art and a counterfeight.
Most of my adress is to your "tongue in cheek?" Title of artists being out of a job due to technology. That will never be the case.
Like I said, this can be a tool in the tool kit. Not a true replacement.
If Michaelangelo's David was made from a mold vs carved by hand it would be inherntly less valueable and compared to the orginal not art in any true sense. The mold itself would be art, just as the AI itself would be art. But what is created from it is not.
Art is about the pursuit in spite of human error.