
I Am Not a Machine. Yes You Are - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/issue/79/catalysts/picassos-got-nothing-on-ai-artists
======
xamuel
Something I've come to value increasingly more and more in art is its
canonicity. Beyond a certain quality threshold, I find that through sufficient
exposure, I can train myself to appreciate and enjoy any art. For example, the
first time I listened to Bach's organ works, I didn't like it much, because I
had so little exposure to organ music. But after continuing to listen,
eventually I got it and now I deeply appreciate Bach's organ works.

Beyond a certain threshold, art quality stops mattering as much as exposure.
And beyond any shadow of a doubt, the amount of art past this threshold is
already much more than anyone can expose themselves to in a lifetime. Given
all this, it follows naturally that one should choose art based on other
criteria, like how much it has driven history, or who you can discuss it with
at a dinner party. In short: its canonicity.

Any artwork churned out by machine is non-canonical almost by definition. Even
if it turns out to be "good" (whatever that means), the fact that it can be
churned out en masse means any particular piece of it has zero cultural value.
Maybe with exceptions for e.g. the absolute very first piece that gets
broadcast live (like a "Beatles on Ed Sullivan" moment). Certainly you would
never find someone else at a dinner party who would say, "Oh, yes, I too enjoy
Microsoft's Still Life #565343598753. What do you think of the way the
computer did the clouds in that?"

~~~
aklemm
Expertise grows with that exposure. You are learning to recognize and
appreciate particular aspects, and those aspects can be tweaked by an AI
artist.

Appreciation grows even deeper when you know something about techniques,
theory, contexts, etc.

