
Computers Do Not Make Art, People Do - raleighm
https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2020/5/244330-computers-do-not-make-art-people-do/fulltext
======
Daub
From the article:

"I do not believe any software system in our current understanding could be
called an "artist." Art is a social activity, and our "AI" software is still
just software, mechanically following the instructions we give it."

Well yes... art is a cultural outcome, and culture comes from humans.
Thereafter from the time and place in which humans live.

What makes computer art interesting is its properties as a medium. For the
most part, it is rather good at impersonating other mediums. The same beige
box can be a video editor, a painting app, a piano etc. This makes it unique
in the world of mediums. In my opinion, if it can be anything, then it is also
kinda nothing (medium-wise).

The author mentions the impact that Photography had on art. This cannot be
over-stated. Essentially, artists were put out of a job, or at least obliged
to re-define their job description. For me, it is amazing the impact that
computers had on photography. Photographers are now the ones that are re-
defining their jobs.

~~~
dkersten
I find it funny that people don’t think computers can be artists, yet get
fooled by paintings “painted” by an animal walking over the paint or a toddler
or other such things. I think they’re just snobs.

To me, anything that can evoke an emotion from someone looking at the art
piece (even if just appreciation) is art. Computer-generated content can do
this for me, therefore I consider it art.

~~~
dntbnmpls
Not to mention animals that actually do create art.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B91tozyQs9M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B91tozyQs9M)

Art isn't exclusive to humans though we excel at it. And certainly computers
can create paintings, music, etc which is art. There was a time when "artists"
claimed photographs weren't art and photographers weren't artists. It's just
people selfishly trying to ward off competition and protect their financial
interests. They needn't worry. Just because computers can create art doesn't
mean human artists will disappear no more than computers playing chess put an
end to human chess players.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
At best, computers can create art-lite commodities. They can't create art
(yet), because art is not about creating objects. Or content. Or any of those
other words.

The only medium that matters in art is the culture around the art itself.
That's what real artists really work with - cultures of perception, social
context, and imagination. The objects produced are just souvenirs.

Computers - with or without AI - have exactly zero creative agency. Until that
changes they won't be making art.

Randomly exploring a creative space a human has defined is not the same as
creating an original artistic or cultural insight, dramatising it with art
objects, defending it against cultural attacks, and leaving a lasting legacy.

Of course most artists don't do that either. But they do distill and
concentrate human experiences into a saleable form. Computers can't even do
that, because they don't have any experiences to distill.

~~~
wkearney99
I can't quite put my finger on the best response to all that, other than to
say "get a shovel, there's a lot of bullshit piled up here".

"Real artists", oh, now THERE'S a shining bit of arrogance.

Likewise the notion that the artist is somehow creating a distillation the
audience themselves wouldn't be able to otherwise find revelatory and
enjoyable from any number of other random AI influences. Because they quite
probably would, and this no doubt presents a terrifying possibility to the
merchants of your art "culture".

But works of true value maintain currency over time. This, however, doesn't
make everything else created in-between worthless. It's just different. AI art
is likewise.

------
miscPerson
Someone can reasonably be called an artist if, having listened to thousands of
hours of music and training to replicate it, can create a new piece using a
request from a patron — “make me a song that reminds me of my youth in Saxony”
or whatever.

What’s the difference between that and a GAN transforming the request?

It sounds like worrying if submarines swim.

Not that I believe computers have quite reached the level that an expert
artist does — being able to suggest modifications to a request — but saying
they don’t produce “art” also seems incorrect.

