
The AI-Art Gold Rush Is Here - longdefeat
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/ai-created-art-invades-chelsea-gallery-scene/584134/
======
Fricken
When Google dropped that first batch of Deep dream images, those were
compelling. The images bore an uncanny resemblance to things you see while
hallucinating on psychedelics, and the images make you wonder about just how
similar the processes going on inside a CNN to processes going on in our own
minds. Those deep dream images were new, they invoked a strange sense of
frisson, you had to bear witness to whatever it was.

But the images shown in this article just look like somebody was fucking
around with random filters in photoshop. It's not interesting. It doesn't
leave a lasting impression, and that's really the only metric that is
universally cross-comparable when judging art.

~~~
philipov
On the other hand,
[https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/](https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/) is
the new New and it's compelling on a whole other level. So are the GAN-
generated game sprites and other pixel art we've seen over the past several
months.

------
yes_man
The artistic value of AI generated art (to me at least) will come from the
obsolence of human creativity and the strong feeling of void associated with
the far-future idea that algorithms and processing power are starting to
surpass our species in the only remaining way that made us relevant, and
looking at the pictures in the article, we are not there yet.

I am not an art connoisseur, but as a layman those pictures do not spark any
emotion in me. They are like random noise that do not convey any context.
Whereas there are paintings that mesmerize the mind by connecting the viewer
with the painter. The day that AI art will emotionally strike people is the
day when it can deduce context from our world that is relevant to us, and the
art in it is the creation of the empty feeling inside us when we realize we
are now being emotionally moved by an algorithm, in a way only an exceptional
artist could (or surpassing talent of such artists).

I am skeptical about current machine learning methods taking AI art that far.
Perhaps ML will make for example great music by generating sequences out of
training sets, but it's hard to see it creating a new music genre people will
vibe with in the near future.

~~~
fromthestart
>and the strong feeling of void associated with the far-future idea that
algorithms and processing power are starting to surpass our species

The void is inversly proportional to the bitrate and error rate between
human/machine communication. It ceases to exist at some point following a
sufficiently data dense mind/machine merge.

------
shiven
Going through the images, I shake my head in disbelief. So much of “art” is
selling crap to the filthy rich, who have nothing better to do with their time
or money.

Maybe, I don’t “get” it. To each their own, I guess.

There is a business opportunity here, so it only makes sense that someone is
exploiting it.

~~~
afpx
I hope you don’t believe that about all art. Art is one of the pillars of Homo
Sapien behavior, and it is found pretty much anywhere human settlements are
found. I worry that many of us are becoming too distracted with life,
logistics, and “productivity” to take time out to experience the things that
make us human. Maybe that’s why art has become associated with the rich -
maybe they’re the only ones who have time to enjoy it.

~~~
Hoasi
> I worry that many of us are becoming too distracted with life, logistics,
> and “productivity” to take time out to experience the things that make us
> human.

True, but art as an industry created a bubble on its own. Nowadays it gives
the perception that it is all about imposture and speculation.

------
trypt
Randomly generated AI art is just a layer of abstraction on top of generative
art. A more human form of AI created art is AI-assisted art. Art created by a
human using AI tools to sculpt the art into their image which they couldn't
otherwise manifest.

~~~
leowoo91
Question is, how can we trust the artist if they are truly legit anymore?

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
Art is the conveyance of meaning through a work, not the method by which the
work was created (although that can sometimes contribute to the meaning).

~~~
bsenftner
No, today, "Art" is anything an artist can convince a source of cash that the
cash they want is for this argument claiming some
object/event/scribble/thought is "Art".

~~~
eigenstuff
I'm a professional artist, where are these sources of cash I can convince to
give me money instead of spending all my money from my day job on materials?

------
afpx
The paintings remind me of Francis Bacon’s works from the 60s

[https://www.francis-bacon.com/artworks/paintings/1960s](https://www.francis-
bacon.com/artworks/paintings/1960s)

------
dillutedfixer
It's a neat experiment for sure, and I agree with others here that the high
price that piece fetched was from it being the 'first'.

IMHO, AI-Art will never ever produce the commentary in art that humans can.
Depending on the time, medium, patron, subject, artist, etc etc, symbols can
make impactful statements in art.

This AI stuff is neat, but it seems like a mash up of other art slammed
together to make something new. I think the only commentary that it can make
is that it was made by a machine.

------
SubiculumCode
Takes away room from serious art, in my opinion, like from this oil bym
Brianna Lee, _Metamorphose_
[https://i.imgur.com/VeLbX27.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/VeLbX27.jpg)

------
vcavallo
Any conversation that gets anywhere near art on hacker news makes me deeply
depressed about the community here.

------
accnumnplus1
The emperors new clothes.

------
doublekill
I think the 450k GAN painting was a bargain. There is no doubt that neural art
will increase in quality and quantity over the years, maybe even surpassing us
in stylistic insight. That painting is the first of its kind, much like owning
a first-in-style classical painting from the middle ages. Either that or it
becomes a worthless parlor trick (but I deem the chance of this low).

~~~
king_magic
But it is a worthless parlor trick. Hell, I could “create” pieces of art like
that in Photoshop in a few hours if I really wanted to. How is that in any way
anything beyond the bare minimum for creativity or artistry? Why is using a
GAN to do that any more artistic? This kind of artwork is the literal
definition of “derivative”.

But hey, people are free to waste their money if they like.

~~~
noelwelsh
Here's an important piece of art from the early 20th century:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_\(Duchamp\))

Cheap parlor tricks have a long and glorious history in art, and sometimes
become important works of art.

~~~
CyberDildonics
That significance is because it was an originator and trail blazer of the
cheap parlor trick.

