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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Some as you say is pure speculation, but money laundering is also a significant part of the art world. Auctions regularly move vast sums of money between near anonymous people and represent highly portable wealth.
In Donnella Meadows http://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to... she describes the many points within a system one can intervene for various effects. It's important to note where in the generative process the artist is intervening in what is otherwise just a creative coding excersize. It's in the intervention that the most talented generative artists demonstrate their gifts.
On a similar question, for the combination of credibility + relevance, do you look to metaphorical Google News, NYT, the journal from which the article is sourced, the science team being reported on, or the individual scientists on the team?
I imagine in the future of credibility we might discuss the forecasting abilities of specific models.
I for one am excited for what crazy new stuff artists will create with better tools!
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.
They've used a lot of signifiers of Expensive Vintage Art with a Modern Twist - dark backgrounds, exaggerated flesh tones, rich-looking clothing, aggressive modern distortions - to suggest value. But the neural networks that may (perhaps?) be being fooled are the ones inside the brains of buyers.
By the end of the year this art will be available as an instagram filter and/or from a web page. Which is why it will be worthless. Neither the software nor the imagery are special enough to survive that.
The real art - if that's the word - is in how this is being run as a startup and is trying to turn investor money into a hype train.
That's technically not disagreeing with the OP. And I do think that the first one will be highly valued, independent of the fact that it'll be available. Just like the Banksy Image that was shredded will be worth so much more now; any images from now on that pull this trick won't be as highly regarded as well.
Other than that I agree: AI art is so easy to produce that the sheer quantity will make it uninteresting for collectors.
But hey, people are free to waste their money if they like.
Cheap parlor tricks have a long and glorious history in art, and sometimes become important works of art.
I tried to make an auto-Mondriaan machine once, and I gave up after a few days. It's one of the hardest things I've attempted. It's incredibly easy to splash some black lines and primary fills around, and unbelievably hard to get the proportions and density right.