Why not? I don't see how its significantly different, then any other piece of art created with the assistance of a computer.
[QUOTE=Cold;48708807]Why not? I don't see how its significantly different, then any other piece of art created with the assistance of a computer.[/QUOTE]
Not only that but anything can be classified as art nowadays
A few years ago a computer digitally recreated the mona lisa I think it was, they showed it alongside the original to art experts and most of them pointed to the digital one when asked to identify the original.
Seeing all the shit that people call art, I think it would be in our best interest that we do not program them to be "artistic".
Computers ARE artists.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqmSnUkftkU[/media]
I don't think so, if a computer spits out a piece of artwork the artist isn't the machine, it's the person who programmed it to do so. A machine will never be an artist, not unless computers become sentient beings who can think independently like humans.
Art has to do with the thought and process of creation, which can't be done by a computer. It isn't purely about the craft.
Personally, I like to think Google neural networks are already making art. They touched on it in the article, but I feel like this blog post breaks it down best: [url]http://googleresearch.blogspot.ca/2015/06/inceptionism-going-deeper-into-neural.html?m=1[/url]
The images these neural networks can produce easily meet my criteria for art, by taking parts of past experiences and combining them in new ways, dictated by some sort of imagination (in this case, the neural networks ability to see shapes and patterns where there are none)
Of course, everyone's definition for art is a bit different, so your mileage may vary.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48720642]if a computer has sentience, surely it has some form of creativity in it's robo brain?[/QUOTE]
yeah, and as I said in that case the computer could become an artist. but sentient computers don't exist and nobody knows if they ever will
[QUOTE=Eric95;48725188]yeah, and as I said in that case the computer could become an artist. but sentient computers don't exist and nobody knows if they ever will[/QUOTE]
Many artists were drunks or had mental issues, so a computer with a bug would be enough.
[QUOTE=Cold;48708807]Why not? I don't see how its significantly different, then any other piece of art created with the assistance of a computer.[/QUOTE]
The main issue lies within the premise of art. Something created by a computer can be beautiful, but might not be classified as art, as there's no intention to the creation.
Similarly how an amazing tree just left to grow can be stunning, but unless it was guided by a human, with the intention of creating something that evokes emotion it wouldn't be a true work of art.
In order to create art you first need to be sapient. You need to understand that what you are doing is art, that it is creative as opposed to just performing a function.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48720642]if a computer has sentience, surely it has some form of creativity in it's robo brain?[/QUOTE]
I don't think sentience is a good metric. Sapience is a much better. Ants are sentient. But they lack the capacity to create art as we know it. They lack the sapience for it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
