Artificial Art?

Bit of a strange one this, but I was thinking the other day about the amount of CGI used in films and got to musing about whether it would be possible someday for machines to produce genuine works of art.

At the rate technology is moving I've no doubt that someday we'll get films with no human actors or real backgrounds and be unable to tell the difference (I believe there's been attempts already, although they seem to fall into the animated film category). Also, I imagine paintings and sculpture can be produced artificially. Surely it's only a short leap until a coherent work of literature can be created by a machine.

But can it be regarded as art? Can art only be produced by humans? Some people don't believe so:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4109664.stm

This is probably a question that will lead back to the age old one of 'what is art?' But I'd be interested to know your thoughts.

Zippy. :crash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zippy

At the rate technology is moving I've no doubt that someday we'll get films with no human actors or real backgrounds and be unable to tell the difference (I believe there's been attempts already, although they seem to fall into the animated film category). Also, I imagine paintings and sculpture can be produced artificially. Surely it's only a short leap until a coherent work of literature can be created by a machine.

Zippy. :crash:

---

There was a movie based on this premise in the mid 80's called Looker. Scientists would scan a 3-d image of a person, and then manipulate it to act like the real person. It was a little hokey, but the premise was that you could sell more product by the perfect positoning of the product and the actor/actress. I've yet to read any literature on this topic. I wouldn't be surprised to find it in Sci-fi.

I think it's really disturbing that `art' is being produced using an electronic interface. CGI has it's place, computer enhancement's been used in film and music for ages. But it gets farther away from the `ear' or `eye of' a real living breathing feeling person who is producing something emotionally. Machines will never produce `art' from emotion, and emotion is basically what `art' is to me. :D

While I think you're right about emotion playing a big part in what art is about, I think it's the emotions provoked in the reader/viewer/listener rather than the emotion of whoever created it.

If you were to look at or read something that provoked real emotion in you and later discovered it was produced artificially, does that mean it ceases to be art? What provokes emotion is different for different people, it's subjective. Is there some objective indicator of what makes art? A single particular thing that we can point to and say: 'that's what something needs to be a work of art?'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zippy

While I think you're right about emotion playing a big part in what art is about, I think it's the emotions provoked in the reader/viewer/listener rather than the emotion of whoever created it.

If you were to look at or read something that provoked real emotion in you and later discovered it was produced artificially, does that mean it ceases to be art? What provokes emotion is different for different people, it's subjective. Is there some objective indicator of what makes art? A single particular thing that we can point to and say: 'that's what something needs to be a work of art?'

---

I should have mentioned aesthetics in my first reply as that is an important element of `art' to me too. I have my own definition of what is aesthetically pleasing, which is what I usually seek in music or visual images. A lot of `art' can make me bored or disinterested or viscerally react, `emotions' but they aren't aesthetically pleasing to me.

I think I can pretty much tell when an image has been computer produced or enhanced. But I like seeing little mistakes, inconsistencies, knowing that the thickness of oil paint was gauged by someone's hand. I'd rather see a singer live on stage and hear all the nuances of their voice range then hear their `digitally re-mastered CD'.

As for chimp paintings, I'd never pay for it, but to me that is much more interesting in my perspective as a human to appreciate some other living thing creating curious visuals.

I may be wrong here, actually I'd love to see some examples of what you or anyone else thinks is aesthetically pleasing CGI `art'.

It seems to me that CGI is striving towards perfection. That is not especially pleasing to me :)

Don't get me wrong, I'm playing devil's advocate here, I've not seen any art done by CGI or other artificial methods that I think compares with that done by humans. I can admire the special effects in some films (a good example was Speilberg's latest - War of the Worlds) but I think if you lost the human element altogether then it would be souless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zippy

Don't get me wrong, I'm playing devil's advocate here, I've not seen any art done by CGI or other artificial methods that I think compares with that done by humans. I can admire the special effects in some films (a good example was Speilberg's latest - War of the Worlds) but I think if you lost the human element altogether then it would be souless.

---

:D heh heh, I think the prospects for soulless, deal with the devil, not-having-to-think for themselves aspect of computers appeals to a lot of people though ;)