1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

If Computer Creates Art, IS it Art?

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ethics, Jan 25, 2003.

  1. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    As Gary Kasparov prepares for another man vs. machine match against a new silicon opponent, Deep Junior, analysts argue over whether the basic arguments of chess as art will imply that computers have evolved into artists as our silicon friends master the game and surpass human skill and "intuition".

    However, not all people believe that solving chess confers artistic merit. Says one analyst, "If computers do ever solve chess it would ruin it artistically. Those endgames that computers have solved sometimes take so many moves that the ideas behind them are at times hard to follow. That is not beautiful. It is just incomprehensible."

    SO the question remains, if a computer, whether through gaming, or other form of expression, creates art, IS it art?
     
  2. Frodo Lives

    Frodo Lives Luke, I am NOT your father!

    Beauty,and Art, is in the eye of the beholder (not the Ad&d monster). To the computer it may be art.
     
  3. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    The endgames of the masters are incomprehesible to me. Does that mean they are not chess artists, either? If art is the creation of an inner spark in humans then machines cannot creat art. But if art is the picture on the wall then machines can create art. Not all "art" has beauty to me. Let them bandy the words, I judge the results, not the process. If one master takes years to accomplish a masterpiece and another can do it in an afternoon will they care 100 years from now?

    I really have a lot better things to think about that this. But you know what, maybe the computer creating the art, the computer mastering the endgame is the object d'art. If a machine, a computer, is producing pieces of 8.5x11 pieces of paper with colors on it, the operator in the end has decided what to keep, what to exhibit. Until we make self aware computers the point is moot. And at that point are they machines or are they people with aritificial hearts taken to the next level?

    And who are you to ruin a perfectly lazy Saturday afternoon with points to ponder? Cuz, in the end the answer is simple, when out of work there are only two days a week to do nothing without feeling guilty and this is intruding on one of mine.
    :)
     
  4. Paladin

    Paladin Have Gun -- Will Travel

    Did the computer create the art; or did the programmers create the art using the computer as a tool?

    Do I have self will or is it an illusion of my biological and environmental programming? I am the product of my upbringing. I cannot change unless my upbringing gave me the willingness to change. But that change would still be a result of my upbringing and nothing to do with "free will" on my part.

    Does it matter? Caring whether or not it matters would also be a product of the programming that created that which is you or I.

    Will there ever be another chess player with the justified arrogance of Bobby Fisher?
     
  5. Domh

    Domh Full Member

    The computer will not marvel at the beauty and majesty that is created as the pieces move together in a dance, tendrils of possibility - danger, glory, conquest, grace.

    Kasparov will see it, in his own play and in the play the computer creates.

    It takes a hell of a greater computer than deep junior to calculate the process of 'appreciation'.

    Ill still certainly be watching the game live on ICC, where Ive been a member for 7 years now - worth every penny.

    http://www.chessclub.com

    ;)
     
  6. Coriolis

    Coriolis Bob's your uncle

    Of course, to me anyway. It's not very easy to explain why, but I'll give it a shot (responding specifically to the "other form of expression" part of your question).

    Art can be thought of as an expression transferred through some medium (there are many definitions, but let's stick with this general one). The procedure for transferring the inner (thought) expression to the external (visual) expression is controlled, in varying extents, by a set of rules. Painters learn how to control the brush and use color or tones, among other things, to accomplish this. Photographers learn to control light and exposure, among other things, to accomplish this. Despite the result (be it good or poor) the conveyance of expression is realized. Even when the process involves a high degree of randomness (imagine Jackson Pollack flinging paint at a canvas) there is still a process at work. A computer works by a set of instructions, or a process, and therefore conveys a result in essentially the same manner as a painter or photographer.

    But what of the inner expression? A person may picture in their mind what they desire the visual expression to be, and work toward that goal. But this is not absolutely necessary, and in fact, rarely the case with many forms of modern art. An artist may have a theme in mind, or a vague idea of what they would like to accomplish, and simply let process (with spontaneity) take over. Can a computer do this? Sure, if it's programmed to. If there was ever any doubt in my mind about computers being able to convey an expression, it was dashed to pieces when I first laid eyes on <A HREF="http://www.fractalus.com/home/">fractal art</A>. Using differential calculus and chaos theory as the process, and selecting various input parameters which control the fractal colors and form, the computer is quite able to generate some spectacular visuals. Are they an expression? I think they are, in the sense that the process is still human designed (just not human executed), and that the intent for expression by the user of the tool is no less valid than with a camera or a paint brush and palette.
     
  7. Sacchiridites

    Sacchiridites Banned

    1) I find the fact that ShinyTop took the time to reply (all the while complaining it wasted his/her time) infinitely hilarious.. Thank you, ShinyTop for the giggle.

    2) Within the confines of the use of our limited brains, are not computers a product of our finite capacities? And therefore, a creation of a creation that may call itself art, sure is plausible to me.

    3) As an artist, I find "self-expression" (an oxymoron.. like we can express anything other than our own perception lol) through other classical mediums much more gratifying because they are more tactile and can flow almost immediately from brain to canvas without the use of a third party manipulation.

    Thanks for the ear.. I'll be sure to give it back when I'm done with it :)

    Sacchiridites
     

Share This Page