Anwyl and I made it home Monday around noon and promptly fell asleep for most of the afternoon since it took a 4 am wake-up to catch our flight. The three kitties sort of waved their tails at us on their way out the door (the cat sitter doesn't let them go outside for fear of losing one.) After they checked out the patio and made sure the outdoors was still there, they managed some fairly convincing "we missed you" leg butting and twining. Monday night I went off to be on a panel discussing the question "If an A.I. (artificial intelligence) makes art, is it really Art?" Not surprisingly, we didn't manage to answer it, but it was an enjoyable discussion.
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Why would it not be art? Isn't there art that is created with the help of technology? In this case, a person (or people) designed technology that then helps create art. In the case of A.I., a person (or people) created the A.I. entity, so the origin of the art is with the original designer.
I wanted to argue something along those lines -- I was thinking of the case of a Renaissance studio where the "master" had many apprentices who did huge swathes of the actual painting or sculpting, although the "branding" was of the individual who led the studio. So a neural network could be regarded as part of an "assemblage" of humans and machines with the human who set the whole moving in a certain direction getting the name credit. We didn't get to quite that level of discussion -- but using that model perhaps someone like Alexander Mordvintsev and the other members of the team who developed "Inceptionism"
[http://grayarea.org/event/deepdream-the-art-of-neural-networks/] would be regarded as the originary artists collaborating with their neural nets.
Post a Comment