Can a computer create art?

[Cognisant]

https://github.com/jcjohnson/neural-style

Is art for art's sake now worthless?

 

[YOLOisonlyprinciple]

Assuming art can be only created by conscious beings

Then, computers could create art, if you assume Picaso can create art

Because i cant distinguish any other person from a computer. Both are equally likely to possess a consciousness and have the ability to think and create art.

I would however be able to say that my art is more art-sy than a computer or any other person because i have.
So if i were to compare art made by;
1. Me
2. Picaso
3. Computer

Then the ranking would be;
1. Me- Im 100% capable of creating art
2. Picasso and Computer- equally capable of creating art- random but equal probability

 

[Sly-fy]

I remember seeing a video somewhere of a computer generated infinite stream of data art that looked like a kaleidoscope, that was using some sort of a mathematical formula and was perfectly symmetric at all times.

I don`t know what it was called so I can`t find it, but if someone knows what it is that I`m talking about please upload a link!

 

[PaulMaster]

To me, art is expression of the self.

My definition of art is not consistent with computer production.

For its own sake is one of only two reasons for producing art.

The other is money. Both are equally valid.

 

[Thurlor]

Any distinction between human made art and computer made art is based on the perceptions of the end user. If they believe a person created a piece of art they will believe it to be art regardless of whether or not the creator was actually a person or a computer.

 

[Sly-fy]

My definition of art is not consistent with computer production.

Computer art still has more quality and sense than a good chunk of the "contemporary, modern art" nonsense that depraved, demented people put out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANA8SI_KvqI

 

[PaulMaster]

Computer art still has more quality and sense than a good chunk of the "contemporary, modern art" nonsense that depraved, demented people put ou

While this is true, it does not affect my definition. Quality may be completely irrelevant.

I am interested to see how this definition of mine holds up. I trust there are folks here who can properly refute it.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I'm torn. The first picture (the one with the Standford campus) intrigues me, but once I realized that there were other works created with a similar algorithms the unique appeal somewhat faded.

I think ultimately it depends on what the artist wants the foci of the artwork to be, or what the majority of the audience wants it to be. Is it about the overlay/algorithm? Or is it about the respect for the original artwork? Is it something that's personal only for the artist? Or is it just a simple fun hobby? In someways the point of the art loses its meaning, or even fun, really, when you deconstruct it.

 

[Sly-fy]

While this is true, it does not affect my definition. Quality may be completely irrelevant.

I am interested to see how this definition of mine holds up. I trust there are folks here who can properly refute it.

Isn`t art what`s "in the eye of the beholder?" So even unintentional art by a machine, or a byproduct of a nuclear disaster can be art.

 

[Urakro]

The simple answer is yes. Definitely yes. That is, depending on what a person calls 'art'.

That conclusion was made after thinking about Yolo's mentioning of 'random'. If you got a computer to fill a 24-bit color, 800x600 pixel canvas with true random values, it will reproduce a scaled, digital copy of Picasso's starry night one in 2 ^ 11.5 million of the total attempted renders. In between times, it will produce other interesting visuals. Even art which has already been made, and those not even yet made.

That came after a train of thought that computers don't lie, but humans do. Even to themselves. I thought about how computers 'compute' exactly the way they were made to, but humans being more unpredictable with their computations, and frequently making wrong, illogical conclusions and results. Even someone with the most strict routine will fall out of line once in awhile.

I thought of that when I thought about when I play a musical instrument. A computer will play that song exactly the same every time, but a human could never synthesize an exact replica with every attempt. Perhaps, this has something to do with our fascination with art.

 

[PaulMaster]

Isn`t art what`s "in the eye of the beholder?" So even unintentional art by a machine, or a byproduct of a nuclear disaster can be art.

This applies to beauty but not art.

 

[Cognisant]

Earlier I was reading a Neal Asher book and part of the story was set on a planet where an advanced transhuman was designing buildings with their own individual style, this being in an artificial intelligence run empire where almost everything is standardized, if you've seen one terraformed/developed planet you've basically seen them all.

But what if the planetary AIs decided to create such individuality themselves? They're certainly capable of it and it would be neigh impossible to tell the difference between a human designed city and one designed by an AI simulating human sloppiness.

What if everything we valued about our humanity became redundant?

 

[LOLZ9000]

Depends on your definition of art. Once you define that, then the answer to your original question should be easier to answer.

 

[YOLOisonlyprinciple]

While this is true, it does not affect my definition. Quality may be completely irrelevant.

I am interested to see how this definition of mine holds up. I trust there are folks here who can properly refute it.

Eventually well be able to create machines which map our neural networks, meaning all work by them will be very similar to a human's.
So as far as the output is concerned, bot will be exact replicas of each other say u map Picasso's neural networks, the machine will produce art what Picasso produced and what he wouldve continued to make if he didnt die.

So, the only question is what is art?
Art is the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.

"creative" means relating to or involving the use of the imagination or original ideas to create something.

"imagination" means the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses.

Computers can form new ideas even now. Things like the google search engine isnt a human's idea but a computer's idea. Humans can no longer understand how Google search works. So, you could say that the computer has formed a new "idea".
As IT advances, its thought processes will become more complex and its ideas will have less limitations.

So, unless you define art to by definition include only pieces of work by humans, then computers can create art.
Unless you want to define that art is necessarily preceded by a "thinking process" ie, a consciousness or soul.
That would lead to my earlier reply where i show that there is a ranking for art:

1. Me- art created by me= highest order
2. Picasso & Computers= equal ranking for anyone and anything other than myself creating art

 

[PaulMaster]

So, unless you define art to by definition include only pieces of work by humans, then computers can create art.

I do define it this way.

Art is a form of human expression.

 

[Yellow]

Art may be a form of human expression, but it doesn't logically follow that it cannot be a form of elephant expression, AI expression, or octopi expression.

If we were to view samples created by our species an others, must we be informed of it's origins, lest we mistakenly appreciate it as art?

 

[PaulMaster]

Art may be a form of human expression, but it doesn't logically follow that it cannot be a form of elephant expression, AI expression, or octopi expression.

If we were to view samples created by our species an others, must we be informed of it's origins, lest we mistakenly appreciate it as art?

My definition does in fact forbid this. I'd add a qualifier - elephant art, computer art, etc. I think non-qualifiers create a situation where not only can anything be art, but everything is art (which may be true, btw).

Appreciation and beauty are not requirements of art.

 

[Yellow]

My definition does in fact forbid this. I'd add a qualifier - elephant art, computer art, etc. I think non-qualifiers create a situation where not only anything can be art, but everything is art (which may be true, btw).

Appreciation and beauty are not requirements of art.

I admit that's a difficult concept for me to wrap my head around. But then, I've often questioned my own capacity for art. I'm afraid I'd qualify as an imposter in the human works of art, as I can create what appears to be art, and appear to appreciate art, but I never find "meaning" in it, nor can I express "meaning" with it

 

[PaulMaster]

I admit that's a difficult concept for me to wrap my head around. But then, I've often questioned my own capacity for art. I'm afraid I'd qualify as an imposter in the human works of art, as I can create what appears to be art, and appear to appreciate art, but I never find "meaning" in it, nor can I express "meaning" with it

You are a skilled writer. Thats art for sure.

 

[Yellow]

You are a skilled writer. Thats art for sure.

Perhaps you're right, but it's also a practical means of communication. Either way, if humanity is a factor, then it goes back to the creator. I'm not trying to create "art", and I certainly don't invite open interpretation of my writing. If there is any doubt at all as to my meaning, I consider it a failure.

 

[PaulMaster]

Perhaps you're right, but it's also a practical means of communication. Either way, if humanity is a factor, then it goes back to the creator. I'm not trying to create "art", and I certainly don't invite open interpretation of my writing. If there is any doubt at all as to my meaning, I consider it a failure.

Yes this is true too. I think there has to be an intent involved....

 

[Tannhauser]

To me, the answer is quite simply 'no'. If there is any necessary component to any piece of art, I suppose it is creativity. A computer cannot be creative – it can only run pre-defined algorithms.

 

[Sly-fy]

What about nature`s (God`s) design? Like human beings, aren`t we works of art in a way?

 

[Haim]

Assuming art can be only created by conscious beings

Then, computers could create art, if you assume Picaso can create art

Because i cant distinguish any other person from a computer. Both are equally likely to possess a consciousness and have the ability to think and create art.

I would however be able to say that my art is more art-sy than a computer or any other person because i have.
So if i were to compare art made by;
1. Me
2. Picaso
3. Computer

Then the ranking would be;
1. Me- Im 100% capable of creating art
2. Picasso and Computer- equally capable of creating art- random but equal probability

Current AI does not think, thinking is creating new connections,new goals.This AI is using static structure neural network and can only do what to developer programmed her to do.

I wouldn't say it created art but the developer use the AI as an art technique, saying it created art is like saying that if I throw a grenade which will create beautiful destruction then the grenade created art, it didn't in has no conscious no goals, the AI is just an art tool.
The sort of "intelligence" it is using is the kind we use to setup just the right temperature in the shower "hot,now cold, a little bit,yea that right", a dog like way of learning,basicly the hot/cold in the AI is similarly to the pictures.

 

[Thurlor]

There are two paintings before you. One is painted by a person, the other by a computer. You don't know who/what created which and both paintings seem quite artistic. Which painting is art?

 

[ummidk]

There are two paintings before you. One is painted by a person, the other by a computer. You don't know who/what created which and both paintings seem quite artistic. Which painting is art?

The one painted by a person.

 

[Thurlor]

The one painted by a person.

Very funny


How about the following two poems? Which was written by a human and which by a computer?


Poem 1 -

A home transformed by the lightning
the balanced alcoves smother
this insatiable earth of a planet, Earth.
They attacked it with mechanical horns
because they love you, love, in fire and wind.
You say, what is the time waiting for in its spring?
I tell you it is waiting for your branch that flows,
because you are a sweet-smelling diamond architecture
that does not know why it grows.



Poem 2 -

Nothing's changed except me and the facts
And the sadness I didn't mean to start.
But it feels different now you've said
It's wrong, and I still can't see your point.
And I think as water runs over my hands that
That's really all there is or can be.
The gold is wearing off the infamous ring
And something wears away from around my heart.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

A computer cannot be creative – it can only run pre-defined algorithms.

And you think a human is different? Art is simply the process of following the algorithms an artist developed over the years of mastering their craft. It won't even be debatable in 20-30 years from now.

A big part that makes us unique is our ability to weave mistakes into our works. Computers need to be taught to make similar mistakes and we make them naturally. Much of our artistic creativity comes from our imperfections and imagination. Both can be emulated by a computer even today, obviously not to the same extent.

 

[ummidk]

I can't tell, obviously. Point is, it does depend on your definition of art. For me, art is as other members have said, an expression of self. It doesn't have anything to do with the beholder, which in this case is me. By this definition, computers are currently incapable of producing art, however, in the future maybe AI will advance to a point that one could say it does have a self.

That being said, by your own definition of art, maybe they can.

 

[Urakro]

Very funny


How about the following two poems? Which was written by a human and which by a computer?


Poem 1 - ...


Poem 2 - ...

They both were created by a person. One used a notepad, while the other used Python 2.6. It's no different than one who chooses to freestyle, vs one who first methodically picks all his rhymes and structures the syllables in a 3 part haiku.

Is art for art's sake now worthless?

I'm thinking that when creating a new work of art, the artist rehashes his memory and attempts to express the personally important things he has learned using the most translatable medium. If true, then all art may be a form of story-telling.

Even if it's really bad art, made by someone who just wanted to make cash off it still can't hold back the need to present it as an event.

So having a computer do that on it's own may mean it has a desire to communicate. I don't see how that would make art redundant, unless there came a time there isn't any need to communicate.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

I'm thinking that when creating a new work of art, the artist rehashes his memory and attempts to express the personally important things he has learned using the most translatable medium. If true, then all art may be a form of story-telling.

Yeah...art is story telling
If computers start making "art", it will be reduced to commercialism

 

[Brontosaurie]

Yes, my computer friend Bester Pompalóre is an incredibly skilled artist and is proof that computers can be artists indeed.

 

[Sly-fy]

Yes, my computer friend Bester Pompalóre is an incredibly skilled artist and is proof that computers can be artists indeed.

Just you joke at the expense of androids` feelings, but don`t let Data see that comment!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xfCKXnyD-4

 

[Haim]

And you think a human is different? Art is simply the process of following the algorithms an artist developed over the years of mastering their craft. It won't even be debatable in 20-30 years from now.

human is indeed different, human can create new algorithms, current AI can't out of the blue "want" to learn to paint and find new painting algorithm. Human can want something, let's say to hunt an animal, and in the way for that goal create new neural network such as one for creating a sword, AI can't do it today.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

What about computer assisted art btw? Is it still human? No it can't be fully human because it requires CAD or other tools provided by the silicon chip. So I'd say there's some art that's already irrevocably made by computers.

Yeah...art is story telling
If computers start making "art", it will be reduced to commercialism

Not necessarily. If AI is created and it has human-like agency, it may operate on non-commercial principles just as easily and much more quickly.

And I wonder how many artworks that were created commercially would you consider great, surely commercial incentive doesn't diminish the final result.

One powerful AI's year of work may be comparable to millenia of artistic design produced by mankind. Sure, it's all speculative at this point.


What isn't speculative is that people are tied to electronic tools, such as cell phones, computers, computer cars etc. Thereby becoming part-computers themselves. The time they save and the new design methods made available by becoming part-machine make it possible to reach even greater or even newer artistic potentials, it's already something made possible thanks to chips, even if said chips can't act on their own.

It is a simple truth that if you were given a paint-mixing machine that saves you the time to paint 2 more paintings a day, this computer is a collaborator and a direct influence on said 2 new and never-before-possible paintings.

Maybe because you have more time to paint, you become more experimental and creative, not fearing the risk to waste time or effort since it's become much easier. Isn't then this net positive increment to creativity provided and attributable completely to the machine?

You all are already part-machine by the virtue of browsing the internet, whether you want to see it or not.

 

[PaulMaster]

What about computer assisted art btw? Is it still human? No it can't be fully human because it requires CAD or other tools provided by the silicon chip. So I'd say there's some art that's already irrevocably made by computers.

CAD is a paintbrush. An extension of the artist's hand - not the co-creator of the work.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

CAD is a paintbrush. An extension of the artist's hand - not the co-creator of the work.

Said work wouldn't exist if not for the CAD. You are pointing out the obvious truth that computers aren't equally good catalysts yet.

 

[PaulMaster]

Said work wouldn't exist if not for the CAD. You are pointing out the obvious truth that computers aren't equally good catalysts yet.

Without paintbrushes there would be no paintings.

 

[Tannhauser]

Gödel proved with his incompleteness theorems that algorithms will never be able to even do math as well as humans. You literally need human creativity to do that. Art, then? No chance.

 

[Happy]

Unordered thoughts:

Paul is right. CAD is merely an extension that takes human input. A super accurate canvas, if you will.

I think that extends to everything in the digital world. A human is in control of making the 'maker' of any computer generated art. Therefore, a human is, by extension, the true maker.

What better way to create art in the digitised world than with the aid of a computer?

Art exists within a context. A time and place. If that time and place are the digital age, then it follows that a digital medium is an appropriate vessel for artistic expression.

People need to drop the adage 'art for art's sake'. That ideology existed in another time. It's dated now.

If a computer can indeed create 'art', then the credit is due to its maker.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Art has intension. So no, not at this point (maybe never).

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Gödel proved with his incompleteness theorems that algorithms will never be able to even do math as well as humans. You literally need human creativity to do that. Art, then? No chance.

Lol. Making an assumption that a human mind is functionally complete and ignoring all the viable fuzzy solutions to both mind and finite state problems, because Godel. Machine aren't proven to be only formal, in theory they can make errors and follow informal systems and thus have the capacity to emulate men.

The difficulty lies in having a man design something as complex as to resemble a man.

 

[Thurlor]

What about a (hypothetical) simulated human brain running on a computer? Would any art it creates be human made or computer made?

 

[PaulMaster]

What about a (hypothetical) simulated human brain running on a computer? Would any art it creates be human made or computer made?

If its simulated its computer created.

Aren't computers essentially simulated brains already?

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

A big part that makes us unique is our ability to weave mistakes into our works.

attributing uniqueness of human art to "mistakes" shows that you think art is nth more than imperfect recreation of originals

imo what makes our works unique is that, although they are initially triggered by ideas and visions that are not the artist's, they ultimately *become* theirs because they express something original in them. when they first encounter the visions/ideas, they feel an instinctive assent and so they take root in their being and become their own. idk jackshit about AI or programming tbh, but i doubt you can ever teach a machine to create something original(not imitation of an existing art style like the link in OP) as nuanced and abstract as human art that viewers can *viscerally* discern

And so, if machines are only capable of creating imitations of past works and engineered mistakes, or rather blends of differenr art styles so they seem like unique works, then isn't this just another form of standardised mass production?

You all are already part-machine by the virtue of browsing the internet, whether you want to see it or not

umm...no?
why do you make it seem like internet/digital media is an extension of human expression when it is only a means to convey it?

 

[Haim]

If its simulated its computer created.

Aren't computers essentially simulated brains already?

No AI neural network is very different than actual brain neural network, I think the most significant difference is that unlike the brain it is static.If you are referring to traditional software then even more no, it works in entirely different way.

umm...no?
why do you make it seem like internet/digital media is an extension of human expression when it is only a means to convey it?

Well if you regard the brain as a data storage and exchange device, you can say the internet is part of the hive "brain" of humankind, we are very reliable upon other people's ideas in order to learn, it is a multi threaded system, where every person is responsible for one thread, we are smart only as one multi threaded system, one lone person is ignorant, he doesn't have the collective computation power of mankind.

 

[Tannhauser]

Lol. Making an assumption that a human mind is functionally complete and ignoring all the viable fuzzy solutions to both mind and finite state problems, because Godel. Machine aren't proven to be only formal, in theory they can make errors and follow informal systems and thus have the capacity to emulate men.

The difficulty lies in having a man design something as complex as to resemble a man.

Well, no, I am making the opposite claim: that you cannot model a human mind using a formal system.

As some have mentioned, you need intention to be creative. In order to write mathematical theorems for example, you need some sort of motivation behind it other than just using cold logic and deduction. Art being almost pure creativity is thus even farther removed from algorithmic tasks. How can a machine have an incentive to do anything other than following predefined instructions? Saying that it is "almost" like a human mind because it performs particular tasks equally well as a human, is kind of like saying that since my toothbrush performs the task I want it to, it will eventually attain human intelligence.

In general I find it very surprising that the world thinks there's gonna be super-intelligent AI's in the near future. If one looks closer at what modern "AI" is, it's just a bunch of very simple concepts lumped on top of each other. Supposedly, the belief is that if we lump enough stuff on top of each other, it will become "intelligent". The whole thing seems to be more of a fad than anything.

 

[kora]

Oh I've used stuff like this just recently, that one and another called "dreamscope" (see attachment), also, tldr, in a lesson, probably not reading all the interesting posts, which I will do later. The point is I was the actual artist in the process (although a very lazy one) because I was the one that chose the photo and the effect I thought matched up most with my personality.


I think of art as necessarily being an attempt to communicate something, so the computer would have to have semantic ability for it to be able to do so. Meanwhile, programs that apply a painting style to a photograph are not creating the art exactly, the real artist in this case is the person using the program in a certain way, and the program replaces paints. Maybe the programmer is also the artist to some extent...Hmmm or just the creator of the medium, which is an art form in itself ? I'm getting confused now . If a computer becomes conscious one day, which I do not rule out (and by conscious I mean expereinces qualia) and it has certain freedom to act then yes I think that the computer can create art as we know it.

 

[Haim]

I think of art as necessarily being an attempt to communicate something, so the computer would have to have semantic ability for it to be able to do so. Meanwhile, programs that apply a painting style to a photograph are not creating the art exactly, the real artist in this case is the person using the program in a certain way, and the program replaces paints. Maybe the programmer is also the artist to some extent...

A software developer is an artist, in this case a tool maker.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

attributing uniqueness of human art to "mistakes" shows that you think art is nth more than imperfect recreation of originals

No, perhaps it shows that you like jumping to conclusions. I haven't said it is the only thing that is unique about human art, I was trying to convey the uniqueness of it in one word.

Arguably art or improvisation is a process of incorporating reality into preexisting neural connections and association nets. It involves recollecting preferences, memories, emotions and impressions and blending it all together into a form of expression.

This process, while extremely complex, can already be replicated in computer science to imitate creativity and it is expected that the imitation will get better with our progressive understanding of human brain and the imitation will reach our levels at some point.

idk jackshit about AI or programming tbh, but i doubt you can ever teach a machine to create something original(not imitation of an existing art style like the link in OP) as nuanced and abstract as human art that viewers can *viscerally* discern

They already make learning algorithms able to perform "new" "original" things that no human has ever thought before. They work just as I described, they mimic and strictly follow our human way of being creative only on a much smaller scale. The unsolved question is whether it will be possible to make them convincingly creative in the future and whether people will ascribe "creativity" to their works.

umm...no?
why do you make it seem like internet/digital media is an extension of human expression when it is only a means to convey it?

Because you get the supernatural ability to exchange information, learn from and look at the collective output of the humanity as a whole? Because you become a comparatively omniscient observer of events evolving around the globe?

You ignore all the far reaching implications of such an exchange. This unrestricted flow changes and shapes us in ways that were never possible before. It was only recently that this extension of our brains was enabled by technology.

It changes the way people look at things, shifts their outlook from local to global, shapes the culture. It isn't just a tool of expression, it is a pillar of modern existence that most can't live without.

Well, no, I am making the opposite claim: that you cannot model a human mind using a formal system.

I'm sorry but I find it amusingly misguided when people try to apply mathematical theorems to unrelated topics and try to make a meaningful statement about the whole thing. Metaphysics? Philosophy? I guess that's what it was called.

Concisely speaking. If human brain can be fully formally described, then it can be made into a machine. If human brain is fuzzy, we can create a similarly fuzzy machine to emulate it. There are no theoretical limitations stopping computer science and technology from designing and relying on fuzzy or informal systems.

In fact I would go as far as to say that no system is fully formal, because the chaotic and noisy reality breaks down into quantized states of probabilistic intervals. Reality enforces incorporating and considering informal or many-valued conditions in order to adapt to it.

As some have mentioned, you need intention to be creative.

You are right that agency is required for general AI, we don't have it. Maybe we will never have it in our machines and frankly AI-less future looks somewhat more promising to me as an individual than its opposite.

Intention doesn't influence creativity, because intention can be set by the designer, or randomly selected from a noise seed.

"Creativity" is in the eye of the beholder for the most part. And before someone jumps in angry that I don't give due credit, yes I find high artistic creativity very valuable and awesome, I respect it, but it isn't an innate element of any work, it is defined based on impression, expertise/experience, observation, analysis, comparison or other relevant things.