Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 146 posts

Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k

#131

Post by algorias »

ablation wrote: post #129
spongepoc wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Obvious hadn't been successful with their goals, Robbie would not (and did not) care a bit that his work was being used. It only became contentious when they were able to raise a lot of money. It's funny.

Well, obviously. Robbie said in his Github readme: "When using any outputs of the models, credit me. Don't sell the outputs of the pre-trained models, modified or not. If you have any questions email me before doing anything."

I feel for the guy, but keep in mind: just putting some text in your readme does not create a legally binding contract.

Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k

#135

Post by boomlinde »

newswriter99 wrote: post #54
_2d30 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm inclined to think that the general public underestimate contemporary art and the art world overestimate its superiority over the more conventional works. I really like your framing of this and agree wholeheartedly. I think it really comes from contemporary art’s focus on abstraction and meaning within context. The combination of focus on abstraction and meaning while requiring the viewer to understand the conte…

I disagree. If you spent two minutes rolling some white paint on a white canvas because your "abstract message" was about the void of space, it's not profound, you're being an ass. Conversely if you spent at least five hours stippling black spots on a white canvas in the image of some obscure shape, because you had a concept in your head, and it took a considerable amount of effort, THAT is a profound piece of work.…

> The art world isn't full of bohemians with time and knowledge who've developed understanding of abstractness. It's full of pretentious, bored, rich people. Huge difference.

That's something one might conclude about the "art world" if their only impression of it is from hearing about high profile auctions of weird paintings sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars, which fits nicely in the general "rich people do the darnedest things" category of trivial news. Sure, someone with the right name can probably spit in a napkin and buy a car for the money, but in my experience this is a minority overwhelmed by people that can't even support themselves with their art, much less justify the cost of enjoying expensive works of art anywhere but in a gallery.

I know many artists with vastly different approaches to expression, none of which are rich, most of which also have to work day jobs to make ends meet. I don't think any of them would regard a white-painted canvas as particularly interesting.

Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k

#136

Post by Hoasi »

40acres wrote: post #15
everdev wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think some creative products lose a bit of their essence when not created by humans Does they though? I bet in 10 years, if you walked into an art gallery, you'd still be drawn to certain pieces and not others regardless of wether they were created by human or AI. As AI improves it will get ever closer to that "hand-made" look to the point we probably won't be able to tell, especially with something with as much i…

I think there are (at least) two parts to evaluating a creative product. The aesthetics and the context around it. I think AI will do a wonderful job of generating aesthetically pleasing art, but could an AI generate something like Guernica? when you look at Guernica you can feel the pain and trauma behind it, when you learn that Picasso was compelled to create it after Guernica was firebombed it adds something speci…

You could feed a machine with context, on top of feeding it with existing imagery, or any kind of additional data you can imagine. A more sophisticated version could scrape a certain amount of "drama" for instance. Input from different news sources could be programmed to affect art style. You could enable artistic "moods" based on a set of random parameters. Each new source of data would affect its ability to generate new content. Given the fluctuating definition of art, I see no reason why AI wouldn't be able to generate original artworks in the future and trigger human emotions in the process. A new machine-generated artistic movement sounds much more complex but may well happen further down the line.

Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k

#137

Post by dagw »

_2d30 wrote: post #36
erwan wrote: post #32

I have sympathy for the author's frustration but they open-sourced their work under a very permissive license. It sounds comical that suddenly something becomes valuable because you hang it in a gold frame, make minor modifications to it and ascribe it some symbolism. But that is exactly how contemporary artworks are done. If you go to exhibits and auctions, it is not uncommon to see highly valued work that requires…

> I'm inclined to think that the general public underestimate contemporary art and the art world overestimate its superiority over the more conventional works. I really like your framing of this and agree wholeheartedly. I think it really comes from contemporary art’s focus on abstraction and meaning within context. The combination of focus on abstraction and meaning while requiring the viewer to understand the conte…

made makes it very inaccessible to all but those who have the time and knowledge to develop that understanding

Most halfway decent art galleries and museums are pretty good at providing very readable summaries of the exhibits they're putting on. Spending just 10-15 minutes reading the introductory text the museum provides is often all the background knowledge you need to gain a much greater, if not appreciation, then at least understanding, of what you are looking at.

Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k

#138

Post by dagw »

hobs wrote: post #66
2bitencryption wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you spent at least five hours ... and it took a considerable amount of effort, THAT is a profound piece of work. Got it. work >= 5hrs == TRUE REAL PROFOUND ART, work Art is purely expression. It doesn't matter how long it takes you to express what you're expressing. Pollock may have just splattered painting on a canvas. But it was still a true expression . John Cage made a composition where the orchestra doesn't…

And an expression can be boring and trite, and we can judge it for being such. The fact that rich people are willing to pay for some bland expression does not confer anything but monetary value to it. It doesn't become less garbage.

And an expression can be boring and trite, and we can judge it for being such.

Sure, but that in itself doesn't make it any less art. Saying "I find this art boring and trite and consider it garbage" is fine. Saying "I find this boring and trite and thus it's garbage and not art" is in my opinion not a valid argument.

Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k

#139

Post by dagw »

king_magic wrote: post #46
Raphmedia wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's one of the first work of art by an AI. Think of how much this fact alone will increase the price of the painting in 200 years.

Ehhhh, but is it really a "work of art"? That's what I take issue with.

Surely anything successfully sold as a work of art at an art auction by an auction house famous for selling works of art de facto becomes a work of art.

Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k

#140

Post by Raphmedia »

dagw wrote: post #139
king_magic wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ehhhh, but is it really a "work of art"? That's what I take issue with.

Surely anything successfully sold as a work of art at an art auction by an auction house famous for selling works of art de facto becomes a work of art.

That was my point. The fact that this is the first piece that is recognized as a work of art AND was sold at a high price will only make this piece increase in value as time go on.
Post reply on HN