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

Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 151 posts

Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art

#141

Post by dahart »

dllthomas wrote: post #140
dahart wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t seem at all weird to me that paintings have completely different standards than films. Using a ghost painter does seem a little like cheating, if the painting is sold as being the creative and manual work of the named painter. It seems slightly dishonest to advertise it and talk about it as the creative manual work of one person, but create it using other people. I mean, I’m sure it really does happen and…

I wonder whether a (legal? social?) requirement for a full "credits" on any painting involving more than one person would change things.

Yeah good question. I would think so. To me, the problem goes away if there are full credits, or even just very clear expectations. I think it’s fine to have people collaborate on a painting, or to have a director and a painter, as long as the audience (and importantly, buyers) understand exactly what it is. What’s problematic is to have an artist charging a lot of money on the basis of their and reputation, and let people think they’re doing all the painting, but fail to disclose they don’t actually do the brush work or make the detailed decisions.

This is somewhat common in other arts too, maybe more common than with painting. I know Stradivarius didn’t make his own violins, but had hoards of apprentices doing the work, almost like a company. Architecture is labeled a fine art, and gets a special exception there, but everyone knows the architect is the director of other people who labor.

Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art

#143

Post by bookofjoe »

surgical_fire wrote: post #104
rpdillon wrote: post #6

Reminds me to when Ebert argued video games can't be art. https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/video-games-can-never... The argument rings just as silly today as it was 12 years ago.

The problem with this discussion is not only that the definition of "art" lacks a consensus. The main issue is that instead of being a descriptive, a lot of people call something "art" as a compliment. Which is utterly silly, by the way. Because at that point "art" becomes sinply something that is "aesthetically pleasant", and that will change from person to person. "Art" as a compliment is useless. If we try to use…

'Art completes what nature cannot bring to a finish. The artist gives us knowledge of nature's unrealised ends.' — Aristotle (284-322 BC)

'The true work of art is but a shadow of the divine perfection.' — Michelangelo (1475-1564)

'Art is a mediator of the unspeakable.' — Goethe (1749-1832)

'A work of art is a corner of nature seen through a temperament.' — Emile Zola (1840-1929)

'Art has absolutely no existence as veracity, as truth.' — Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968)

'Art is science made clear.' — Jean Cocteau (1889-1963)

'Art is anything you can get away with.' — Andy Warhol (1928-1987)

Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art

#144

Post by bookofjoe »

tkgally wrote: post #39

For an essay that hinges on the notion that “art requires making choices,” I wish the author had chosen to delve a bit more into the question of what choosing is. Do humans really make choices? If so, how free are those choices? Is there something about human choice that will never be convincingly imitated by computer? If so, what is it, and how do you know it cannot be imitated?

>Are You Living In A Computer Simulation?' (2001)

https://simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf

Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art

#145

Post by bookofjoe »

Retric wrote: post #119
becquerel wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we've already had those experiments, really, when that generated piece won an art competition ('Theatre D'opera Spatial')

It won a Colorado State Fair contest.

The camel's nose under the tent.

Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art

#146

Post by bookofjoe »

mrmetanoia wrote: post #9

I love articles that tell me why something they can't know is something they like to guess at anyway. This is pointless. Art will get made. Artists will use AI to make some of it. The debate about whether or not its art will be part of the art. This article is not part of anything, it's just throwing punches at air in a tantrum.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." — Wittgenstein(Tractatus 7)

Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art

#147

Post by matt3210 »

LLMs are just art as code. From the article:

> he crafted detailed text prompts and then instructed DALL-E to revise and manipulate the generated images again and again. He generated more than a hundred thousand images to arrive at the twenty images in the exhibit.

Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art

#148

Post by mistrial9 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #120
mistrial9 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

does the tooling augment a human, or is the tooling sold to replace a human?

> does the tooling augment a human, or is the tooling sold to replace a human? It's bizarre on HN of all places, given its connection to the tech industry and the history of tools sold by that industry, that someone would imagine these are mutually exclusive options. As is often the case with tech industry tools, the tool in fact augments a human, and is (often) sold to replace a human. That's barely even a superfici…

The one liner above is an adoption of a significant question asked by the inventor of the computer mouse, Doug Englebart. Doug spend decades in tech and is the man in the "Put this, there" demo, which changed technology history. Doug's audience was sometimes Defense through the Stanford-area. Teams and communication were his everyday world.

Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art

#149

Post by homarp »

typon wrote: post #77
becquerel wrote: post #37

This is an amusingly ignorant article. Its initial argument, that AI tools don't produce art because they offer meaningfully fewer knobs and dials to creators than a camera, is a classic example of mistaking the contingent for the essential. Those knobs and dials do exist. Download a copy of Stable Diffusion and see all the things you can tweak, iteratively, using the same seed, to work towards an image you desire. T…

My friend is a very good painter, but not a famous painter. In the art world, its an open secret that most famous painters, especially ones that are old, don't really paint much. They hire "ghost-painters" to do the actual work for them, and they simply set the direction of the art pieces and collaborate with the hired-on-contract ghost-painters. My friend has painted for a bunch of these artists and when I ask her w…

https://www.througheternity.com/en/blog/art/how-did-michelan...

"the old tale that Michelangelo painted the entire vault by himself is not quite true; he did have help from assistants, and not just to assist in menial tasks such as mixing the plaster, grinding the pigments, moving the scaffolding and aligning the cartoons.

Some less important aspects of the painting were delegated too – minor angels fluttering around the fringes of the main images for example, as well as oak leaves and other ornamental details.

We even know the names of four assistants that arrived from Michelangelo’s native Florence in 1508: Bastiano da Sangallo, Giuliano Bugiardini, Agnolo di Donnino and Jacopo del Tedesco. They were relatively poorly paid, however, and it seems unlikely that they were entrusted with any significant tasks in the project. "

Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art

#150

Post by homarp »

mattmaroon wrote: post #27
some_random wrote: post #16

Artists have been spending decades redefining art to broaden it as much as possible, to the point where it seems to be defined now as anything that makes you feel something. It sure seems like AI art is making some people feel something alright.

If Jackson Pollock made art I don’t see why whoever programmed the AI didn’t.

and "93% of Paint Splatters are Valid Perl Programs" - https://www.mcmillen.dev/sigbovik/ (discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27929730 )
Post reply on HN