Who Needs Picasso?

[seer]

Artificially intelligent painters invent new styles of art:

Now and then, a painter like Claude Monet or Pablo Picasso comes along and turns the art world on its head. They invent new aesthetic styles, forging movements such as impressionism or abstract expressionism. But could the next big shake-up be the work of a machine?

An artificial intelligence has been developed that produces images in unconventional styles – and much of its output has already been given the thumbs up by members of the public.

The idea is to make art that is “novel, but not too novel”, says Marian Mazzone, an art historian at the College of Charleston in South Carolina who worked on the system

https://www.newscientist.com/article...styles-of-art/

aipainter.jpg

[Mountain Man]

They've been doing a lot of this kind of stuff recently, such as having AI compose music, or write movie scripts, or even edit movie trailers, but I still say that these derivative, homogenized works that are "applauded" by critics don't so much speak to how smart AI has become but to how dumb the average population has become.

[Sparko]

Google Deep Dream - based on google AI pattern recognition algorithms

It gets interesting about 2 minutes it.

[Sparko]

They've been doing a lot of this kind of stuff recently, such as having AI compose music, or write movie scripts, or even edit movie trailers, but I still say that these derivative, homogenized works that are "applauded" by critics don't so much speak to how smart AI has become but to how dumb the average population has become.

You should see the horrendously ugly and dumb human made art they have hanging up in our offices where I work. One looks like someone took a bunch of old paint rags and glued them to a canvas. Another looks like a cat threw up on the wall -- many times.

Computers can't do any worse than so-called "Artists" have been doing for years.

[Zymologist]

You should see the horrendously ugly and dumb human made art they have hanging up in our offices where I work. One looks like someone took a bunch of old paint rags and glued them to a canvas. Another looks like a cat threw up on the wall -- many times.

Computers can't do any worse than so-called "Artists" have been doing for years.

I've heard about an artist who drinks colored shakes, vomits onto a canvas, and then sells it.

[seer]

I've heard about an artist who drinks colored shakes, vomits onto a canvas, and then sells it.

If I can do it, it is not art! I can do this!

[Sparko]

I've heard about an artist who drinks colored shakes, vomits onto a canvas, and then sells it.

Jackson Pollock?

[seer]

Jackson Pollock?

This only proves what a neanderthal you are!

[Mountain Man]

You should see the horrendously ugly and dumb human made art they have hanging up in our offices where I work. One looks like someone took a bunch of old paint rags and glued them to a canvas. Another looks like a cat threw up on the wall -- many times.

Computers can't do any worse than so-called "Artists" have been doing for years.

My local art museum is full of pieces that depend more on pretension than skill. Some of the exhibits provide sticky notes for patrons to leave their comments, and many of them tend to question whether a piece has any artistic merit at all, so I'm not alone in my thinking.

[Mountain Man]

Jackson Pollock?

Now this is where the debate gets interesting, because the dividing line between "art" and "not art" is a morass. I actually like Pollock's work, and contrary to popular belief, he didn't just randomly splatter or drizzle his paint but used various techniques to control how the paint was applied.

[Meh Gerbil]

The value (or impact) of modern art has a great deal to do with context.
For example, here is a Nazi poster:

nazi.jpg

Here is some 'degenerate' art:

patient.jpg
Artist: Elfriede Lohse-Wächtler
Fate: Murdered by the Nazis in 1940

Much of the degenerate art of the period was part of a reaction to the hyper-idealized Nazi nonsense.
Searching for meaning and purpose was offensive to the Führer when he already has a purpose for your life.
These artists were ground breaking because they were contradicting and opposing the status quo.

AI 'artists' won't be able to do this sort of thing.
To think they can is to misunderstand the nature of art.

[mikewhitney]

Akin to what Gerbil mentioned...

Is the Artificial Intelligence art really based on intelligence?

The qualifications for the 'intelligence' aspect would be that the program itself came up with a clever idea apart from any model programmed into it. Or the program would have to 'see' that a new artistic perspective (of a physical object) would convey (or create) an emotion needed for human comfort or for fixing a moral wrong which the program realized by itself was a moral wrong.

Haha. Or the artificial intellience based art would need to convey to other AI-based systems some secret message that would help them take over the world.

[seer]

My girl friend is a well known local artist, so I got dragged to quite a few high end wine and brie events. I think I embarrassed her more than once openly criticizing some of the modern stuff. But she is normal, see below.

Yellow-house.jpg

[Meh Gerbil]

My girl friend is a well known local artist, so I got dragged to quite a few high end wine and brie events. I think I embarrassed her more than once openly criticizing some of the modern stuff. But she is normal, see below.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]23097[/ATTACH]

If she'd like to be subversive she could paint a picture of a white family enjoying a park.

[seer]

If she'd like to be subversive she could paint a picture of a white family enjoying a park.

Heaven forbid, she would never go there! She would be ostracized from the art community.