Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Think you misunderstand what I mean, there are two sides to this as I see it.
The issue is that they don't really know how they work from what I understand. I think the best explanation is to compare it to humans. We know how the brain is structured etc. Yet we don't understand how it works in full detail and it is kind of the same with AIs.
Agree humans will never be obsolete, but the way we do things might be. Maybe it can be compared to when we were once hunter-gatherers and then moved towards agriculture, gathered in larger cities, more laws, currencies etc. Maybe AI and robotics are the new initiators for changing how we do things.
It's like anything else. Everyone has an opinion, but can they logically articulate it and remain honest and accurate? There are reasons people think Damien Hirst's artworks are important. But their reasoning is weak.
Artists can. But there are already way too many imposters, so that it's difficult to know who the real artists are. Real artists can spot the phonies easily, but how can anyone else? This has always been an issue with art. Which makes it a good field for the hucksters to play at. That's just the way it is.
This is an interesting point. But Hirst is famous because he had a good line of BS to sell himself as an innovator. And there was some historical precedent for it. That's how he fooled the eggheads in the 'art world' that aren't artists and so couldn't spot the phony. And once he got over on them, he became 'famous'. And that carries it's own pegigree. Especially in a field that is so open as art.
Yes. We have to give up the idea of a pat definition, and focus on the purpose of it. But it seems that few people are able to grasp this. They want a pat definition that they can use as their score card.
If you say you are a chicken, and I say you're not, am I calling you a liar? That isn't really relevant, is it?
And yet it will either be the truth, or it won't. People claim all kinds of things, and often even believe it. But that doesn't make their claim true. One of the things I like most about art is that from an artist's perspective, you can't fake it. You can lie, but only in the service of a greater truth. There are many fools and hucksters pretending to be artists and pretending to make art. But the truth always shows up in the results, if you know how to look.
It was, wasn't it.
well I knew it was one of those famous dead guys.It depends. Art is not defined by technique, or difficulty. Or by the theoretical historic context. Or the creator's fame, and so on. But there will always be those who are fooled by these things.
The only experts I know are the real artists out there, and a few very smart, well informed, enthusiasts.
Everyone can fake things, but also I don't think all artists have a deeper meaning with everything they make, some probably just do it because they think it looks cool, different etc.
You could call yourself an artist if you started painting or sculpting or whatever. It's not like you have to go to a school to get a degree before you can be classified as one.
Does art need to have a deeper meaning, can't it just be something beautiful or interesting or different? Take abstract art, probably some of it has a deeper meaning, but also I think a lot of it is simply because people like these things, the shapes or whatever.
I think it is because as you wrote above, I would fall in the category of hucksters because you (or the chosen artists whoever they are) don't agree that my things have an intention or a deeper meaning and therefore not art. That is from what I understand the argument you are making. This would also mean that I could never be an artist, because clearly, I am now a huckster, because the "chosen" ones think so, doesn't matter if other people like my stuff or not, I would not be accepted as an artist following that logic. And to me, that is an absurd argument.
So do you think this guy intends to fool people? does he qualify as an artist in your opinion? Im trying to figure out by which standard people are judged.
Who are these "real" artists out there? can you mention one or two and why they are different from the others?
Too lazy myself.
They're called dilatantes.
You could, but it wouldn't be true. You would just be a painter or a sculptor. A hobbyist, basically. Nothing wrong with that. But it's not necessarily making art just because one is dabbling in a popular artistic medium.
That's true. The education and degree to not make someone an artist.
Nevertheless, artists know what art is. And they can spot a faker. The problem is the fakers call themselves artists, too, and often even believe they are, because they don't know what art is. Same goes for their followers.
It's like being a doctor in that a doctor is someone that actually practices medicine. Artists are people that actually make art. But to recognize the artist, you have to know what art is.
They are the ones actually making art. I realize this is a tautology, but that's the way it is.
No one in their right mind thinks what he makes is amazing. What they think is that his works are 'important' historically. And are therefor monetarily valuable. It's what they've heard and read and they don't know any better.
It's easy. Real artists make real art. The fakers don't. If you don't know what real art is, you won't be able to tell the difference. Most people don't know, and so they can't. That's just a fact of life in our greed obsessed culture. The greedsters that run everything don't want you to know what art is because they want to sell you crap, instead. Art is rare and hard to make, and is not about the money. They can't mass produce it for a profit. So they and the society they control ignores it. And even denigrates it. Because once you learn to recognize it, you also learn to recognize how devoid of any real value all the crap they are selling you is. Our culture mostly hates art and artists. It's partly why they like the hucksters. The gimmickry. They understand the gimmick because it's about the pretense of value.
It's not necessarily about having a deeper meaning. It's about providing a glimpse at existence through the artist's experience of it. Sort of like stepping into their skin for a moment. And thereby getting their perspective. This gives us a couple of very important insights: that we are all unique, and yet similar, too. And that we are not alone here. We are each other, and yet each a unique contributor to the whole. Also, we can see ourselves in them, and them in us. Like a kind of spirit-mirror.
Yes, there is a lot more to abstract art then that, if one cares to consider it. It's mostly about the mechanics of perception and expression. Somewhat the way instramental music works.
Some artists can make art 'subconsciously'. That method just seems to work for them (cutting off conscious self-criticism).
Anyone could be an artist. But they will need to know what art is, and then engage in that activity.
What guy?
Not from an iPad. It'll have to be later.
The program I use can't do it, it just generates music based on what you tell it. But you could probably do it in one of the real audio tools I would assume, again don't know how they work. But someone who knows could probably do it.AI music? Anyone think that AI can mix/intertwine The Model by Kraftwerk with Can't Get You Out of My Head by Kylie - given they both seem to have the same rhythm and tempo, and related lyrics, so as to which a nice number could be formed?
This doesn't make sense, what is real art? You keep referring to these things like everyone agrees what a real artist and art is, and everyone that disagrees with whatever these are, is just stupid or ignorant of art.
But who decides how a person best does this? Clearly, you don't like Damien Hirst's stuff, so I assume he is a huckster and everyone who thinks he makes cool stuff, is ignorant fools when it comes to art.
The person with the paint buckets.
Fair enough.
On Udio the prompts are listed in clear view. Some are from the AI, in response presumably to those input by the organic partner
You aren't presenting yourself as though you've done that. In fact, claiming art is objective makes me assume you've not really pondering art appreciation of the philosophy behind it.
I do believe it is possible we already inadvertently created a self aware AI and didn't realize it and don't really know it yet.A few people are asking if AI is now sentient, has become its own lifeform. AI can generate emergent irreduciblly complex patterns, more than just a sum of the parts. I'm willing to see it as a unique form of conscience.
We all learn from others, nature/nurture, are a product of our environments. AI/machine learning isn't really any different from humans learning - AI just has a larger data set, can learn faster.
Emergence - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
H. C. Westerman
You want to post your art snob stuff and that's what you post as an example? Something that looks like a Rorschach inkblot card? Something that looks slopped n dropped, random and talentless, no skill and something the sharpest of Greek art critics would reject as rubbish (its not even imitating or representing life).
This guy is a poser. He wouldn't know art if it fell on his foot. I looked at least 50 of his "artworks" and maybe 5 of them would qualify as actual works of art ... of moderate quality. So I am assuming they were by accident.
Here is an example of a real abstract artist's work ... a painting by Wesley Kimler. I knew this guy years ago in Chicago. He was the real deal. An artist through and through.
So their style has to be recognizable across mediums.
Not so much their 'style'; more their individuality. Their artworks are documenting their own unique way of understanding and interacting with the world. And then sharing that uniqueness with us. If they are successful at it, we will tend to 'see them' in whatever they make, and whyever they made it.
I don't know why you're looking for an argument. I am simply telling you the way it is. There's no more reason to argue with it than to argue with the weather. Yes, artists experiment all the time. But the experiments aren't art. They're food for the art. So artists tend not to display them as if they were art.
Technical skills and processes are just tools to be use or not used depending on the specific art endeavor. Think of it like a song in a play. If the play needs to have a song at some point, put in a song. If it doesn't, then leave the songs out of it. (Or dance. Or a speech. Or whatever.) These are the kinds of decisions that AI will not be able to make like a human artist will. AI would have to be directed by a human, or it will just make these choices based on some irrelevant or random algorithm. Yet these choices are essential, because they are what we are "reading" to gain access to the artist's individual nature.
I have no idea where you're getting this from. All Mozart had to do to be an artist was create documents that enable us to experience the world as he did. It doesn't matter what medium the documents are in. He could write plays, novels, choreograph dances, paint or draw or sculpt, or write poems. Or whatever else.
The definition is not vague. It's just not MATERIAL. it's performative.
We don't need to define it. We just need to know it when we encounter it. But it seems a lot of people aren't happy with that. They want it nailed down and boxed up and value labeled and shipped out in advance. COMMODIFIED! But it just doesn't work that way. Art isn't a thing and it's not a commodity. It's an endeavor. We can only know it happened when the endeavor is successful. That's just the way it is. We can't define how or when that will occur. We can only recognize it when it happens. And even then, only if we are prepared, willing, and fortunate.
