Dear Marcel...
A computer cannot create. It reproduces what a human being programs it to do.
Who is the man programming what the computer performs ? Probably a modern informatics artist...
Dear Marcel: computer art is just that. Computer art. It cannot imitate painting or sculpture etc. No big deal. In fact. computer art was the rage some years ago, and people have gone back to doing things with their hards instead of with a computer. Painting is again selling very well, as well as drawing. I remember going some years back to Zaha Hadid's exhibition of architectural drawings at the Guggenheim in New York, and when she recently died most of the kudos went to her extremely beautiful and challenging drawings. Land art can be planned on a computer, but cannot be made real with a computer. The same with performance art, theatre, etc. I believe the premise of your question is far from the reality of art right now. For example, fascinating photographers have become bored with computer photography and have gone back to doing photography as before, just taking advantage of the digital image capture and printing that does away with a traditional chemical darkroom. Photographers have gotten tired of the tricks and fantasies of computer programs for image distortion and reformulation. That now is used almost entirely by advertising.
The fact that it is easier for non-artists to doodle in a computer does not mean that computers are the tool of choice for artists worldwide. I strongly disagree with you. In any case, the fact that computer art exists does not imply that it has no "meaning". It is still done by human intelligence, craft, planning and intent.
Here, a note on Zaha Hadid's drawings. The same can be said about so many artists that still embrace their material craft to make art: https://lebbeuswoods.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/zaha-hadids-drawings-1/
Warm regards, Lilliana
Dear Marcel...
A computer cannot create. It reproduces what a human being programs it to do.
Who is the man programming what the computer performs ? Probably a modern informatics artist...
Fine!
Human is evolving after all.
I have bn exposed to human "art" in the form of paintings, music, etc. - which (for me) had such a poor quality that I wondered if the guys were calling it "art" for sure, or else if that was some kind of fraud or prank! And yet I have heard beautiful machine generated music, and other stuff. I´ve heard about machines posing as psichyatrists, and playing chess "in the style" of the old masters.
Artificial Intelligence is something worthwhile, and it may well be the future of humanity. Tha involves all aspects of intelligence, including arts, laughing and humour. You could even put some "honesty clause" like Asimov´s Three Laws of Robotics, into it.
It looks like man is evolving into something better, after all.
I recommend either reading the book "The bicentennial man" by Isaac Asomov (and) or watching the so-called movie. It speaks something about man-human relationship.
As Maria said, computers do not create, but can be program to appear to create. Art is artful. Computer generated art is artful if deemed so by the observer. Monkey generated art is artful if a human perceives it a such and places a frame about it. Current computers are not as smart as a monkey, but faster and as versatile as its hardware and software can make it.
Two things: First, relating to what our dear friend Maria says, taht is not true. A computer -i.e., software- can create things regardless of the programmer. This is one of the basics in the field, nowadays. Marcel is right in his question.
Second: there is no universal and atemporal defiition of art. Each period has a concrete understanding: the barroque, romanticism, and the like.
Computation is radically changing our world, indeed. There are, out there, around, a number of concepts that tend to help us grasp the new ongoing art, such as: computational art, digital art, et.c
I don't think that any technical invention could replace the human
Not "everything" can be created by computer because creation is coming from the mind of human beings and that is where the art begins.
Thus, the computer provides the symbolic 'brush and paint' used to make the painting using the mind?
These are magnificent.....when they are more than copies....
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=computer+paintings&qpvt=computer+paintings&qpvt=computer+paintings&qpvt=computer+paintings&FORM=IGRE
The art could be also the best manner how we use the computer to do something for human health or other human needs..
Art is human creativity based on his intelligence.
Well friends,
I´ve tried my hands with music to no avail (I am a tenor, used to sing at a coral, now only sing in my bathroom and car) drawing (couldn´t do better than some enhanced copy of examples) Photography (perhaps some 10 good in my whole life, with a digital Nikon, plus some special accessories). Anywa,y I am now trying the "Architecture" of aquarium decoration (to the despondence of my wife, ant the happiness of the kids around) and the speaking of language. I appreciate japanese Koans (but could never write anythiing like that) and love a good book/movie/etc. Ienjoy Baudelaire, Poe, Goethe, Wagner, Gaugin, and so many others. They sure have left us some strong artistic inheritance. But after all, did also some scientists, by their work and discoveries not??
Ars requirit homiem totum, the Art requires the totality of a man, and I sure hope I can live some kind of artistic inheritance to my fellow men, perhaps through the exercise of Medicine and Science. But I sure trust the enhancemente of Logic and Informatics (Is the use of a digital cam, plus computer enhancing of images, consideres some art? And then, what if I just start with one bad photo of my evermoving fish, then apply some color mathematihics through the ius of some image processor, can it be considered Art??)
Actually I think art should be associated with some purpose. But then perhaps it does need some emotional input, or not? Are computers able of that?
The wonderful story I mentioned (The bicentennial man, by Isaac Asimov) tells us of some robot that, by some weird accident, starts by acquiring some "artistic abilities" by carving some wood, and then little by little (he had 200 years of a fast processior "mind" for that!) acquires other "human abilities". He is limited by the Three Laws of Robotics (in that he is, by hs hardware and software, incapable of directly or indirectly harm a human being, and can do material damage only in certain ocasions), so that he could be even considered "more human than men". And yet, you could say that he is exempt, by these very limitations, of the utter capacity of Free Will, as some religious men might define it.
What is Art? What is Humanity, after all?
-- "What is God, that Thou art mindful of him?"
I do think machines and Robots are capable of arts.
Dear Marcel, art is made meaningful when it talks to you in a way the computer cannot. Let me give you an example. The Mona Lisa was drawn by human hands. However, even though a computer can reproduce the same drawing, the mere fact that the Mona Lisa was done by a human being and is regarded as priceless says so much. For your information, Leonardo Da Vinci did not fully complete that drawing. So the computer can be made to create everything but art will never die. That's what makes it so meaningful.
Dear Anna, no body has ever said that a computer can create anything. There is no serious literature about it. That said, the progress in computing sciences is so much steady that computers (i.e., software) have been increasingly creative.
Two tiny examples: the triumph in chess and in go over the best human players nowadays.
The mean subject here is: the top-down versus the bottom approach. Most people just know or are acquainted with the top-down approach.
The computer is a useful crate that can only what people puts into it :-)
to crate an art there is mind of ours. ideas are ours, innovations and creativity are also ours, computer alone can't do any thing. So computer is supplementary mechanism for faster and attractive presentation.
Dear Marcel, why do you like these images you posted for us? They are certainly not original, and are more like illustrations for books or advertisement. These images are limited to what the imaging program can do! And I do not consider them "great".
But there are real computer geniuses. Three years ago I spent an afternoon and evening with Dr. Mark Burry, the British architect in charge of making the mathematic calculations, 3D renderings and models for building the casts for the ceiling ornaments for Antoni Gaudí's Sagrada Familia in Barcelona. Gaudí's drawings were so complex to understand (remind me of Zaha Hadid's drawings...) that it was becoming impossible to cast in concrete in the actual cathedral. Burry managed to create a program for imaging these ornamental elements, and that would "sculpt" the casts for pouring in the concert to precision. He showed me the whole process in his computer and we had a great diner afterwards. My students were delighted to meet this extraordinary inventor of the algorithms that would eventually allow contractors to actually build the complex ceiling ornaments. Burry used his computer imaging knowledge to aid in visualizing what Gaudí had meant in his drawings. When that came through, the work could continue. Burry invented programs to make 3D renderings of Gaudí, he did not alter Gaudí's design, but rather interpreted it just to make sure that, once in place, the ornaments would not crumble but would still follow Gaudí's art and style, mathematics and aesthetics.
Below is a photo of Mark Burry and a photo of the type of ornament that would not had been done if Burry had not developed the tools for 3D rendering.
I do love computers. They are indispensable. Bur art is something else where computers can contribute their part. :-)
Warm regards, Lilliana
Meaning of art will never change even if you find a super super computer. And by the way computer is just a tool it is programmed to do whatever you as an artist or a scientist will ask it to do for you. I hope this gives you the answer !
How people admire computer art should be studied without telling them who created it.
art is creavity of mind in form of drawing, music, inventions, etc but computer can juss copy that creavity only.
I would not know what to answer to your question without being in danger of only wishfull thinking. With the advance of artificial intelligence it is only a matter of time until computers will be able to overtake humans in almost every domain. About art, I would not know, i believe though there is still a chance for us as a species. Do computers dream? Do they imagine? Do they have hopes? We should not wait until reality will contradict our idea of computers as mere tools. Sometimes art is only about the technology employed in doing something, so the medium is, at least sometimes, the message. As such computer art is at the same time a discourse about art as well as about computers: meta-art and meta-technology. That stays true until the computer doing art becomes self-aware. But art could not be named as such until it reaches its public. So, until computer art made by self aware computers will not be adressed to a public made from self-aware computers, or until we, as humans, will not grant higher value to art made by such type of creators, we are safe and art is, too.
Dear Ashkan,
It all depends on the non-automatized interactions between the computer program and the user of that program? You can use a computer tool to simulate a brush and paint and apply the computer-simulated brush and paint to put Something on the screen. So in this case the computer program becomes a tool to create in the absence of the person that made the program (cf. in the absence of the people that fabricated the brush and the paint artists will use the brush and the paint to produce a painting)?
Is it how you have the tool in the creating hand that makes the difference?
Dear Lilliana: Dear Marcel, why do you like these images you posted
I just sent you some examples of which some I like 'more' than others based on shape, color and complexity. Do you think that painters can copy any computer painting or will computers be able to exceed the physical complexity of paintings that painters will not be able to copy?
Whatever the tools they use? There was a time that the 'brush' became the symbolic computer? When was the brush invented for painting?
Computer is just a modern tool in a hand of artist. If two persons use the computer to design some artistic work, I'm sure we will have tow different results, because it depends on the artist not only on the computer facilities.
Let's assume that an artist can only use stored/memorized information to recombine it in Something new that can be named art. Given that the stored/memorized information of a poweful computer substantially exceeds that of an artist, and given that computers can combine stored information into Something new, perhaps a computer can create Something surprisingly new also called art?
Here we must assume that it is the end-result and the perception of the end-result that defines Something as art or not, not the mental state or the process underlying the end-result?
Hello,
I have the same opinion with the previous RG colleagues.
Computer is just a machine (tool) and its creativity on art is in limited due to the installed programs and memory.
Computer has no heart, brain, eyes and mind as the human artists.
As a consequence, the computer has no feeling on the art (view) l. So, it cannot create the marvelous art like the human artists.
Regards,
Dear Aung,
But then you assume that the inaccessible mental state of the Creator will determine what art is, which makes that a creation can not be defined as art by the perceivers of the creation because the perceivers of the creation do not have access to the mental state of the Creator?
Thus, accessible art is reflected in the perceivers, not the creators?
Too many assumptions, dear Marcel. In art, intent is so important...
Best regards, Lilliana
More arguments, please.... 'Intent' from what perspective?
Art does not require explanatory mechanisms? It is as it is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_painting
Bonjour Lambrechts,
I just want to mention about the feeling of artists during their inspiration on the art.
Merci.
Marcel, intent from the perspective of will, of wanting to do something on purpose, of having something to express. Even the surrealist "objet trouvé" is the object of will and intent. If a computer would "create" something, it would take human intellection to find it —as Breton found an "objet trouvé" to declare it art, of identify it and classify it as art. Nature "does" these things by itself, but whatever is "done" requires this human "finding". During the 17th and 18th centuries, people fell in love with landscape stones which were stones on whose surfaces one could see an image similar to a landscape. These were probably the first recorded "objets trouvés". They were used as curiosities, collected and exhibited on beautiful shelves. Most shell collections, specially those of Albertus Seba, were considered "natural art". After all, Nature is the best spontaneous "artist", much more creative and exhaustive than a computer. But nature has no will, its workings are "accidental", haphazard, even though usually splendid.
As I say, too many assumptions, Marcel, and I do not see where you are going with this, or if you are going anywhere. I enjoy this, though, but it seems to me argument for argument's sake. If everything is everything, there is no need for further argument. As you know, all categories exist because they are useful for making distinctions. When the possibility of making distinctions collapses, we just grab our backpack and go to the beach and forget about distinctions.
Warm regards, as always, Lilliana
Thus art reflect feelings not necessarily accessible to the perceivers and therefore not accessible to the scientific approach....
Crossing fingers the 'artist' did not only have financial benefits in mind!
Cheers
Yes, Marcel, though "reflect" is not quite the verb to use. One thing I like about art is that it can be infinitely interpreted, it produces what Charles Peirce calls "infinite semiosis". Art never stops talking. An art work will never shut up.
Good to be talking with you! :-)
Warm regards, Lilliana
Marcel, maybe you should look up those beautiful landscape stones. I discovered them in an article by Jurgis Baltrisaitis some years ago in a book is titled Aberrations. Lovely book. Let me see if I can find some for you on the web.
Lilliana
Here is one, Marcel, but this is not the type I am looking for. I will keep searching.
:-)
Lilliana
Computer art and science
Does star dust influence climate and climate change?
http://www.msn.com/fr-fr/actualite/technologie-et-sciences/climat-des-feux-dartifice-stellaires-il-y-a-quelques-millions-laurait-influenc%c3%a9/ar-BBrvx0c?ocid=spartandhp
Are the images of the Painting Fool exhibited in galleries because they are art of just because they are done by a computer and, therefore, they are mere curiosities, Marcel?
Warm regards, Lilliana
Dear Lilliana,
Up to you to decide because we do not have true access to the mental states of the creators... I presume they were done by people using a computer as a tool, not by the computer per se without the intervention of the people
Well, dear Markovic, cultural speaking the relation is as follows: the computer is the canvas and brushes of the contemporary artist. The difference, though, is that a computer is a conceptual tool, namely: it has memory, t has a syntax, it learns, and it develops on its own new programs. Big difference with sheer tools, period. Tools just like canvas, brushes, and the like.
But, hey! i would never say no to a brush that wants to be used with excellent possibilities. Any brush may give its best if well used with talent and intelligence. After all, we created that brush, I mean, that computer.
But it bears remembering that more and more artists are abandoning the computer and going back to the material and hands-on construction of their artworks.
And, Marcel, maybe we should go back to Walter Benjamin's idea of "aura" implicit in every individual artwork... Will the work of a computer have an "aura"? Hmmmm.
Best regards to all, Lilliana
Dear Ashkan, I would not draw a line between art and science. It is precisely this hard division which has fueled a preference of science over art, while both are absolutely and equally important for humanity. There is science in art, and there is art in science, and that is very easy to see. For example, Leonardo da Vinci was a great scientist of art: he discovered the patterns of waves, twirls and eddies, and cloud patters before a storm just by trying to improve his representation of clouds in his paintings. His findings have proven to be essential in meteorology right now, and he has been praised recently by atmosphere scientists in the United States because of his discovery. I had the chance to see the extraordinary exhibition Leonardo e le machine in Florence in 2006. Most of his machines were inspired in his observations of nature, and he also used them —especially the bit and the torque— to paint the hair of young men and women, and to render the atmosphere in his paintings. Thanks to the anatomical research of Leonardo, Michelangelo, Albinus and others, we started to understand human body movements and poses in relation with the frame of the human body. The influence of Leonardo's anatomical drawings and research has impacted many branches of medicine.
The discoveries of optical science and the anatomy of the human eye had a strong impact on impressionist painting, and the artists themselves acknowledged this in they theoretical essays. Thanks to the proposals of amateur meteorologist Luke Howard in the early 19th century could Turner have a more purposeful approach to clouds in his awesome landscape works. Zaha Hadid's drawings altered the way we think architecture.
I believe we should look more into the rich and plural links between science and art. We will me missing a lot if we do not abolish that artificial barrier.
Best regards to all, Lilliana
Would you allow me, dear Liliana one small remark? W. Benjamin, as great as e is, never knew, not even closer, the realm of computers. His philosophy of art and aesthetics is just classical - pre-artificial intelligence and pre-artificial life.
Ooops, dear Ashkan: that is exactly the invitation from Marcel. In other words, can we nowadays safely trace a clear line that splits science from art? I would not say so...
Absolutely dear Marcel! The very hard-core of science does not consist in observation, description, and the like. On the contrary, the real engine of science consists in thought experiments. Science without imagination is simply impossible. A rather vast amount of bibliography about the importance of imagination in science is available al around. I know you know it.
Dear Napoleon and friends, what human beings usually consider as intelligence is, computationally speaking, just algorithmic complexity. (Therefore, not si much a high intelligence, isn't it?).
Life, very much as creativity does not follow algorithms, Quite con the contrary!
Dear Marcel,
What is the meaning of art when a computer can create everything?''
When the photographic technology was invented it had replaced a good chunk of the painter's business to photographers. But not all of it and very soon the painters invented new non-realist painting styles (impresssionist, cubists, etc) which could not be challenged by photographers although with the new computer graphic, the digital arts can also moved onto the non-realist landscape. But there is no replacement of arts by machines but simply new art mediums for the expression of artists. There is no art without a medium and an artist and an audience. Computer can enter many medium and be used by artists but on their own they create nothing. They are tools. Reproduction is not art. Photography can be an art if the viewpoint and the exposition, etc are artistically chosen. But a street surveyance cameras is not creating visual art.
that painting may have a surface "resemblance" to Rembrandt but it has no soul, no life, not even the sense of joy in a badly painted work by an amateur. the supposition that computers can make art is wrong. that is the proof.
Dear Carlos Eduardo, neither did Marco Polo, Gutenberg, Leonardo, Galileo, Descartes, Bacon, Tiepolo, Newton, Einstein know or use computers. They were so incredibly brilliant that they did everything with their own minds and their own hands. Compared to our past, computers have been around only for a few years and the first years they were devoted mainly to mathematical calculations. So most of the culture of humanity has developed without computers, thanks to all those geniuses who came before. Computers are a great thing for many reasons, mainly because they have brought us closer together than ever as planetary beings, etc. Walter Benjamin came before computers. So, what? Will art no longer be the production of an individual being —either a person, or a collective working together? Maybe you can read more on the importance of Benjamin for the present generation of professionals of all kinds.
Time would be empty without the accumulative history of mankind, of its agreements and disagreements. As is often said, we sit on the shoulders of giants with the hope of someday becoming giants ourselves so that those who come after will have some place to sit and look forward. Maybe you know a lot about computers. What do you know about computers and contemporary art? Most contemporary art is not computer art. Shut down your computer, look out a window, open the door and go to a gallery or a contemporary art museum. You will be surprised.
Best regards, Lilliana
Thanks! Computer art is obviously not only exposed on a computer screen and can be exposed in (art) museums. You will be surprised?
I have it clear now. I am a defender of computation as a cultural device that, yes, does infringe on art and aesthetics, computation that has given rise t both artificial intelligence and artificial life. My dear colleagues stand on the other side. A river is crossing between us. No problem with that.
Please allow me a wonderful remark: there have been arguments here. And no down-votes. Congratulations for this to everyone! Truly...
Is the following computer art or computer science or what else?
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35996813
It must be imagination that contributes to thinking that contributes to.... and it therefore always will start with an art before it becomes a science?
Oh, that's quite a different subject, dear Marcel: does art come first in history or society, or vice versa? To begin with it all depends on what "science" means exactly in that new context. Anthropologically one could say: story-telling was in the caverns a form of explaining things and understanding them - all of us, then, sitting around a fire. Then someone started painting things on the walls...
Dear Marcel, most of the art works in view at contemporary art museums are not computer art. Sounds like a surprise for many. People should go to see art more often instead of deliberating on something they have not seen.
Best regards, Lilliana
I must say something about the way you try to extend the life of this question. You made a general question and constantly bring in specific examples that are never enough to base a general answer to your general question. Examples are just that. That is why I try touring in a string of examples as I have seen that definitions here are not important. It is evident that the participants in this discussion do not share a definition or "art" and therefore everyone is answering from a different perspective. In fact, you drafted a question which already has its own answer by the way you affirm that computers "can do anything anyway". What is the point, then, if you have already answered your own question and insist on your answer with haphazard examples? I am a fan of yours, Marcel, but this question has been answered many times and you just do not agree with the answers if they are different from your own.
Warm regards, Lilliana
With all these 2D and 3D printers, would people be able to discriminate between computer art versus hand-made art in a contemporary art museum?
Dear Carlos Eduardo, I think nothing of you. I just observe that it is hard to discuss something about which you evidently know little. Enthusiasm and knowledge are quite different things. And ignorance usually brings with it the temptation to demean the opponent's position. For example, you laugh at aesthetics. Thus I can perfectly see that you know barely nothing about aesthetics. If you want to discuss computer art, it is not enough to know about computers. Trying to say that computers can make art without knowing what art is sounds a little weird to me.
Best regards, Lilliana
Yes, Carlos Eduardo, you made me smile. Friendly threats are always a gem. :-)
Best regards, Lilliana
Marcel,
''With all these 2D and 3D printers, would people be able to discriminate between computer art versus hand-made art in a contemporary art museum?''
Why are you impressed by reproductive technologies. Hundred of years ago there were already artists very good at imitating other artists and selling copies for the original. I am sure that the art experts that have developed skills to differentiate originals from fakes would easily distinguish a 3D printers copies from originals. But the skill at copying has never been considered as great art. If I go on the web and copy paste someone else opinion and pretend that it is mine and you do not notice it. Would copy pasting and being a crook make me a bright and creating person? School usually expulse such creating crook.
Louis,
the first step in any Learning process is copying/replicating existing knowledge.
Without this behavior, people would never reach consensus, right?
Dear Marcel, for a long time now schooling does not foster copying. There is a huge difference between copying existing knowledge and learning to understand and interpret existing knowledge so the student may develop his or her critical capacity. That is why education has changed so much. We no longer force students to repeat or copy, but to think. Not even in art clases students copy. They usually draw from a live model or from a tridimensional objet. The students can decide their point of view and the manner of drawing. We educate to create people capable of independent thought ,creativity and problem solving, which have nothing to do with repeating or copying. Maybe you had the tragedy to study with the wrong teachers, and that makes me very sad.
Besides, why would we want to reach consensus? I really do not understand the idea of consensus here. To reach consensus by copying would be a disservice to education and to the advancement of human intelligence in general.
Warm regards, Lilliana
I am not too much religious, or metaphhysical at that.
Remembering that (not so long ago) past: "what my slave does is mine"...
Or perhaps if I give some different inks and painting instruments to my kid, to an ape or to my dog, I will be able of creating art, after all...
Come to think of it, I don´think art is something exclusively human, "super-mannerly" or "charachteristically humane".
It is simply the expression of love (or passion, or even hate) of someone/something towards which the creator he/she feels. It may be, or it may be not, appreciated by others. It may not even be understoood.
Perhaps the day some robot or machine (see Asimov's "The Bicentennial Man", or HAL in Arthur C Clarke´s "2001") is able to do something artfully, or to exercise free will and decision, even though it/he/she was designet to do so) -- then a new Man / Superhuman will have been created.
Don´t tell me that robots aren´t unable to reproduce, ther´s always the possibility of assembling / reassembling a machine.
Someone tells you it has already happened? Well I wouldn´t be too surprised to know. Naive Science-Fiction? I don´t believe it so.
Are these science, art or computer art??
https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2016/01/21/snapshots-of-life-from-arabidopsis-to-zinc/
https://directorsblog.nih.gov/tag/snapshots-of-life/
https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2016/02/11/snapshots-of-life-stronger-than-it-looks/
https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2016/02/25/snapshots-of-life-green-eggs-and-heart-valves/
https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2015/12/17/snapshots-of-life-bring-on-the-confetti/
https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2015/06/18/snapshots-of-life-the-biological-basis-of-hearing/
https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2015/07/16/snapshots-of-life-a-colorful-look-inside-the-retina/
https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2014/07/10/snapshots-of-life-portrait-of-skin-cancer/
https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2014/11/13/snapshots-of-life-the-hard-working-hepatocyte/
The definition of the Art is more deeper than the creativity of the modern computer.
Is a magnificent computer-made snapshot/image from phenomenon X not more than a copy of magnificent phenomenon X? To what part does the 'art' belong? The creation or the copy of the creation? E. g. Is art reflected in the decision when to take a snapshot/image from phenomenon X ?
Example?
You can take 1000 photos from the same phenomenon X, but only one might be the most outstanding, in that case called an example of art?
Marcel,
It is why photography can be an art. The camera is not artistic; only the photographer can be artistic. It is a quality of a human and not of an object. What exactly is this quality is a difficult question but it is clear to everyone that objects or machines are not artistic. We may debate if some animal can be artistic; I personnally think so. But there is no debate if a machine or object can be artistic. That much we know.
Art by computer is a DROP of water where as actual ART is FULL GLASS of water.
Dear Marcel,
Do not be afraid the computer is nothing compared to creative human mind. The computer cannot create only ape and imitate because a computer has no feelings and feeling controlled ideas. Fortunately.
Dear Marcel,
I think computers are not sufficiently fit for making artworks. What they lack is the uncertain, illogical human factor.
The uncertain, illogical behaviour of the computer can be programmed in a way that the computer program writers will not be able to predict the outcome?
Dear Marcel,
Can a computer imitate the caprice of an instable but beautiful woman you love?
How can you imitate the caprice when you do not understand the mechanisms causing the caprice dynamics, and even if you know the mechanisms of caprice dynamics can you predict it (when, where, and how)?
Anyway, the outcome might be beautiful and unexpected at the same time!?
The meaning of creation may be misunderstood. Aa computer needs an imput of previous knowledge by a human to produce a new thing.
The meaning of the Art is defined by the Heart of Human Artist.
The computer cannot create the Real Art due to lack of feeling of Art.
The computer cannot create the meaning of the Art.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Computer Engineering
- Computer