Dear Dr. Josep L Rossello

Your question is very beautiful and realistic and we live now, but art remains an important role because all science and everything needs a technical footprint to show it correctly fit with the recipient. Thank you very much my colleague and dear brother.

Best Regards

Dr. Malik N. Hawas

Art means creativity, so there is a difference as I think. Even with machines, one can proves his/ her touches.

Liqaa

Hello,

Essentially, deep learning, as you have rightly observed, has led to creation of technologies which produce what is called machine art. Naturally, if we consider human a machine, the question you have broached up, will be solved and the answer would be yes. However, machines are created and programmed by human beings , and even if they create artistic artifacts ,it is because of the human creator. As such, machines can not create art in the sense that humans do. The creation of art requires emotional depth, aesthetic involvement, and a kind of ingenuity that cannot easily be mustered by a machine.Such criteria tends to leave a wide gap between human art and machine art. However, the justification based on human criteria is not accepted in certain quarters and that is why your question is a controversial question receiving different responses. The article by Coeckelbergh named "Can machines Create Art?" can provide you with more details.

Best regards,

R. Biria

Personal view here: we can consider three different aspects involved in the appreciation of art: aesthetic - ranging from indifference to passion; skilfulness - from ineptitude to mastery; and intervention - from conformity to challenge. Machines will easily excel at skilfulness. However aesthetics and intervention are concepts that evolve and adapt to social and environmental paradigms (economics, justice, education, etc).

Usually the closer an artwork is to a certain reality, the more impact it will potentially cause. I have yet to see an AI capable of such a detailed and sensible analysis, which comes from the human cognitive and sensory experience of everyday life (please consider the human sensorium as the expanded system of over 11 different senses), let alone use it as input for originality in art creation.

Best regards

PAV

Interesting question but if you like music you will easily understand that machines will always be limited: by the algorithms programmed by humans to emulate ther intelligence on the one hand, and by technology itself, on the other. Up to now such programmed 'intellingence' is restricted by deductive patterns. Art involves creativity and it is certainly intuition together with the boldness that triggers human creativity that which makes art progress and be in constant change within a disciplinary framing. Artistical canons set in time are periodically questioned by the next generation; art is about a subtle combination between difference and repetition in a Deleuzian sense.

For instance, a pianola can play any score placed in its roll; however, it is unable to interpret the score in the sense a pianist can 'recreate' the composer's musical score written in a limited language that represents the music but that it is not the music itself. To a much greater extent, a computer can be programmed the rich and complex harmony and counterpoint rules but that alone will not produce a fine artistical musical creation; there is something else, probably the deepest realm of humanity. Read Stranvinsky's Poetics of Music; that may be of help.

What I see is that the general idea is that deep-learning depends on which kind of programming (training) is selected and this seems to be against creativity. Thank you for all your comments.