Artificial intelligence in the context of art seems to be more and more of a talking point these days.
When I look around our Hive community here, I see more and more people playing around with AI art expressions... like Night Café and Midjourney,
And I see quite a few posts that have been illustrated with AI generated or assisted images.
Some of them are quite beautiful and intricate.
Meanwhile, I was looking fairly randomly for new music on YouTube the other day and came across an entire hour-long playlist of tunes that had been entirely AI generated. I listened for a while, and moved on mostly because they had nothing special to recommend themselves.
Fact remains, however, that they were generated with AI.
Fact remains, however, that AI is just in its infancy and what we might look at is "easily distinguishable" from human created in today's 2023 may (likely will) become quite different and more sophisticated by even 2033.
Which brings me back to art.
To what degree — if any — is the human factor; the human experience; part of this thing we call art? To what degree does it matter how something was created as opposed to merely that it was created and as a result of its creation some sort of response is elicited?
After all, isn't that one of the primary purposes of art? To elicit a response or a feeling in people who are looking at it?
I'm not claiming to have answers here. I'm just adding another speculation to the data stream.
Art takes many forms, of course. Painting a beautiful landscape because you were moved by it when you were sitting in the middle of it is a different experience from painting that landscape from looking at 20 photographs taken by different people of that particular landscape.
Is the "origin story" important?
If we turn to something abstract, or maybe fantastical, we're no longer talking about art was created as a result of direct experience… although it may well have been the result of images that unfolded inside somebody's brain.
In that instance is the origin important?
We could make the argument that art tends to be subjective and AI is not capable of subjectivity… but AI is capable of artificial subjectivity. What I mean by that is you give the AI a set of instructions and it interprets what you are suggesting.
And that's not always going to come out the same.
Is that something worth considering? Is it an important and worthwhile part of the AI debate?
Again, I'm not claiming to have any answers here… I mostly just posing speculation and asking a few questions.
What's more, I expect the possible range of answers will change and evolve as AI changes and evolves. I'm not sure where it'll take us. Will we continue to explore AI at the current rapid pace, or will people suddenly put the brakes on it and decide that we need to know things better before we forge ahead?
Just thinking out loud!
Thanks for stopping by! Feel free to leave a comment, if you feel so inclined!
20230401
H0060/0297
All images are our own, unless otherwise attributed