it's under "Our Vision"
Alright, but that's inconsequential, because the inconsistency is still there:
With the latter, you apparently referred to AI as well.
So it's created by a human. And it's created by a computer. At the same time. That makes it rather ambivalent, and difficult to marry with the staunch positivist views that were put forth before (not by you).
Note that I'm nog arguing whether AI is or isn't photography. If you feel it isn't, fine. If you feel it is, fine. Art - the same thing.
That's not the most fortunate comparison, I think. Maybe if you compare it to Illustrator; that would probably be a better match. Even still, there'll be very significant differences that spoil the broth.
Id like to read more about this famous experiment, but I can’t find it on the internet. Do you have a link I can follow?
De gustibus non est disputandum
There's no accounting for taste.
Apparently line must be drawn somewhere between art and not-art.
Why?
For whom?
Until when?
Good questions.
I don't think it's really necessary to go there, though. To my mind, it would be far more effective and interesting if we tried to come up with a way to use AI to make something meaningful, profound, beautiful, and moving. Of course, this would not really settle the matter of what is or isn't art. But that doesn't really hurt.
To my mind, it would be far more effective and interesting if we tried to come up with a way to use AI to make something meaningful, profound, beautiful, and moving.
I've read many posts here who have defined art exactly in these, or in similar terms, i.e., a creation that is meaningful, and/or profound, and/or beautiful, and/or moving, and/able to stir the soul, etc.—with some holding one term more important than the other.
And I haven't read a single post that proves in a conclusive, definitive manner that this can't be done, or won't one day be done by AI, no matter the degree in which a human hand is behind it. That, to me, settles the OP's question.
As for the "what is art" question, again, yeah, it may be fun to discuss how many angels dance on the tip on a needle, but are we really still there?
As noted somewhere above, this is just the same old tired debate about whether digital is photography. Anybody familiar with the concept of semantic change?
Yes, and I was acknowledging that and that even in the laid back world of sketching there are still purists.
It assumes AI is photography.
It doesn't. It talks about photographic images. Images that are made (by AI) to look like photographs. There is a huge difference.
That implies a camera was used originally.
Two stories are confused here. The one about the synthetic Usenet user Mark V. Shaney and what has become known as the Sokal affair, an intellectual hoax imagined by (real person) Alan Sokal that aimed to criticize the language of, amongst others, Derrida and other deconstructionists.
See here:
And here:
*
Not if you understand "photographic images" as images that look like photographs.
I can do this all night, Alan, but one of us will have to break the loop. If not, either we get too close to the event horizon and get sucked in, or we create a rift in the space-time continuum and everybody gets sucked in.
I was once admonished by a US Federal judge in court when he scolded me, "Mr. Klein, you know words have meanings." He didn't say it in a friendly manner at all.
Trust me - judges get very tired of people who try to render words meaningless
So if your suggestion about the meaning of something wasn't liked, grumpiness is not surprising.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?