Life In 19x19

Re: subjectivity of art evaluation.

I suspect that, as internet users click on pictures or upvote ("like") them, giants of the web are building huge databases and will come up one day with an algorithm modeling human artistic preferences. Then, they will have a way to calculate which piece of art is better than which. With such an evaluation tool, they will be able to produce original art that humans will appreciate. This will certainly take time, but doesn't seem impossible to me.

already happened to music,

but I dont appreciate it.

jlt wrote:Re: subjectivity of art evaluation.

I suspect that, as internet users click on pictures or upvote ("like") them, giants of the web are building huge databases and will come up one day with an algorithm modeling human artistic preferences. Then, they will have a way to calculate which piece of art is better than which. With such an evaluation tool, they will be able to produce original art that humans will appreciate. This will certainly take time, but doesn't seem impossible to me.

Such an algorithm would let you produce art that the masses are likely to appreciate. But there may be eccentric folks out there with unusual tastes. If a piece of art is good or interesting to that 0.1%, it's still good art in my mind.

A lot of people like the Mona Lisa, for example. It's not objectively a good piece of art. It's good for those people that like it.

NN's still fail in some linear calculations that humans find straightforward. Art might give more chances for AI to flop in creating a work both original and good.

NNs (artificial ones) are still in their relative infancy. Research is ongoing.

Is this a "flop"?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

Kirby wrote:Is this a "flop"?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

I would call it broken, myself.

This was more a statement about art that art itself : "Art is what artists do"

The AI painting of this thread is basically an anti-Fountain

John Fairbairn wrote:Seems to me this is one case where AI has not surpassed humans:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45980863

But, if I'm right, why did it flop in art and flip in go?

This AI-generate art is definitely a flip, not a flop, judging by how much it sold for.

Tryss wrote:This was more a statement about art that art itself : "Art is what artists do"

That's a definition you're choosing to use.

You could also say that the fountain was art because it put forth a new idea of beauty.

AI seems capable of doing the same.

From the wiki page:

Stephen Hicks wrote: The artist is a not great creator—Duchamp went shopping at a plumbing store. The artwork is not a special object—it was mass-produced in a factory. The experience of art is not exciting and ennobling—at best it is puzzling and mostly leaves one with a sense of distaste. But over and above that, Duchamp did not select just any ready-made object to display. In selecting the urinal, his message was clear: Art is something you piss on.

I'm not saying I personally agree with Hicks's interpretation of what art is. But that's just the point: it's subjective.

That's a definition you're choosing to use.

You could also say that the fountain was art because it put forth a new idea of beauty.

You could say that, but that was not Duchamp intent with his readymades :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readyma ... el_Duchamp

Tryss wrote:

That's a definition you're choosing to use.

You could also say that the fountain was art because it put forth a new idea of beauty.

You could say that, but that was not Duchamp intent with his readymades :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readyma ... el_Duchamp

He didn't say, "Art is what artists do", either, so I don't see what you're getting at.

Besides, the quote I posted shows a different view of art anyway, which still supports the underlying point that art is subjective.