As a person who's enjoyed making art my whole life, the idea of that being replaced by robots is a scary topic. In my opinion, art is wonderful and is accessible to everyone from all walks of life, young or old. Art also differs to each person who does it. It's like the fingerprint of the soul, if don't mind me being a bit romantic about it. But art is a journey and expresses the feelings and emotions of the artist and since no one's experiences are the same, each person will produce something completely different. It also takes time and energy to create something worthwhile, even failures can take more time than we care to admit to ourselves. Those who see art appreciate this fact and admire the effort; in some cases, this makes the artwork better or even priceless. It's why we have places like the National Gallery, the Tate Modern, the Louvre and many other museums around the world. It's because not many people can do it to such a high level and that's why those who can are praised for doing so. So, what if all that emotion, all that joy, love, passion and anger, all that expression from years of practice and insight could be synthesised and reproduced in less than a minute. Does it make it art? I recently had this issue when using DALL-E OpenAI.
With DALL-E, you are given text bar and that's it. The idea is you will describe in words what you're after and hay-presto, art 🖼 It really is that simple.
Here are my examples down below 👇
Art is wonderfully subjective and about 99% of it as a viewer, is responding to what you see. It's almost literally the definition of, 'judging a book by its cover.' The spare 1% is analysis of who, how and why it was made in the first place.
I look at Ai art and like it because it makes me feel something. I know it was done quickly. I know just one of those pictures would take me days if painted in oils or made digitally. And that's the difference. I can still place value on art. I can admire art by people because of the effort involved, and art by machine, because I admire the effort made by the programmers. If something looks good, it looks good, is generally how I am about things. But whereas art is the fingerprint of the soul for humans, I wonder if that will ever be the case for machines, or will synthesising art be all they can do? This cheapens Ai art for me because I know Ai doesn't care about what it does. To me it makes Ai the psychopath of the art world. Maybe in the future that will change. Will there be Ai art that challenges it internally and really makes it work, ultimately making it as proud as a human of its accomplishments? At the moment, the answer is resounding 'no.' But I do look forward to seeing the day the Ai says, 'I love what I've done and I'm not changing it. This is what I feel!'
Personally, I think it's possible to enjoy both for different reasons, but in my opinion, value comes from the story behind the idea and effort in its creation. To a machine that can make 4 distinct pieces of artwork within 30 seconds, I'm assuming this isn't really pushing it mentally. It's the human equivalent of a toddler separating out 4 shapes into a horizontal line. When the Ai takes days to create a piece of art and is proud of itself at the end, hurt when it's work is criticised, explains its thinking behind its idea, I'll be ready to see Ai art in the Louvre, because that's when Ai art will really be able to complete with humans.
As a little aside, DALL-E 2 is in the works and is showing signs it will blow DALL-E out the water. Here's a short video on DALL-E 2 and where it's at...
Comentarios