What do you think about the ability to simulate the creation of art?

i can be quite creative at times, but it does not exactly come easy for me. i would not consider what i do to be art exactly. but i would probably be able to live with calling it ’‘art work’’ and for me, i can always remember the exact procedure i went through to get the result. so i cant really see that art is just something that comes from withing, from ’‘the soul’’ or what not.

im quite sure you could eventually recreate great works of art, with nothing but mathematics and machinery. but i think the question here is, is the machine making art or is the machine simply making things that we would call art. i would be lean towards the idea that art is totally subjective, and that the things that trigger it can be caused by almost any old object.

tempting to wait until this time next year when I’ve completed my philosophy of the midn course…but…

my first question is how do we know what is actually going on in the “neuronal culture” of this detached being? I’m a little bit scared, yet strangely want to read more about this… :-/ If it’s an algorithm, intuitively it is not creativity…

um…..

It’s risky business to define “art” but I can’t see separating the creation of art from consciousness. Beautiful or visually interesting things may arise by unconscious processes, but they don’t qualify as art in my book. Even if one were to develop an electro-mechanical device for making “art”, a certain number of parameters would have to be defined by a conscious being before setting it loose to do its thing, so I would still argue that there’s a human consciousness at the root of it all.

Neuronal activity is necessary for consciousness, but not sufficient.

I guess that depends upon the precise definition of art.

If one posits that “it is a human characteristic to create art” then that would exclude the efforts cited in the article.

But where does something like this fit in?

www.elephantart.com

@Buttonstc That’s amazing
And in regard to the human characteristic, that’s just what part of me thinks. I’m wondering what everyone else thinks about this idea of recreating the art process. Other people might not think it’s a human characteristic. Just wondering.

We have had at least 10,000 years in which to define art, and during the last 200 years or so, we have had an unbroken string of thinkers who have devoted themselves to defining art in a rigorous, scholarly way. There is still plenty of disagreement, but after having thought about this myself quite a bit during 35 years or so of being an art dealer, and having worked at such places as MOMA in NYC, I am not unhappy with the following:

An artist is someone human who feels deeply compelled to create expressive work in some medium or media, and who could not live happily without doing it. Art is what such a person produces. Many people find this definition far too inclusive, because it provides no standard for placing the outcomes in a hierarchy; that is to say, you can’t, using my definition say which work of art is greater than another, but as I have said many times before on Fluther, de gustibus.

So what you are proposing fails to be art by my definition, because it was not created by an artist.

“So I’m just curious what the collective thinks about this idea: scientists trying to come up with a recreation of the creative process via some experimental design, be it robotic, animal, or chemically induced.”

for all their trouble, i believe they will only succeed at creating… art.

@Buttonstc that really is quite amazing..is this real!!?? Elephants…painting?? wtf

Yes, it is absolutely real. They do it to raise funds.

It was more well publicized several years ago. As a matter of fact MTV shot an episode of Road Rules there and the kids participated by helping to set up the easels, load up the paintbrushes, etc. But the elephants did the actual painting and seemed to find it relaxing and enjoyable.

There are also numerous zoos who have incorporated it into their enrichment programs for the animals.

I can’t remember exactly where (might have even been Letterman) where folks had to guess whether various abstract paintings had been done by human or elephant. Needless to say, no one could tell on a consistent basis. They were basically guessing.

Interesting.

very interesting…thanks @Buttonstc x

My definition may have to change the word “human” to “sentient being”.

@PD

I think you have a good point. The interesting thing about animal art is that many of the individual animals involved (whether chimps or elephants) had a distinctive “style” if you will, both in terms of color preferences and types of lines or patterns produced. It wasn’t just random meandering. I don’t know whether this was true for every single animal, but definitely true for many.

I really don’t see too much difference between the abstract art of animals and that of the early experiences of reslly young children whose
fine motor skills have not yet developed and matured. In other areas of intelligence, research has shown that many of the more intelligent animals have levels approximating 3–6 yr old children.

Personally speaking, some of the adult human abstract art that people pay big bucks for is more hype than substance.

Obviously, the artistic skill of a DaVinci, Monet, etc. speaks for itself. But a lot of modern stuff is far more dependent upon artsy fartsy snobbishness and hype as opposed to substance. Particularly in abstract art. Some of the stuff out there is just plain ridiculous both in content (or lack of) and pricing. Hucksterism pure and simple.

I’m sure you must have encountered some of this as someone who deals in art.

Anyhow, that’s just my personal opinion and if vapid rich folks want to flush money down the toilet, who am I to deny them?

:D

Those are matters of taste, and not subject to definition.

…actually as fascinating as it is…elephants should not be used to make money to save themselves…we should use our artistic skills to do it for them and let them get on with what they do best…being animals…free and in the wild… not… painting

I feel like if an elephant really didn’t want to paint he’d knock something over and leave? How are you going to stop an elephant?

I was just thinking the same thing. If they do it, it must be because they feel like it.