Brave new art world
But is it art, or technological prowess?
That depends on the intention of the person/s who initiated the work. If they intended viewed it to regarded as art one can assess it as such and IMHO it’s a dreadful mash-up for visual and theoretical reasons, If it’s a demonstration of the technology, one has to question the rigour of the initial thinking and what did they hope to achieve?
Either way the starting point, ie. criteria for choice of artists is problematic, Why five and why were they chosen? Was Savage chosen for being Black and female: her contribution to C20th art history is essentially a social one, whereas work was very academic and conservative: it’s also at odds with the expressionistic sculpture of Kollwitz, Michelangelo and Rodin?
Countless more possible questions, last but not least -
Why does the figure look like it’s playing with a basketball ?
The definition of what is art does rather seem to be moving into uncharted territory.
This somewhat peculiar pastiche I would hesitate to define. Clearly, it is an intended mash-up of styles created in answer to a machine being input with some basic commands. I’m not sure if the unforeseen result can be called imaginative or intentional design, so maybe not art? Makes a bit of a mockery of craftsmanship or human vision but is an interesting tech exercise all the same.
Exactly what it is meant to portray is anyone’s guess but in that, as an artwork it is not unique.
Funny old world we’re becomming…
True, but the primary question remains a philosophical one based on the intentiality of the creators or instigators of the project ie. what of the various possible category of artefacts did they intend it to be located within. Unless one knows that it’s impossible to have an intelligent discussion of the project’s end product. However, without that knowledge, my gut feeling is that the ‘sculpture’ doesn’t belong in the category of art, but is a pastiche or simulacrum of an artwork - ie. it has some of the latter’s attributes, but lacks one or more of the essential attributes of a work of art.
Obviously all the above must precede any possibility of discussing its quality, or lack thereof.
A “simulacrum”! Excellent word.
I would agree, not really qualifying as art. By popping it into a museum seems there is some intention to open a discussion regarding whether or not such a technical creation is indeed art.
I expect we will be seeing more such creations with AI being kept busy. Perhaps they will be art when human beings first see and say “Ahhhh!” in wonderment.
1 Like
Perhaps they will be art when human beings first see and say “Ahhhh!” in wonderment.
Think we’re a long way from that, but also although I can see where you’re coming from, l think ‘wonderment’ isn’t a sound intellectual basis for whether or not something is ‘art’.
1 Like
Surely that’s craft - the artifact is the focus rather than the intent?
1 Like
I’m afraid to admit that my appreciation for all things art, craft and architecture, is always from appreciation for what, how and why humans have created.
May not be very intellectual but I do enjoy the frisson of wonder.
1 Like
Oh, to be in Paris!
Nice thing about visiting art galleries is that they have no entrance fee, unlike the art museums in Paris.
I’d argue that if the creator’s intentionality is the prime criterion, then the viewer’s sense of wonderment is an aesthetic judgement of quality, not one of category - eg:-
1 Like
I’m starting to see AI as an air gap between creator intent and output, different from simply starting a mechanism doing something and then walking off while it worked.
1 Like
How about this use of AI? If singing can be thought of as an art…
A bit strange, really. Especially if they are going to make a synthetic recreation of a long dead Beatle’s voice singing words he never did.
Not like the beautiful pairing from old footage of Natalie and her wonderful father, the late Nat King Cole
1 Like
His voice is divine. 
1 Like
A bit freakish I agree. But more like this to come possibly…!
1 Like
And they’re off!!
cites this year’s Supreme Court holding in Warhol v Goldsmith, which found that the late artist Andy Warhol infringed on a photographer’s copyright when he created a series of silk screens based on a photograph of the late singer Prince. The court ruled that Warhol did not sufficiently “transform” the underlying photograph so as to avoid copyright infringement.
Pandora’s box unhinged
1 Like
And what of the artists the value of whose work is diluted?
2 Likes
I think everything has well and truly escaped into the ether now. A bit like Rutkowski’s images
Doesn’t answer your question, but I’d prefer to describe him an an ‘illustator’. This adolescent fantasy genre is so derivative, yet so dominant in so many madiums.
OK I admit once you’ve seen one warrior or wizard attacking a dragon you’ve seen most of them - but what of the 2nd most commonly used source, Picasso - I presume you are happy that he, at least, was no mere illustrator?