Well said, Godfrey.
I well remember a heated argument I had with a fellow teacher along
those lines many years ago. He was adamant that photography could never
be art. One could even argue about the type of brush & paint used! And
what if the "artist" had to wear glasses?
Alan C
On 22-Jan-23 04:56 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I dunno. Art remains art. An "AI" is just another constructed thing by which
humans have extended their abilities to influence and manipulate the world we live in. We
already use automatons to assemble our cars, our toys, our cameras, and run a lot of our
essential infrastructure. There's really little difference between what is Art directly
created by human hands and Art that is indirectly created by the minds that humans embue
their machines with.
Until a definitive test of what constitutes machine intelligence exists, and
until machines can reliably and consistently pass that test, any Art is the
result of human artiface and mind regardless of whether it is directly or
indirectly created.
If you want to put a simple limitation on "what is art" to say that it must be made by
human hands, well, that is just fine … but most photographs will then be marginally not-art since
we already rely upon a whole range of machines, of varying levels of "intelligence", to
produce our photographs.
G
—
Godfrey DiGiorgi - [email protected] - 408.431.4601
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus."
--Mark Twain
--
%(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
