Art vs. Science

[mrlich]

I'm no scientist. Not in any real sense of the word. I am, however, not completely ignorant either. I listen to reason (most of the time).

Thus we come to the crux of a conflict that I've been waging in my daydreaming moments. I thought that I would open those thoughts to you, oh Great and Powerful Intarwebs, and seek your thoughts on the subject.

I've encountered a number of different articles over the years about different ways in which technology is replacing humans in the world of art. While this has been happening all over the world in a number of different industries, the world of art seems somehow different to me. Sure - robots can do dangerous jobs on an assembly line. Sure - they can provide recon on the battlefield. But I've worked on assembly lines. You don't need anything more creative or intellectual than a robot. I'm thankful that I've never had to step foot on a battlefield, but I understand the value of technology there.

When technology replaces us in the world of art? That's where I start to get really twitchy. People are creating robots that create 'graffiti'. Other robots are going to conduct a symphony.

I guess when it comes down to it, there's something in me that feels it's alright when an artist uses technology to create art, but a very large part of me feels like it's very not ok when technology 'creates' something and we allow it to be called art.

I know. I'm being a purist. I know that humans created the technology, so it could be argued that the final art is indirectly created by the real artist - the creator of the robot. It feels like watering down. It feels like the dissolution of what makes humanity something more than all the other creatures on the planet. It feels like we're willingly saying that there's no such thing as creativity.

And suddenly I feel like I know how those who are devoutly religious feel when confronted with the concept of Faith vs. Science.

I would really like to get some feedback here folks. How do you feel about this?

Comments

[xtingu]

I think people want to feel relevant and necessary. When I heard that one of the things I love to do (conducting) is being done by a robot, I felt... threatened(?) (though that doesn't seem to be the entirely correct word, here). Granted, I can't imagine a robot ever truly replacing Seiji Ozawa (meaning, I don't think people are taking robot conductors as anything more than a novelty), or ever being able to recapture what Arturo Toscanini or Leonard Bernstein could do when they were alive.

I'm willing to bet many players in the Detroit Symphony Orchestra are insulted to be led by a robot and see this is as little more than the media stunt it is. Especially in a city where the auto workers have been replaced by robots, it seems particularly offensive.

One of the conductor's main jobs is to pull the "emotion" out of the musicians for the audience to feel. And all conductors universally bitch that the musicians beneath their baton don't watch them enough. Do you really think a human is going to watch a robot to get the emotional prodding and fire they need to play the hell out of a piece? How can a robot possibly discern what a piece needs do be transformed from "the right notes at the right time" to magical, transcendent music? It can't. It can only do what it's programmed to do, which means that it'll be conducting according to how a programmer wishes he or she could conduct the piece.

But there is something creepy about it.

[mrlich.livejournal.com]

Yeah - there is definitely something creepy about it. I think that the element of emotion is what makes it creepy. As you point out - art (in all forms really) is about emotion. Having something which does not have any level of emotions create something that we define heavilly through emotions seems... well... counterintuitive.

Of course, like you said - in the end? This particular instance is really just a publicity stunt.

[mrlich.livejournal.com]

"There are a lot of people who see beauty in wires and circuitry."

In this group of friends, it's a safe bet to say that there are few (possibly none) who don't see that beauty. ;)

I don't fear for 'real artists' much right now. What I fear is a more gradual thing a 'chipping away' if you will of how we value artistic creation.

[mrlich.livejournal.com]

"Even if a piece of art created by a simple robot becomes world famous, I think it would be considered more of a curiosity than a masterpiece."

Exactly. It's when we keep calling that curiosity a piece of art that I start to work.

[mrlich.livejournal.com]

I do love robotics, and my grief isn't really with robots. Hell - I'd love to know how I could take that class! :)

well, if we're really going to talk about this...

[glaucon.livejournal.com]

define "art".

for starters.

Re: well, if we're really going to talk about this...

[ms-violet.livejournal.com]

I would say that art is the means by which we attempt to quantify or demonstrate our emotional states. I think if you create art, whether it's a mural, a ceramic ashtray shaped like a leaf or a piano concerto, you've got two emotional events going on: one being the emotional event of the creator saying "this is how I feel and I want to show you, using this particular craft/skill set I have," and the second one being "I have an emotional need that needs filling, I am going to go listen to a piano concerto/look at a mural/give this ashtray shaped like a beautiful leaf to my son so maybe he will feel guilty and quit smoking." and you come away feeling differently; hopefully better.

if we assume that robots have no emotional states (and, if you built the robot correctly, then it doesn't) then even if they learn how to move a baton in such a way that an orchestra can follow its guidance to play a piece of music (I feel really, really bad for the musicians in the Detroit Symphony Orchestra right now), the robot, as Matt said, is just demonstrating something it was programmed to do: the actual conductor is the person who programmed the robot. Likewise for ceramic ashtray and mural.

if the woman said to a robut, "Robot, please make something using ceramics that will convince my son to quit smoking," and the robot made a beautiful leaf ashtray without being told that smoking is harmful to plans and animals as is tar and burning things and putting a lit cigarette on something resembling a beautiful leaf has an irony present in it that might make the user feel differently about what they're doing to their lungs, you might have a case for "robots can create art." But I think you could still argue that the robot had a lot of data to analyze and draw a logical conclusion.

nope, sorry, not art.

There have been attempts to write programs that will write film screenplays and fortunately they just haven't gone very far. If I have to go disappear for a while, don't look for me, it's probably because I either killed a computer programmer, or I finally figured out my Javascript code for episodes of Law and Order (I swear those are written in javascript).

Re: well, if we're really going to talk about this...

[mrlich.livejournal.com]

I think that ms_violet has something pretty solid there. Art is an emotional thing and folks are pointing to what robots are doing and calling it art. It will only take so long until we've done that enough that people will begin to forget what 'real' art is.

It feels like there's a change coming. A 'watering down' of our concept of high art. I am no one in the history of things - no one of consequence (especially in the world of art). Still, I feel a deep attachment to what I believe art to be and I am therefor solidly offended by the concept of an emotionless being 'creating' something that the non-intellectual masses will gladly call art until that's the definition.

Re: well, if we're really going to talk about this...

[glaucon.livejournal.com]

I think that ms_violet has something pretty solid there. Art is an emotional thing and folks are pointing to what robots are doing and calling it art. It will only take so long until we've done that enough that people will begin to forget what 'real' art is.

but what is "real" art?
what traits does "real" art have that distinguish it from...fake (?) art?

I think using the words "real" and "fake" in reference to art is a dangerous proposition. the whole point of art is mimesis, right? that it is a depiction or reflection of reality. if the art becomes the real thing itself, then what is it reflecting?

if anything, calling some art "real" only lends strength to the defining of robot art as art because it's engaging in mimesis of the real object that is "real" art. that is, if the shadow becomes the substance, then it needs a new shadow.

A 'watering down' of our concept of high art.

and what is high art as opposed to...non-high art? when I raised this subject on friday with my beer and nachos crowd of armchair intellectuals, we immediately got into an elaborate discussion of defining the difference between art and craft or high art vs. low art. an interesting point that was raised, and I didn't entirely agree but I think there's something to it at least, is that the difference can in large part be traced to privilege and that the construct of "high art" is inherently gendered and classed.

furniture making (until the mid-20th century) was something practiced by the working class and thus it's a craft. knitting and sewing - practiced by women and thus a craft rather than high art. commercial art - usually created in exchange for food thus not "real".

is high art dying or being watered down then? well, maybe but then again, maybe this is a good thing. nowadays, anyone with a cheapo digital camera and a copy of Photoshop is a photographer. does this devalue professional "art" photographers? maybe, but it also turns everyone into an artist (albeit often not a very good one). what's the goal? consolidation of art in the hands of a few? or art for the masses? I lean toward the former personally, but I also have no problem with the fact that I'll probably be killed in the second or third set of purges once the Revolution comes. and the same goes for high art.

Re: well, if we're really going to talk about this...

[mrlich.livejournal.com]

"but what is "real" art?
what traits does "real" art have that distinguish it from...fake (?) art?"

Here's my definition in a very simple phrase: Something created with emotion, to convey an experience or emotion for someone (or a group of someones) to have an emotional response to.

A note: In my mind, it's less important that the audience have an emotional response to the piece of art than it is that the artist intends for them to.

"mimesis"
Good word. I would say that mimesis is a good word for art, but it can be (imho) misleading. If we use this as the definition of art, then a photocopier is an artist. Add to this my own definition from above, and we find that the same copier can't be an artist because it feels no emotion. So (again - mho here) mimesis is good for starting the definition, but it doesn't quite cover it.

"he difference can in large part be traced to privilege and that the construct of "high art" is inherently gendered and classed"

Hmmm... interesting direction. I would say that I would agree that high art is inherently classed, and maybe even a little gendered, though possibly not for the reasons that you guys/gals were thinking.

If we were to travel back in time and visit your furniture maker, we would find them working in their shop. When they made a piece of furniture, it was for their livelihood. It was to put food on the table. I'm not saying that what they did wasn't art - on the contrary - the best of them almost certainly produced art regularly (whether or not it was called art by others). That is that they took a great deal of pride (emotion) in their work, they created it for someone to have an experience, and hopefully, that person was pleased with the result (emotional response) enough to pay for the piece.

Continuing with this concept, we find that people who could dedicate time to what has commonly been called 'high art' would have to do so exclusively. That is that they would have to have some kind of financial backer to keep them under a solid roof and food in their belly. More often than not, this would have been found in high brow circles where they would have the money to spend on non-necessities like 'art'. What's more, the furniture maker who really crosses over into the world of 'artist' would likely be able to charge more (high society) for their work. You won't find (many) simple four legged stools in an ART museum. Beautifully crafted furniture created with care and skill - that you will.

I'm not sure exactly why the gender barrier might have been their, but it was. Perhaps it was some form of social faux pas for women to be artists. I seem to remember something about that in a recent exhibit in the Delaware Art Museum (http://www.delart.org/). If memory serves, they talked about how women artists produced all these beautiful works which, in turn, were called 'crafts' because they came from a woman. Dumb? Yes. Reality? Also yes.

Over time, this concept of 'high art' is becoming less and less that of the financially (and/or socially) elite do to this 'watering down' that I mentioned. Your 'anybody' with a camera and photoshop is becoming a photographer.

While I like the concept of 'art for and/or by the masses', I'm afraid that's where it ends for me. I really just want the artist to give a shit about the art, and that is becoming less and less common. It seems a facet of the photographer with a cheap digital camera, no processing fees, and a pirated copy of photoshop uploading a thousand pictures of their navel lint in the hopes that someone might like one of them.

Infinite number of monkey and typewriters...

There's more, but I'm feeling like I'm already kinda 'ranty', so I'll save it for later. :)

Re: well, if we're really going to talk about this...

[glaucon.livejournal.com]

I would say that art is the means by which we attempt to quantify or demonstrate our emotional states.

I don't buy this definition.

it might describe some art, but it describes a lot of other things too. is conversation art? is an email? a livejournal post? beating your child? a therapy session? a walk in the park? a blow job?

and it kinda epitomizes the intentional fallacy in that it suggests that an art object only has standing as an art object if one knows the mind of the creator - at least, enough of the mind of the creator to know that it was the result of an emotional state rather than an intellectual exercise or a game or just 'cuz it seemed kinda pretty.

I think art can be very useful in therapy and can be very therapeutic, but stretching that utility to an actual definition seems...insufficiently complex, I guess.

Re: well, if we're really going to talk about this...

[mrlich.livejournal.com]

"an intellectual exercise or a game or just 'cuz it seemed kinda pretty"

See, I think that those sound like emotional things. Maybe not "Holy crap I'm going to change the world~" kinds of things, but emotional on some significant level.

Re: well, if we're really going to talk about this...

[glaucon.livejournal.com]

hey linds - see my other posts in this thread for more annoying contributions to this discussion.

[roughhouser.livejournal.com]

I agree with the voices saying that robots are not going to replace artists anytime soon. They can be programmed to do the technical parts, sure, but can you tell a robot, "Your symphony seems a little anemic in the second movement - can you give us a little more thunder, and then follow it with a bit more sorrow?" You'll blow the goddamned thing's motherboard. It's still a morbidly interesting thing to watch unfold in the world.

It brings to mind a scene from I, Robot where Will Smith is interrogating/harassing a robot suspect. He's very down on robots in general, and he says, "Can a robot create a work of art on canvas? Can a robot write a beautiful symphony?"

The robot simply replies, "Can you?"

[mrlich.livejournal.com]

I was actually thinking about iRobot when I created the initial post. They make a point of having the robot draw a rather beautiful scene. I found myself thinking "Wow. That's pretty kewl." But that's just it - that robot (in theory) understood emotions. The point that they're trying to make (imho) is that's the reason that robot is able to create art.

I don't buy it.

If that robot had experienced that image before (in the movie it's through a dream, though the origin is unimportant) it could 'reproduce' that image through standard means.

Is it art when someone creates a photorealistic image of something they saw?

If the creation of the image lacks emotion? I don't think so. At least not with my understanding of art.

[burningkirby.livejournal.com]

As mentioned earlier, what is "art"? Is this art? It was created by a turtle. There was no purpose to what he did - just wandering around on some canvas. It's indistinguishable from anything a person could create (like this). Is one art because it was painted by a person with a purpose to what he was doing? The second "means" something to the artist but the first is random. Does it matter if the result is the same? I would argue that it doesn't. Both provoke a response by the viewer (contemplation, emotion).

What if a robot painted either one - is it no longer art? Again, if the end result is the same, does it matter? Does art need to be created with emotion or merely provoke it?

[burningkirby.livejournal.com]

My hands are faster than my brain. Last sentence should be "Does art need to be created with purpose or merely provoke a response?"

Please forgive me, it's Friday.

[mrlich.livejournal.com]

No need to forgive. I do that all the time - Sunday through Saturday.

I have to disagree though. I think that (as ms_violet points out below) art is a two-fold process.

1. Artist creates something with an emotional tie to it - generally to try to portray some of that emotion.
2. The audience experiences the artwork and has some form of an emotional response.

While it's (obviously) not vital that the audience have the same emotional response as the artist intended, it does seem important (to me at least) that both aspects are part of the process.

[ms-violet.livejournal.com]

Getting back to your final statement, this is how people who are devoutly religious feel when confronted with the concept of faith vs. science; yes, I understand how you feel. I think i do.

Ok. analogy: robot conducting symphony is to 12-year-old learning Darwin's theory of evolution in science class as technology "creating" art is to the science to explain what some people think faith should. is that the analogy we're making here?

Ok, a robot conducting a symphony is sort of sad. it makes real classical music fans and musicians say "aw, look, you took all the fun out of it." and maybe a devout Christian, confronted by the possibility of a mom telling her kids where babies really come from, might feel as though Mom "took all the fun out of it" by not saying, "If God loves and trusts a man and a woman who are married and live according to God's laws well enough, then he gives them a baby." They might feel as though that is a sincere miracle just like you and I think it's a sincere miracle that someone can take ground up plants and bones and rocks, grind them up with water and oils and smear them on a flat surface in such a way that it creates a false impression of light and shadow that makes someone look at it and add their own joy or sorrow and say, "I remember what my life was like when it was good and now I know how to make it good again."

The difference is, Honda making a robot for the DSO to use in a parlor trick is a cute way to get people who otherwise might not buy a Honda or subscribe to the DSO to change their mind. you and I can say, "NOT ART! BAH HUMBUG! all we like, but it won't hurt anything. On the other hand, if someone shouts it loudly and proudly enough that SCIENCE BAD, FAITH GOOD, SCREW PENICILLIN, PRAYER MORE IMPORTANT, DON'T SEND YOUR KID TO A DOCTOR, THEY WILL GET WELL ONLY THROUGH THE LOVE OF JESUS, somebody might get hurt.

If it were the Philadelphia Orchestra, you can bet your bottom dollar I'd find some way to sneak in there with a trombone and find some way to just start honking away in the back row to see if the robot can find me and give me an ass-kicking worthy of Riccardo Muti. If I were Yo-Yo Ma, I'd tune one string a half step off to see if the robot notices, cause Yo-Yo ma can get away with that.

[mrlich.livejournal.com]

As I said to burningkirby above (http://mrl24.livejournal.com/224633.html?thread=433017#t433017), I think that the 2-part process that you describe is vital. I think that's what makes art... well... art.

The thing that I fear is that enough people who don't care about the concept of art will call an emotionless production 'artistic' that eventually, we'll come to know (as a society) art as something... soulless.

[glaucon.livejournal.com]

The thing that I fear is that enough people who don't care about the concept of art will call an emotionless production 'artistic' that eventually, we'll come to know (as a society) art as something... soulless.

does one have to care about or have an opinion about the concept or nature of art in order to have a response (emotional or otherwise) to specific art objects?

why is the response of those "in the know" privileged over the response of those ignorant enough to like what they want to like rather than what they're told they should like?

who is the arbiter of soullessness?

[mrlich.livejournal.com]

"why is the response of those "in the know" privileged over the response of those ignorant enough to like what they want to like rather than what they're told they should like?"

I thought about this, and specifically avoided the concept of knowledge. I'm not concerned with a person's technical know-how. I am, however, concerned that they have that emotive response. And truthfully, it's not even their response that concerns me (in any vital sense) but rather than the object/performance was created with the intent of causing such a response.

My $0.02

[deeptape.livejournal.com]

If principles of what we call artistic expression can codified and expressed in machine-executable form, can machines product artworks that resemble those produced by humans?

I believe they can, see: http://deeptape.livejournal.com/480344.html

When Corinna and I went to Basel for the visionary conference, we dropped in on the Art Machines Machine Art exhibition at the Museum Tinguely.. Amazing stuff, I'll post pictures soon. But it raised the question of the artist moving creative agency further and further away from the original human artist. It's an interesting question.

Whether we call it "art" or not is a cultural consideration, IMHO. But whether it's creative, emotive, a creation of a conscious being, that's the real question, isn't it?

So let's go a step further. Can the processes and mechanisms of thought, emotion, and consciousness be codified and expressed in machine-executable form? Again I say yes.

Xtingu identifies the shortcoming of today's conductor robot, which falls short or expressing emotion, creating art, because the robot only does as it's programmed and that programming is limited. It is not programmed to be creative. It has a minimal model of the world and no capability for emergent behavior.

But I believe tomorrow's robot will display such creative behaviors. It will embody a synthetic consciousness that appropriately models what is going on in our heads. It will run process similar to the sensing, integrative, generative, and emotional processes of own organic machines. That kind of robot will create new works -- and those works will eventually be recognized by a future culture as art.

Re: My $0.02

[mrlich.livejournal.com]

"That kind of robot will create new works -- and those works will eventually be recognized by a future culture as art."

In fact, I really have no problem calling that artistic creation art. If it's coming from a being (whether organic or otherwise) that has a sense of emotion and can... 'feel'? I have no problem with such things being called art.

"Whether we call it "art" or not is a cultural consideration, IMHO."

Again - I solidly agree. In fact, it's this that I believe is at the core of my fears. I fear that we're going to produce a wide range of 'conveyor belt art' from devices now and in the near future which will be called art by the masses who don't care about the definition of art.

This, to me, feels like a discredit to those who create art.

I look forward to seeing the pictures.

At least robots aren't longwinded

[betterthanyou27.livejournal.com]

Matt,
I know I am late on this and that you probably got some good answers already but I feel that it is an especially relevant topic given that tomorrow is that silly holiday that I, alone it seems, celebrate. Well anyway I just wanted to say that first of all I don’t like to call art art because someone always wants to argue whether something is art or not. I like to use the term Stories. An Artist is a storyteller. I believe that anything can be a Story, anything that is a attempt at communication of a revelation, or feeling, or truth. Anything past small talk and a conversation. When a shoemaker makes shoes he tells a Story. Certainly visual artists tell Stories. Not linear ones but nevertheless Stories. And well, its these Stories that make human beings special. Its these Stories that make all the down right evil shit we humans do almost worthwhile. Without them we might as well go back to living in the trees. But you see the problem with Stories is that there are also plenty of stories. They are not the same. Stories are for “art” while stories are for entertainment (I realize that my jargon might be more confusing then it needs to be, if it is I am sorry). They don’t necessarily all have truth in them. Tons of movies and television and paintings and novels have nothing behind them at all except they entertaining. That is fine. Entrainment is important. But I feel that people don’t always know the difference. But then again maybe they do, its just that I misunderstand the jargon. My point is that a Story, or art, has something in it that a robot cannot copy. Man is capable of saying something beautiful to his fellow man. Its not intelligence that counts. Its not reasoning. Its not even skill. It is honestly telling someone what you have figured out, or what you have half figured out, or an idea you’ve been kicking around. Its baring human emotions. This sharing can’t be done by robots. A robot can draw a “better” picture than you or write a “better” book than me but it cant be real. It cant ever believe in what its doing. A robot cant believe the lie of a Story because it knows it so very true like we can. I hope I am making sense. But that’s kind of my point. Are imperfections are what make art communal, you know? Well I don’t think that answers your question but hey go read Vonnegut’s Player Piano if you haven’t already. It wont answer your questions but it might make you think which is the point of Stories I guess. I don’t know. I have finals to worry about.
-James

Re: At least robots aren't longwinded

[mrlich.livejournal.com]

"given that tomorrow is that silly holiday that I, alone it seems, celebrate"

One of my favorites, though I (in truth) had forgotten the date. I will be adding it to the calendar now.

Your thoughts on the subject are delightful to me. You seem to have found the core of what makes one thing art, and another a photocopy.

Well done sir.

On an unrelated note: when do we get some hangin with James and drinkin some coffee time?

Re: At least robots aren't longwinded

[betterthanyou27.livejournal.com]

As soon as you have free. I am home now so its up to you.
-James

Re: At least robots aren't longwinded

[mrlich.livejournal.com]

Kick ass. We should make that happen. :)

Re: At least robots aren't longwinded

[betterthanyou27.livejournal.com]

Hows this week looking for you guys?
-James

[glaucon.livejournal.com]

sorry to be returning late to this discussion. I've been busy for the last few days, but I wanted to keep the conversation going 'cuz it's interesting to me.

so...

how do you feel about electronic music? is it only art if someone is physically pressing the synthesizer buttons? can they use sequencers? digital delay? looping? how about drum machines? what about stuff that's entirely composed on the computer in advance and only played back later. is that art?

in such a case, the ultimate creator is a human agent but they are at a considerable distance from the final product - it includes sounds they couldn't produce themselves, precision that no human performer could achieve, and only such rough edges as the creator allows or programs in. but you listen to the first Nortec Collective album (for example) and tell me there's no art in there. go ahead. take your time. I'll wait.

I expect you can't tell me that, 'cuz you probably wouldn't believe that to be true.

and yet it's all or almost all the product of machines.

machines built and programmed by humans.

how about architecture? is that art? what if it's incredibly complex architecture which can only be produced with the assistance of high end CAD software? does the new Seattle Public Library (one of the twenty most fascinating and beautiful buildings I've ever seen) get tossed into the "not art" pile 'cuz it was designed using computers? or is it partly art and partly not - the part that the architect sketched out by hand is art and the part that they programmed the CAD software to do for them isn't?

if either of these examples are art, then why is a human building a machine to express their vision in other contexts (the ones you name on your original post) any different?

we're tool-using animals. I don't see much difference between a paintbrush and a robot except complexity and range of abilities. someone has to wield them both in order for them to be used to create something. the hand holding the brush might be harder to see (or the arm attached to the hand might get longer) but there's still human agency involved somewhere along the way.

[glaucon.livejournal.com]

and what of the floor show...
I mean...
what of performance and other post-modern art?

is karen finley an artist?
is john cage?
were the dadaists?
is the portsmouth sinfonia?
what about rauschenberg?
christo?
what about this sentence?
or this question mark? ?
or this fart?