Pond Dreams
A robot certainly cannot create art, or can it? One definition of art is a interaction of experience of the artist, what they have learned and felt in relation to their artwork, and the experience of the viewer and all of their background that molds their interpretation. Of course, robots don’t feel , they don’t dream, they don’t have imaginations – so one would think that creation of art is an impossibility for a machine. At the most – its output is only a function of its programmers.
However, the viewer typically does not have access to the thoughts, feelings, and experiences of the artist. They bring their own to the viewing situation and make their own interpretation. We rely on some common principles in human interpretation to create scenes that are generally accepted as provoking pleasing thoughts, stress or tension, depending on the goal of the artist. It isn’t hard to imagine that if the final piece of artwork is in front of someone, the experiences and feelings of the artist are truly invisible – and the piece still be interpreted as “art.” There is the assumption that the creator felt something when making it, even if it is not understood.
Painted Rock
Most photographers are aware of the some of the guidelines of composition, perhaps even some Gestalt theory, what color temperatures make “good light,” and known complimentary colors. All of these are learned over time, and certainly could be translated into some sort of programming, just as it is in storing it in our own minds. We then bring these into our own experiences and produce a photograph of the subject matter in front of us.
So I have thought – what if I had stored in my head studies of all of the paintings of Monet and Picasso, countless books on composition, every word Ansel Adams ever wrote, and instantaneous access to the images being churned out every day as posted on the internet? With all of the advances in artificial intelligence, that is not too far fetched for some super-computer. Maybe I wouldn’t produce something original, perhaps it is very formulaic. I could certainly produce something that could very well be interpreted at minimum as art and appeal to the general masses. After all, most viewers don’t carry all of this around with them, they carry around what they feel and how it relates to what they see. Some GPS guided, sight-enabled, wirelessly connected robot might be able to do the same thing. Perhaps it could do it better because it is not subject to all of the frailties of being human, being tired, impatient, or moody.
This situation all seems very sterile doesn’t it? What if the viewer never knew a machine created what was in front of them? (Which I think would be a fascinating experiment!) I would be willing to bet that their interpretation would change if they knew – perhaps even discrediting it as being “art.” Knowing both ends of this type of situation – it just does not seem right, does it? If you are lacking the human experience of the artist, what’s the point?
And with that I propose that if all we do is simply follow the guidelines, follow what is done, repeat what was done before no matter how great – that we are perhaps no different than a machine producing the same thing. Sooner or later we need to break free, keep all of the lessons learned and mimicry in the back of our heads for guidance and follow our instincts and passions. If we don’t – well then we had better watch our backs. Something with a big corporate logo on its forehead will soon be ready to take our place.
