Will the ‘real artists’ stand up?

The AARON paper prompts a few hard questions. First of all, purely from a cognitive science point of view, can Art be defined, or better, quantified? Can the constraints it involves be used with a measurable rubric?

In my opinion, it is not the representations being formed which are ‘art’ but rather it seems that human agents are willing to term a lot of things art according to what they think they perceive. Caution needs to be employed while terming any computer agent as ‘AI’ which may at best be pseudo randomly deciding to draw a bunch of representations. Art running haywire can hardly be termed ‘intelligent’, and popular folly and groupthink needs to be taken into account while critiquing such developments.

An early natural language analogue would be ELIZA of ill repute! (it was disturbing as to how many people called this AI) An example of an entire school of ‘Art’ being a result of half-baked fads would be ‘Disumbrationism‘ which was a deliberate satirical hoax to expose how easily almost anything can be passed off as Art. This becomes easier with the modernist art movements like Cubism which stretch the boundaries of abstraction, thus blurring the answer to the question ‘what is Art?’.

Is AARON an AI? For me, the jury is out till I get a more detailed account of the system architecture. But the claims of both AI and Art (especially together) need the sternest of tests. Does AARON do Art? I for one, do not wish to form an opinion about something whose context is so ill-defined.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: