Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 9240992" data-attributes="member: 42856"><p>While I agree with your point overall, I'd say there is a slight difference between Picasso, who probably had seen hands and head and people in his life, and decided voluntarily to depict them in his way, and an imperfect drawer or generator that creates 4-digited hands where the INTENT was to design a very realistic hand. To me, art is in the intent. Computer don't create art anymore than brushes, it's the composition, style, imagination in the head of the artist that designe the product that's art. The way it's made physically may be constrained by the technical means (when all you have is your hand and mud to paint on your cave well, your intent might be to say &quot;I, Grmpf of the tribe of the walkers on two legs, can attest that I was here with my fellow hunter and we all put this hand here because we want to say that in the stone forever&quot; and it's art. If you just put your feet in the mud and rub it when entering your cave, it's not art, it's a footprint). The way might be constrained because you're bad at drawing (if you intend to draw a beautiful bird in your mind and draw a naughty word bird, the execution is flawed but it's still art). So in this case, there is no indication that some AI hands were the result of the creator effectively wanting to have 4 fingers but didn't know how to create a correct rendition of his vision. AI doesn't create art, the person imagining the image does, and then try to create it, as faithfully as possible, with the available tools, be it mud, paint, photo, digital software, AI, or cortical implant that read your vision and transmit it to other humans through the Global Mindnet.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Jfdlsjfd, post: 9240992, member: 42856"] While I agree with your point overall, I'd say there is a slight difference between Picasso, who probably had seen hands and head and people in his life, and decided voluntarily to depict them in his way, and an imperfect drawer or generator that creates 4-digited hands where the INTENT was to design a very realistic hand. To me, art is in the intent. Computer don't create art anymore than brushes, it's the composition, style, imagination in the head of the artist that designe the product that's art. The way it's made physically may be constrained by the technical means (when all you have is your hand and mud to paint on your cave well, your intent might be to say "I, Grmpf of the tribe of the walkers on two legs, can attest that I was here with my fellow hunter and we all put this hand here because we want to say that in the stone forever" and it's art. If you just put your feet in the mud and rub it when entering your cave, it's not art, it's a footprint). The way might be constrained because you're bad at drawing (if you intend to draw a beautiful bird in your mind and draw a naughty word bird, the execution is flawed but it's still art). So in this case, there is no indication that some AI hands were the result of the creator effectively wanting to have 4 fingers but didn't know how to create a correct rendition of his vision. AI doesn't create art, the person imagining the image does, and then try to create it, as faithfully as possible, with the available tools, be it mud, paint, photo, digital software, AI, or cortical implant that read your vision and transmit it to other humans through the Global Mindnet. [/QUOTE]

Verification