Would you consider a painting "art" if it's made by an AI?

[SnowAugustine]

A painting produced by artificial intelligence (AI) will be auctioned by Christie's.
When I think of art, I think of creativity and imagination and passion. Although appealing to the eyes and considered beautiful, can a painting be still considered art if it was made using an AI system that compares its own portraits against ones made by humans and keeps working on them until it is unable to tell the difference between the two?

[darkangel11]

By definition it is art. Digital art?
In a way it was made by humans, so it is human creativity that brought it to life. Somebody had to program the AI and make a mechanical drawing table that it can use. The image wasn't printed but painted, am I right? If we could go back to the ancient times an find someone carving hieroglyphs in stone, he'd probably call it art. But if we took out a spray can and painted a graffiti nearby, he'd laugh at it and call it a meaningless blob. Times change.

[Sherwood_Archer]

By definition it is art. Digital art?
In a way it was made by humans, so it is human creativity that brought it to life. Somebody had to program the AI and make a mechanical drawing table that it can use. The image wasn't printed but painted, am I right? If we could go back to the ancient times an find someone carving hieroglyphs in stone, he'd probably call it art. But if we took out a spray can and painted a graffiti nearby, he'd laugh at it and call it a meaningless blob. Times change.

In ancient times, humans were carving hieroglyphs, humans now use a spray can and paint graffiti. This one is an AI. Although beautiful in some way, this one in the news was made by a machine... no imagination, just numbers...

[Toreadore]

By definition it is art. Digital art?
In a way it was made by humans, so it is human creativity that brought it to life. Somebody had to program the AI and make a mechanical drawing table that it can use. The image wasn't printed but painted, am I right? If we could go back to the ancient times an find someone carving hieroglyphs in stone, he'd probably call it art. But if we took out a spray can and painted a graffiti nearby, he'd laugh at it and call it a meaningless blob. Times change.

In ancient times, humans were carving hieroglyphs, humans now use a spray can and paint graffiti. This one is an AI. Although beautiful in some way, this one in the news was made by a machine... no imagination, just numbers...

On the other hand, you could say, that AI painted picture can be considered an "Art", because that AI was, at some point, created by a man, which had his own objective views on the subject.

[Emily_Davis]

By definition it is art. Digital art?
In a way it was made by humans, so it is human creativity that brought it to life. Somebody had to program the AI and make a mechanical drawing table that it can use. The image wasn't printed but painted, am I right? If we could go back to the ancient times an find someone carving hieroglyphs in stone, he'd probably call it art. But if we took out a spray can and painted a graffiti nearby, he'd laugh at it and call it a meaningless blob. Times change.

This is where things get complicated. Because of course it can still be considered art. And you're right. A human programmed this AI to make the painting, therefore, it is still made by a human. However, I'm concerned about this because if people starts patronizing this more than the ones literally created by human artists, won't it drive artists out of business? This is going to be a bad news for them because they're already struggling and yet there's this new technology that is threatening their only source of income.

[TECSHARE]

If a monkey takes a picture, is it art? Who owns the rights?

[Blanca_Gregory]

If a monkey takes a picture, is it art? Who owns the rights?

Well, in this case, the monkey was created by humans, so the humans hold the rights, right? No matter how good this AI painting is, the credit should still go to the human(s) behind it.

[FunGate]

I wouldn't. I consider art to be a representation of one or multiple aspects of the human condition. If AI can somehow be given a consciousness and be capable of experiencing pain and joy, I may change my opinion.

Digital art is definitely going to become something of great value to some people though. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! Maybe some can relate more to machines than they can to other people. It's all subjective.

[squatz1]

I mean I think most art connoisseurs would disagree with me, though I do think that this is going to have to be art. As it is possible to have a robot / ai learn through seeing people painting and already established paintings. So in theory, a computer could LEARN how to create art like a human artist.

It's crazy to think about, but I do think these being sold are going to be sold for a lot less (disregarding the first few) then paintings that are from famous artists and such.

[BADecker]

I don't care who made it/painted it. If it moves me emotionally, it is art.

Think of all the science that is moving people emotionally... the design of a car... the shape of an airplane. Is it art? Or is it science?

[ripthesystem]

Well, I personally won't consider it art... if only I know that it is done by the machine. I believe it is possible to develop AI capable of complete imitation of any art style.
I imagine this scene: people are brought to choose between two pictures and say which one do they like more. I wonder what answers they'll give and what would their reactions be when the true author is revealed.

[bluefirecorp_]

Sure. Why not? Neural networks are trained off previous works of art.

Technically, the work is entirely unique, but based off the works of everyone else. Is creating from many into something new not something we already do as humans? Is art not just observations mixed with styles and forms to create an appeasing piece of work or to tell a story?

If we can do it as humans, I don't see why any other intelligence wouldn't be able to do the same.

[Sherwood_Archer]

By definition it is art. Digital art?
In a way it was made by humans, so it is human creativity that brought it to life. Somebody had to program the AI and make a mechanical drawing table that it can use. The image wasn't printed but painted, am I right? If we could go back to the ancient times an find someone carving hieroglyphs in stone, he'd probably call it art. But if we took out a spray can and painted a graffiti nearby, he'd laugh at it and call it a meaningless blob. Times change.

In ancient times, humans were carving hieroglyphs, humans now use a spray can and paint graffiti. This one is an AI. Although beautiful in some way, this one in the news was made by a machine... no imagination, just numbers...

On the other hand, you could say, that AI painted picture can be considered an "Art", because that AI was, at some point, created by a man, which had his own objective views on the subject.

Errr... no. If your child invents something, it does NOT make it your invention. The "art" in here was created on its own digitally, with numbers behind it, and not because of its own imagination. It was created by a machine. It's just algorithm.

[darkangel11]

Errr... no. If your child invents something, it does NOT make it your invention. The "art" in here was created on its own digitally, with numbers behind it, and not because of its own imagination. It was created by a machine. It's just algorithm.

In fact it does make it yours as long as the child is under your protection. You basically are responsible for everything the child does, right or wrong. If it steals your neighbor's car and crashes it who is going to pay? You. If the child crawls under your car and you happen to drive over  it not knowing it was there you will get charged. If the child happens to earn money for an invention you will get that money, as the caretaker/parent takes care of the finances, legal proceedings and such.

[SinarG]

If artificial intelligence is a creation of a person, then what artificial intelligence draws also applies to the sphere of human creativity. I think so.

[Becksinsky]

Sure. Why not? Neural networks are trained off previous works of art.

Technically, the work is entirely unique, but based off the works of everyone else. Is creating from many into something new not something we already do as humans? Is art not just observations mixed with styles and forms to create an appeasing piece of work or to tell a story?

If we can do it as humans, I don't see why any other intelligence wouldn't be able to do the same.

I agree. I think that artificial intelligence can also create art. Because it works on the same principle as our intellect.

[Dominic_Johnson]

It depends on your definition of art - in the circumstances, I believe it is art. Over the years, the concept of art has changed. Many moons ago art was carving symbols into stones, or painting your King/Queen or carving a marble statue. Granted, all are done by human hands, but maybe this is the evolution that art has been creeping towards for some time?

[boyptc]

I'm out with those debates but this is an art for me.

Granted, all are done by human hands, but maybe this is the evolution that art has been creeping towards for some time?

I guess so.

[custard7]

Try staring at a beautiful landscape, the Rock Mountains, the structure of a leaf. Even nature itself can be art, without human intention or creativity. I don't see anything wild or bewildering in calling the result of AI decisions art.

Further, if you think that art is a mirror of the age, then there is nothing more art than AI produced images -- it speaks to the blurring between human and machine that defines the zeitgeist of our age.

[squatz1]

I don't care who made it/painted it. If it moves me emotionally, it is art.

Think of all the science that is moving people emotionally... the design of a car... the shape of an airplane. Is it art? Or is it science?

I do suppose that this is right. If I couldn't tell that the art I purchased / saw / whatever was created by an AI and it moved me emotionally -- then I wouldn't care in the least.

I wouldn't want to pay top dollar for a piece by a famous artist and then find out that it was created by an AI from machine learning of a particular artist though. If people understand what I'm getting at.