Which I infer means something like “you know it when you hear it”, a subjective process that’s more about reinforcing your bias against some workers’ processes than evaluating sounds on their own merit.
I encourage you to explain so I can better understand.
I think this is a more defensible argument than the other one you seem to keep dipping into, which is that the computer-generated result is not music, nor art. I would entertain the argument that merely telling a computer program to generate 10 minutes of music does not make one a composer. Nevertheless, the end result is still music, even if it was created in a way you feel is joyless.
Currently there’s a big push for AI generated “content” (I hate that term) because capital sees it as a cheap way to replace expensive artists and writers and composers. I hope that time will prove them wrong, but honestly given the taste of the average person I’m not sure if they would notice the difference between AI generated crap and human generated crap. I think the writers are doing the right thing by striking, and every person in every creative field should do the same thing until either human beings are ensured fair enumeration for making art for other humans or artists no longer have to support themselves financially. None of that changes how I define art, because this isn’t so simple as merely calling computer-generated art “not art” and being done with it.
Oxford Dictionary defines art as “1.the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.”
I agree with that definition. YMMV. Without creativity or imagination, I don’t consider it art either.
Ah, so you are trying for a “gotcha”. You think that if one can’t tell the difference between the two, that makes it art. Well, I, and the Oxford dictionary disagree with your opinion. And yes, I do have a bias - I think humans create art, not machines.
So you gave the computer the parameters of the notes you wanted IT to choose then. In other words, the computer filled in the blanks, rather than you composing the specific notes in the specific order you wanted to hear. Correct?
Would you not consider that composing? What about aleatoric music, in which randomness plays a role and that goes back well before computers (dice, in fact.) What about similar things in the visual arts where chance plays some role in the composition of a piece (like, say, my favorite painter, Jackson Pollock. He defined in broad strokes a piece, but chance had much to play with the exact placement of pigments.) Would you argue that is not art? I’m just curious where the boundaries are.
Well, they don’t meet the definition I provided from Oxford, nor do I ever recall an animal that set out to do so. But you may believe whatever you like.
Aleatoricmusic (also aleatory music or chance music ; from the [Latin] word alea , meaning “dice”) is music in which some element of the composition is left to [chance], and/or some primary element of a composed work’s realization is left to the determination of its performer(s).
So the determination is made by humans. They become collaborating artists. Therefore, music.
Jesus, I forgot how pedantic this place can be. Show me some examples of neanderthals creating music, or are we going to go through an entire list of hypotheticals just because you don’t agree with my opinion?
Can flowers create music?
Can a dead person create music?
Because humans are the collaborators. Their choices are not random. They are contributing their creativity and imagination. A computer is randomly selecting notes.
And with this, I’m done with this thread. Enjoy your computer generated crap. You deserve it.
I have to agree that “randomly select notes” is unlikely to produce good music. [ETA on second thought, there might be a perfectly valid reason why random notes need to be selected. No need to be completely categorical. But it is safe to say that will only get us so far, in general.] If I write a 1000-line program constraining exactly which notes may be “randomly” selected, the results may be better, but it all depends on exactly what that program does. Part of the challenge is to make the output be technically OK (whatever that means), and part to ensure that specific emotions or imagery are evoked. The result of some a priori musical analysis may indicate, e.g., that the segment should be in the key of B-flat and use a lot of arpeggios, and maybe there is a meta-reason for that which can in turn be investigated, and so on.
And, yeah, I’m going to argue with opinions that I disagree with, because that’s literally why this web site exists.
I’m arguing that “only humans can create art” is a limited and incorrecect definition of art. But arguing that “some non human entities can create art” isn’t the same as arguing that literally anything can create art, so your counter examples don’t really constitute a compelling counter argument.
That said, if someone wants to present evidence of art created by a plant, or by the dead… well, I’m willing to listen to their argument, and not shut it down immediately because the Oxford dictionary says so.
That’s not what the definition you just posted says:
(bolding mine)
Why is computer-generated randomness less artistically valid than, say, die-generated randomness?
I’m not really that much into computer-generated music. I just don’t like badly flawed arguments.
We can stipulate that space aliens or superintelligent robots may have musical sensibilities. It is a bit of a red herring to focus on “humans” in what @Disinfectus is saying, and he is saying something valid—at least I can attest that it is not at all easy to generate non-crap by writing short computer programs. For starters, you have to know something about music, or at least know what you are trying to accomplish. Also, getting the computer to do what you want is a skill in itself.
But the computer absolutely can be a musical instrument if, as with any instrument, you can surmount the technical difficulties. As Xenakis put it, “It happens that computers can be useful in certain ways.”
I think it is safe to assume that creativity and imagination went into their artwork, so it’s art.
Maybe someone can explain sarcasm to you. Let me ask you this - do you believe that art requires creativity and imagination? As far as I know, humans are the only ones who display the ability to create and imagine on their own. That’s why the word “human” is part of the definition. And if we don’t have a definition of art to work with then the whole conversation is pointless, much like your replies.
Then please explain how that type of music is possible without humans interjecting creativity and imagination (which is part of the definition you are eager to discard).
You let me know when a computer demonstrates imagination. Take your time.
I never said it didn’t take any skill. I said it isn’t art. I enjoy art because of the human factor. Take that away and it has no worth to me. That’s an opinion. I’m allowed to have those, last I checked.