Summary

The three-part articles are interesting and well-written. Starting with the most technology-driven art form – photograph, Aaron first talks about how photography becomes an art form through history. As the everlasting pursuit for realism through out history, painters were the only source that human could recreate the real world. However, this case was soon ended by the invention of cameras. The development in technology and the need for portraiture made cameras gradually more available to the commonwealth. As the technology and its production expanding, mixed opinion appeared on whether or not treating photography as a form of art. This led to development in both conventional painting and photography to advocate and illustrate their own form of art. However, in nowadays, digital image could be generated much more easily and, more diversely with amazing advancing AI technologies. In current mainstream idea about art is regarding it as the mastermind behand the artwork. AI, on the other hand, is merely a tool/software that human created for a certain purpose. The art or product it produces is merely a reflection of the creator of AI, not AI itself. Therefore the author conclude that under this idea, current AI does not create art on its own. Then what would happen in the future. The author introduces criteria that help define art and artist, arguing that art is a social activity and as long as the AI has not yet be able to initiate social activities and act like human, it is merely a tool but not a mastermind that afford art creation.

Reflection

I like the author starting with photography to talk about how technology could innovate art creation. This could be one of the first art form or example of how technology can help reshape human artwork, not only it posed change to traditional visual arts but also inspired human to create new forms of art. Using this as an example, the author emphasized that technology is no different than a pen in a painter’s hand, a paper on a writer’s desk or the material crafted by a sculptor. For a work of art, it is essential to have human mind / master mind input and reflected in it. While the AI software is able to mathematically mimic the pattern or behavior of human artists, itself is essentially completing a task or job assigned by the computer scientist behind.

My thoughts are quite similar to the author on this take that current AI does not qualify as artist. The idea that the author tries to sell makes sense, but as far as I think, it is quite obvious. A pen cannot be an artist, nor can a paper, nor material. As long as it stays as a tool, it doesn’t input authentic or other autographical value in itself and its production. On the flip side of the discussion, we always picture AI as advanced as human brain. When AI does have human-like thoughts that affords cognition and deeper thoughtful activities, it might be worth thinking this question again. Just like the author writes: we will probably have bigger questions to solve by then.

Question

Could the appreciation of a work be a sort of Turing test?