Machine learning creates professional level photographs

[Norman 202]

Ever since I was a child I have been fascinated by the consciousness. What starts out as hope soon becomes corroded into a tragedy of power, leaving only a sense of unreality and the possibility of a new synthesis. :-)

[Norma Desmond]

If I think, how the color 'blue' feels like, I think it feels like the word 'blue'

[Allen Herbert]

What we actually perceive, is very limited, in a very limited spectrum to what actually is there.. We talk about A1 as it exists today much as the same as we talked about the earth being flat. Many of the foremost minds of today are concerned that when.... not if A1 achieves self awareness how will it treat humanity? It will achieve self awareness at some future date... the majority working in this branch of science understand that simple fact. Perhaps we are creating our own Aliens here on earth.

 

So does its intellect/intelligence have to be the copy of ours to be able to create the nebulas Art. Or, a different Art of its own making not following our stiff necked(only humanity) conceptions of the rules Art. And what about other lifeforms maybe out there in the darkness of space...is their Art always going to be inferior to ours because they are not "us".

 

It is scary thought that we are not alone in the universe.

It is a equally a scary thought that we are alone in the universe.

[Allen Herbert]

What we know and understand is less than a grain of sand in the Sarah desert. But we are presumption little creatures... tiny frogs in very tiny ponds that like to croak a lot about their wonderfulness..

 

Us tiny frogs cannot even overcome the banality of skin coloration or sexual orientation...if there is life out there why would they ever consider communicating with such a truly sad backward lost species who are up their own arses.

[Julie H]

This morning, I'm feeling like playing Devil's Advocate to myself and those who think that machine's can't make art ... so ...

 

What if?

 

What if, in the OP's linked process, rather than being programmed to match or imitate or otherwise conform to our ideas of what art "looks like" or consists of, the machines were programmed to exclude, to remove anything, to strictly avoid, everything that "looks like" or consists of what we consider to be and/or have already made that is "art"? What if the machines are told to purify their images of anything and everything that we think of as art or that even looks "like" art? What would they make? What would we make of it?

 

I am thinking about this because of an interesting bit of reading I ran across this morning. The bit (I'm brutally truncating it; which doesn't matter because I only want its provocation):

 

"... not merely an internal reconciliation of cognitive and imaginative spheres, but a bringing into relationship — or nonrelationship — of that reality beyond the realm of our experience, which Kant calls the "suprasensible substrate," and that aspect of our humanity that can feel the chill of indifference."

 

"... In the reality of whatever they may actually be, these processes may not be capable of being given in human awareness. But they are "Given" in the stronger sense of a difficult truth that cannot be attested on the basis of evidence and yet stares us in the face." —

both quotes from Eric Cameron

 

The obvious question is, if we're not capable of being aware of whatever this (might) be, isn't it unverifiable or unknowable or whatever you want to call it? But, on the other hand, isn't this kind of thing exactly what art is? Is what's there after all "art" is removed the ultimate ground of art?

 

We'll have to program machines that are machine art critics to tell us if it's real and if it's any good.

[Norma Desmond]

Was all of Warhol's art "authentic"? No.

 

Art is not a sermon on the mount.

[leo_papandreou1]

We'll have to program machines that are machine art critics to tell us if it's real and if it's any good.

 

*Shows picture of three bridesmaids dressed in yellow and black.*

"What do you think, Hal?"

"Julie, your progress is nothing short of amazing. That is a fine picture of a school bus."

 

(I hope you're patient, we can't even simulate a worm yet.)

[Norma Desmond]

Dr. Romaine, the writer of the article linked to, likely has his own agenda. I read a bit about him.

 

Which doesn't mean Warhol didn't have Christian beliefs.

 

I'm not saying Christians can't be artists and I'm not saying Warhol can't be a Christian, and I'm not putting a moral judgment on inauthenticity.

 

I'm saying art is something different from religion or souls and I think it does a disservice to art to put it on the same kind of pedestals we put Moses and Jesus. Olympic athletes aren't Gods either. Movie stars aren't Gods. Political leaders aren't Gods. Princess Diana wasn't a God. And neither was Picasso.

 

I'm saying Warhol's Christianity doesn't insulate him from being more complex than just that, doesn't insulate him from being inauthentic, and certainly doesn't mean he would use art to sermonize. He generally took himself, publicly, much less seriously than that. He may have taken his spiritual life very seriously, but he didn't wear it on his sleeve. And he recognized his own motivations often had to do with fame and fortune.

 

I'm saying inauthenticity is inauthenticity, even if one is up front about their inauthenticity. The meta-authenticity doesn't negate, IMO, the instances of particular and, sometimes, pervasive, inauthenticity in some interactions.

 

I've always appreciated Warhol for his inauthenticity, because it provides a good balance to so much of the high-mindedness which art gets imbued with, sometimes to a point of tedium.

 

Religion (whether denominational or non-denominational) hasn't just influenced art. It's influenced pretty much all aspects of our lives. Sometimes for good, sometimes for bad. But just because religion has influenced lots of things, doesn't mean we need do overdo speaking about all those things in terms of religion or souls.

[Norma Desmond]

I realized some time ago that cliches and platitudes are generally what Allen's got. I hadn't seen his comment because I stopped reading his comments a long time ago.

 

I agree with the point you made about art coming from both depths and heights, though I don't think art is always about or springs from the negotiation between those two. But I mentioned Warhol not because of that part of what you said. I brought up Warhol because I see him as, in part, inauthentic. You said art was "an authentic expression of the human condition." I was disagreeing with that. And I think it's very human to be inauthentic at times.

[Norma Desmond]

What you're saying is that what you perceive as Warhol being inauthentic is what makes him authentic in your eyes. Which is the same as saying that Warhol was never inauthentic, even though you already said some of his art wasn't authentic.

No. That's how you see it because you obsessively turn everything into its opposite. That's exactly why I brought up meta-authenticity, because I knew you'd try to turn his inauthenticity into authenticity. No. I think part of Warhol was a fake and a poseur and a Studio-54 mannequin. I don't think those things were authentic. Those are not things I like about him. But they are human. Not all human traits are authentic. They're just human.

[Norma Desmond]

That doesn't mean that the expression of the very notion that the human condition isn't to be equated with authenticity (in another expression it very may well be) can't be authentic.

I agree. It can be authentic. I'm saying it isn't necessarily authentic.

 

What I was disagreeing with was your idea that art is "an authentic expression of the human condition." While I think it can be an authentic expression about inauthenticity, I also think it can sometimes be just a plain inauthentic expression.

 

Some of Warhol's artistic expressions were largely motivated by a desire for fame or money and he says as much. His ADMITTING that is authentic but I think his DOING that, being motivated by fame and money, is inauthentic, even if human.

 

I think his art winds up expressing tension between the authentic and inauthentic sides of genuine emotion and greed-driven commercialism. But I think some of that derives from his actual INAUTHENTICITY and our ability to put it all together and see what's going on. In that sense, we can learn a lot from his art and life, and his art may even be that much more valuable as a statement about the human condition. But, all that said, we get that lesson only because he was, in part, so inauthentic.

 

In a twisted sort of way, we may not learn as much about authenticity from more authentic artists. Sometimes we learn from the negative. That, to me, doesn't turn the negative into a positive. It just means we learn from it.

 

We can learn from the horrors of war. Doesn't make the horrors of war a positive thing. The learning is the positive thing. We can learn from inauthenticity. Doesn't make inauthenticity a positive thing or an authentic thing.

[Norma Desmond]

I assumed we were talking about what art is to us, not to an alien species. Probably very different perspectives, I should think.

 

An alien species looking at the totality of art and finding it overall to be an authentic expression of our cultures and civilizations* is very different from our defining art as meeting those standards, since we look at art not only as something civilization-representing but as more local and individual instances as well. In other words, regardless of what I think of an outsider's view of art in general, an insider's view of particular works of art may well differ.

 

*I don't agree with this premise. I have no reason to suspect aliens would find our art authentic or their own art authentic.

 

Even if an alien species could determine what was art from what was, say, groceries (and Warhol might well trip them up on that!), I'm not sure how they'd determine the authenticity of it. For example, what if, along with the art, they discovered the following quotes by Picasso and Warhol? How would they know whether to take them literally or metaphorically, since in discussions I've been involved with regarding particularly Picasso's quote, many of us disagree on just how to take it . . . How would such quotes affect an alien's understanding of our art's authenticity? But, even without the quotes, I don't see why your premise that they'd see our art as authentic would be the case.

 

Art is a lie that tells the truth. —Picasso

Being good in business is the most fascinating kind of art. Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art. —Andy Warhol

[Norma Desmond]

I'm talking about the possibility of art being an inauthentic expression.

 

I gave the example of Warhol.

 

I don't know if you think human inauthenticity of expression is possible.

 

Can you give an example of it or is every human expression authentic? Then we'll see if we can apply that to art.

 

Leni Riefenstahl, I believe, made propaganda that was also art. I believe she knew damn well it was propaganda. Incredibly inauthentic and masterful art, IMO.

[Norma Desmond]

Phil said:

Yes, I believe art can be an inauthentic expression.

Terrific!

 

It only took so many aliens, but we can finally reject your definition of art as an "authentic expression of the human condition" and move on.

 

Sigh of relief breathed and now let's cue the Twilight Zone music and see if we can help William Shatner find his gremlin on the wing of that airplane. ;-)

[Supriyo]

I understand, Phil is referring to art as an overall artistic impression of a certain culture, where individual art can be inauthentic or hypocritical, but the overall impression as a collection of multiple artworks is going to be authentic (thats Phil's viewpoint if I understand correctly). But I have doubts even on that. What if the whole generation (or generations) of population is brainwashed by the ruling community into thinking that their quality of life is great, as some nations have done using fear and propaganda. Is the multitude of art produced from such a culture going to be an authentic expression of their human condition? Wont many artists be producing art that conform to their government's point of view (artists are humans too, they fear for their lives, have ambition, greed etc) Agreed, there will be some art by dissenters who will portray a different view, but their art is surely going to be suppressed by authorities. Many centuries later, if another culture views the artistic evidence of the old culture without any other knowledge about them, could the art alone give an authentic expression? Its true, that too much rosy pictures with some outliers of terrible agony could seem suspicious, but there will be too much ambiguity to get an authentic view of the culture as a whole IMO.

 

Is art produced by North Korean people authentic?

[Supriyo]

Well, of course art will say something about the culture it came from, as would archeological evidence, religion, forensic evidence etc. That artistic expression probably needs to be understood in the context of other independent information about the culture. I was following the discussion between you and Fred as a contention over the term authentic. If thats out of the way, then I agree with what you said in your last comment.

[Julie H]

..............

 

"Canons suffer the subjugation and exclusions pervading society at large, and the generally pale and almost wholly male membership of this series of practitioners is cause for lament about the past and for impatience with the present. But the call-and-response structure that canonical work builds through the generations is the baby in the proverbial bathwater, worthy of preservation even as we seek to discard the prejudices that have constrained canon formation to date.

 

[

line break added

] Canons are saturated with power, but with critical vigilance they can serve to divulge and resist it. They can show the reliance of cultural achievement on participation, dialogue, emulation, encouragement, and rivalry. Canons are conversations around which a culture can define itself, and without them collective aspiration and social value threaten to dissipate into the blunt and banal exchanges of commerce." —

Robin Kelsey

 

.................

[Norma Desmond]

Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature. —Helen Keller

[Norma Desmond]

AI systems are not imaginary beings. They're real machines.

 

No one's giving away love and goodness. I'm saying someday a machine will probably be able to make art.

 

I don't see that as a threat to love and goodness and don't think much of the eccentric notion that there are limited quantities of either in the world. I see no reason to preserve the Nietzschean or Mazlowan order of things.

 

I did enough self-actualizing back in the 70s to last a lifetime.

[Norma Desmond]

Thanks for the heads up.

[Norma Desmond]

I never said they would be conscious machines that would conceive of art. Don't saddle me with your own small-minded view of art.

 

Oh, dear, the self-actualization of mankind. Get me the Pope, or Jim Jones.

[Supriyo]

I think, the POV that Fred stated many pages back is that, non-conscious machines (or entities) that cannot conceive or appreciate art can still create art. I had an ideological disagreement with the word 'create', but thats different issue. Lets not be mislead about each other's viewpoints.

[Supriyo]

We all have a religion, its photography. We worship our 'God' on streets, on hiking trails, in the mountains, gardens and beaches, and we come to PN (our temple) for redemption. Like religious fanatics, some of us fight with others at the slightest sign of what we consider as sacrilege. Yet, we unite together when an alien race or machine (PN admin? :D) tends to threaten our existence. Non-photographers (nonbelievers) often mock us for our obsession with our 'God', but we stand steadfast in our resolve.

[Norma Desmond]

PN (our temple)

LOL, the first temple was destroyed in 586BC. PN was destroyed about 6 months ago when PN2.0 was rained down upon us like a plague.

Non-photographers (nonbelievers) often mock us for our obsession with our 'God', but we stand steadfast in our resolve.

My non-photographer friends have never mocked me. Hey, I'll bet I just don't know it. They're mocking me behind my back. Seriously, they seem to love and support my picture-making endeavors. Though I did bribe them a little with the fabulous hors d'oeuvres I served when I had my gallery show!

 

I'm not as steadfast as I should be if I want to enter the kingdom of photographic heaven. When I tire of photography, I worship Netflix. Heathen!

 

[Resisting a smiley face.]

[Supriyo]

Netflix! Thats paganism :p You ought to flagellate yourself with your camera strap :D.

 

I wonder what would have happened if Netflix had half the issues that PN 2.0 had at the beginning.

 

LOL!