I wonder how we could explain talent/gift without resorting to woo-woo like reincarnation/metempyschosis (the child prodigy simply recalls lessons he took in his/her previous life)? — Agent Smith

@Noble Dust already suggested that it is a product of environment and psychological predisposition. I agree. But then again, some of the stuff that is created by the most talented artists with masterful skills, you will keep room for the woo-woo explanations. They are otherworldy.

I have often entertained the idea of metempsychosis in geniuses. I don't puch much weight in speculative theories, but it is a potential explanation for why certain individuals are so much better than everyone else.

Noble Dust already suggested that it is a product of environment and psychological predisposition. I agree. But then again, some of the stuff that is created by the most talented artists with masterful skills, you will keep room for the woo-woo explanations. They are otherworldy.

I have often entertained the idea of metempsychosis in geniuses. I don't puch much weight in speculative theories, but it is a potential explanation for why certain individuals are so much better than everyone else. — Merkwurdichliebe

I see. Can't rule out metempsychosis now, can we?

Danke! Please carry on with your discussion with other posters.

Can't rule out metempsychosis now, can we? — Agent Smith

It seems more efficient for the universe to recycle souls than to create a new one for every individual. But, of course, that is assuming that the universe is meant to be efficient in some way or another.

I like the discordian idea that everything is simply chaos. Doesn't matter to me either way.

Doesn't matter to me either way. — Merkwurdichliebe

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

:up:

We should keep the classical rules in place for the simple fact that it produces superior artists that can transcend any genre. — Merkwurdichliebe

How is their superiority measured?

As for measuring universality, it would be the principles and techniques that comprise the classical school. — Merkwurdichliebe

How can you demonstrate the universality of those principles and techniques?

I wonder, what are some of the key principles of modern art that differ from classical art which might lend to its superiority? — Merkwurdichliebe

From your classical view of what is superior, nothing. I'm happy to talk about what excites me about "modern" art if you're interested in listening.

My theory is that modernism diminishes the tools with which the artist has to work with, and produces an overall inferior quality of artwork. — Merkwurdichliebe

It's not that modern art diminished the tools of artists, it's that modern life diminished the life of society so that modern artists had to follow suit in order to express the zeitgeist of modernity. A loaded concept, I know (edited).

By the way, I'm totally with you here. let's get woo...

But then again, some of the stuff that is created by the most talented artists with masterful skills, you will keep room for the woo-woo explanations. They are otherworldy. — Merkwurdichliebe

Note - this is an add-on to a thread that is two months old.



This picture was generated by artificial intelligence and won a fine art competition. Here's a link to an article I thought was interesting.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-art-wins-competition-angering-artists-2022-9

So, by what definition is this art?

This picture was generated by artificial intelligence and won a fine art competition — T Clark

The article says he won first place for digital art. AI is definitely a digital tool. I see no problem.

From the article:

He told 9News that he made 900 iterations of the art before the piece he eventually submitted, edited it on Photoshop, and spent 80 hours on the art.

If he'd submitted the first iteration, unedited, would he have won? We can't know.

I don't know the first thing about AI, but you do have to set parameters. What's involved in those 900 iterations? Just hitting refresh until you get something you like? Looking at the result and deciding what parameters to tinker with?

In any case, I like the picture. I like the colours and the composition. I'm not fond of the... 3D effect? I can't seem to get into that (even in modern movies). The figures stand out too much, almost as if they're not in the picture. I don't know anything about art, so I can't explain properly. But it's a minor quibble anyway.

Anyway, if some people are better at getting favourable results using AI than others, using AI is a skill, too. I'd agree with the artist in saying that AI is a tool, too. If using it isn't your thing, don't use it. It's not a vital tool.

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. I just thought it was interesting.

I quite like it, especially the way it defeats one's expectations on close inspection. It's not a moon, not a corridor, they are not people.

If it winning an art competition is a concern at all, it's because the notion of an art competition is absurd, not because of the image.

“This isn’t going to stop,” Mr. Allen said. “Art is dead, dude. It’s over. A.I. won. Humans lost.”

What makes the new breed of A.I. tools different, some critics believe, is not just that they’re capable of producing beautiful works of art with minimal effort. It’s how they work. Apps like DALL-E 2 and Midjourney are built by scraping millions of images from the open web, then teaching algorithms to recognize patterns and relationships in those images and generate new ones in the same style. That means that artists who upload their works to the internet may be unwittingly helping to train their algorithmic competitors. (NYT)

If it were a real AI and not just a tool that someone used to win a county fair digital art competition it would be remarkable.

If it winning an art competition is a concern at all, it's because the notion of an art competition is absurd, not because of the image. — Banno

Good point.

So, by what definition is this art? — T Clark

No real view on whether this is art, but to me it looks like the kind of kitsch, heavily derivative, CGI fantasy design you might find in a Marvel movie like a Doctor Strange.

Personally I’m done trying to “define art”. My only interest is in whether a piece stirs something in me, makes me think differently, or makes me feel an emotion that i don’t feel every day. This piece did none of those things.

Personally I’m done trying to “define art”. My only interest is in whether a piece stirs something in me, makes me think differently, or makes me feel an emotion that i don’t feel every day. This piece did none of those things. — Noble Dust

:clap: :100:

So, by what definition is this art? — T Clark

As Noble Dust explained previously, it is necessary to makes us feel an emotion that we don't usually feel. After seeing the paint I don't feel anything. To be honest, when I saw I thought: "it looks like an old video game"
In the other hand, it is also true that the basic concept of art has changed so much that is even blurred. It is difficult to consider what is art in nowadays...

As Noble Dust explained previously, it is necessary to makes us feel an emotion that we don't usually feel. — javi2541997

Thanks for the compliments, but I have to mention here that all I said was that it's necessary for me to feel a unique emotion in order to be moved, and to feel that something is art. I didn't mean that as any rubric for anyone else. When I said that I'm done "trying to define art" I was suggesting that I'm avoiding any attempt at objectivity these days. Art is lost to the vice grip of perception.

I'm retiring to my aesthetic cave — Noble Dust

Enjoy your retreat, friend. Art can only be understood in loneliness. :flower:
May this song follow you, how you well taught me! :sparkle:

No real view on whether this is art, but to me it looks like the kind of kitsch, heavily derivative, CGI fantasy design you might find in a Marvel movie like a Doctor Strange. — Tom Storm

One of my thoughts is that it would make a good cover for a science fiction novel.

Personally I’m done trying to “define art”. — Noble Dust

Agreed. Even though I said this:

So, by what definition is this art? — T Clark

I'm pretty comfortable with my understanding of what is and isn't art. Again, I just thought it was an interesting perspective.

As Noble Dust explained previously, it is necessary to makes us feel an emotion that we don't usually feel. — javi2541997

Well, that's not my definition of art, but, as I told ND, that wasn't really what I was after anyway.