Pond Dreams
A robot certainly cannot create art, or can it? One definition of art is a interaction of experience of the artist, what they have learned and felt in relation to their artwork, and the experience of the viewer and all of their background that molds their interpretation. Of course, robots don’t feel , they don’t dream, they don’t have imaginations – so one would think that creation of art is an impossibility for a machine. At the most – its output is only a function of its programmers.
However, the viewer typically does not have access to the thoughts, feelings, and experiences of the artist. They bring their own to the viewing situation and make their own interpretation. We rely on some common principles in human interpretation to create scenes that are generally accepted as provoking pleasing thoughts, stress or tension, depending on the goal of the artist. It isn’t hard to imagine that if the final piece of artwork is in front of someone, the experiences and feelings of the artist are truly invisible – and the piece still be interpreted as “art.” There is the assumption that the creator felt something when making it, even if it is not understood.
Painted Rock
Most photographers are aware of the some of the guidelines of composition, perhaps even some Gestalt theory, what color temperatures make “good light,” and known complimentary colors. All of these are learned over time, and certainly could be translated into some sort of programming, just as it is in storing it in our own minds. We then bring these into our own experiences and produce a photograph of the subject matter in front of us.
So I have thought – what if I had stored in my head studies of all of the paintings of Monet and Picasso, countless books on composition, every word Ansel Adams ever wrote, and instantaneous access to the images being churned out every day as posted on the internet? With all of the advances in artificial intelligence, that is not too far fetched for some super-computer. Maybe I wouldn’t produce something original, perhaps it is very formulaic. I could certainly produce something that could very well be interpreted at minimum as art and appeal to the general masses. After all, most viewers don’t carry all of this around with them, they carry around what they feel and how it relates to what they see. Some GPS guided, sight-enabled, wirelessly connected robot might be able to do the same thing. Perhaps it could do it better because it is not subject to all of the frailties of being human, being tired, impatient, or moody.
This situation all seems very sterile doesn’t it? What if the viewer never knew a machine created what was in front of them? (Which I think would be a fascinating experiment!) I would be willing to bet that their interpretation would change if they knew – perhaps even discrediting it as being “art.” Knowing both ends of this type of situation – it just does not seem right, does it? If you are lacking the human experience of the artist, what’s the point?
And with that I propose that if all we do is simply follow the guidelines, follow what is done, repeat what was done before no matter how great – that we are perhaps no different than a machine producing the same thing. Sooner or later we need to break free, keep all of the lessons learned and mimicry in the back of our heads for guidance and follow our instincts and passions. If we don’t – well then we had better watch our backs. Something with a big corporate logo on its forehead will soon be ready to take our place.
This is really interesting and quite disturbing idea. If there would be a robot with a knowledge of all historical photographers and their work, all painters and their work, stationed somewhere, then it would be probably able to do nothing more than different combinations of styles and pieces already created. If this robot would be able to move then it would be probably able to create overwhelming amount of photos on every step/yard/meter. The question is if people would buy it. It probably depends on the fact if they would know that it was created by a robot. If they wouldn’t then… who knows? I think that what makes photography and art unique to other human beings is the fact that it was created by other human being in the real world. That the scenery captured on a painting or a photo is real. On the other hand consider artists such as Van Gogh who worked “powered” by alcohol or drugs, were they still capturing real world, reality?
I probably didn’t answer, only added couple more questions. That’s what came to my mind after reading your post. Thanks for some food for my grey cells as Hercules Poirot would say
Great discussion. I love the analogy that many artists who strictly follow the rules are like robots in a way. I also love the images. Painted Rocks especially.
Mark, interesting subject. I’ve viewed some “works-of-art” I felt a machine could probably do a better job with, however, I readily acknowledge that was my opinion based on my personal likes and dislikes.
What if your “photographer machine” was programed to taken a certain number of random shots with different combinations of settings in addition to following it’s programed rules? After thousands of shots the odds are there would be some pretty good ones created.
Would rejecting a “good photo” because it was a machine which made it be different then rejecting a photo because a person of a different race, gender or religion took it? So, “I don’t like the photographer so I can’t appreciate the photo!” Hummm… What of photo taken by the Hubble Space Telescope or mars rovers? Many of them are amazing and should be considered works of art–I’d hang large prints from them in my home.
I agree many interpretations would change if people knew a machine made certain photos instead of a human–especially if they were mislead into believing a human made it in the first place. However, I’d prefer to try and judge only the results–the photos. I’ll leave the judging of humans to someone better qualified.
The Hubble is a good example Earl. While the images are certainly beautiful – I don’t know if I consider them art. I suppose this is somewhat like the tree falling in the woods. If the artist wasn’t there to create something, can it be art?
Thought-provoking piece. I know that I seldom consciously think of rules or what others have done when I am out in the field. I deal with what is in front of me and what I think looks good. Yet I also know that at some deeper level that is influenced by all that went before me. Beautiful images, by the way.
Interesting & thought-provoking post as usual. It possibly hits close home, especially in the beginning when we are 1st learning our craft we are bound to use others to ‘inspire’ us
It would be a good experiment to hang the robotic art next to human in a gallery but not label which was which. Might come out with interesting & disturbing results from the public !
I agree that “art” requires an emotional response. It is really the whole point of it I think. I also feel that the notion that any piece of art must stand on its own may be wrong, I think it requires explanation sometimes to get to the emotion of it.
One of the most interesting themes I’ve been attracted to is what makes humans human and this falls right in line with this concept. Several authors and movies come to mind who have discussed this theme and they have certainly been an influence in my thoughts on this subject and philosophy on life in general. “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” by Philip K. Dick is one of my favorites and was the inspiration for the movie Bladerunner. In this story the art (if you will) is the synthetic creation of humans. Collective experience is a huge determining factor. Having a table look up of information alone is not enough to give a creation a soul. Interpretation, creation of themes & messages and emotion most of all are what make art art and humans human. Art is rooted in humanity and in my mind is inseparable. The humanity that is made up of interpretation, happy accidents (a la Bob Ross), and inspiration from life experience is what makes art.
Would people differentiate a robots work versus a person? Likely not. After all people can hardly tell if a painting was made by an elephant or a person. The mechanics of creating a piece of art are different than the experience that is behind its creation. Conversely interpretation of art or any visual medium is subject to the same human influences. The other half of art is the culmination of our knowledge and experience that enables us to provide interpretation of it . In this regard art is a two way road. While the creation of a robot may not be art in the truest sense it surely is partially as it will feed interpretive debate. As an art creator I don’t think you can go half way.
Oh and for the record its with in the realm of possibility for me that an animal could create art. I’m not yet there in thinking a robot (lacking artificial intelligence) could.
Great thought provoking post Mark.
What a fascininating subject and the admonition to artists to watch their backs is well-timed. With the high-speed advances in technology, it would seem to be only a matter of time until something much like your nightmare scenario becomes reality. I doubt that we will not have to wait a terribly long time before we see this played out in front of us.
I suspect that, in any experiments, a large crowd would flock to the “art” created by the robot. The novelty would be irresistible to many.
Both images are outstanding, but the second one is the knockout for me. The turquoise is stunning.
Jim, I would put forth worth some thought that photographers sometimes are only looking up those data tables. Some images become very formulaic, even if they are very beautiful. I have done it myself and end up questioning if no matter how connected I feel to the moment – am I being honest with myself in saying I am creating art? I wonder if some distinction needs to take place to get to that soul of the creation.
Thank you Anita. As you and others have mentioned, I think the display would be a great experiment.
Mark even if people are doing data table lookups or following “rules” they’re introducing variability either by error or intention. No one reproduces things exactly. To your point it’s easy to say people should expand their horizons rather than follow in the footsteps of others, but art like all innovation is incremental in creation. Without past work to influence us new work is not created. Developing art is an evolutionary process. For some we evolve more than others. Striving not to be a robot should be in the back of all our minds, but at the same time we need to respect others who are in different points of artistic evolution. That being said it also takes courage to step outside established norms as most people treat such individuals as outsiders more times than not.
Great Mark now we are going to have too compete with Robotic Photographers who well sell their work even cheaper to the stock agencies
The whole robotic stuff reminds me of the stock shooters that feel compelled to shoot a vertical and horizontal of every possible angle with 10/90, 20/80/, 30/70, etc… foreground to background ratios. I mean cmon, lets be honest, some scenes are just weak pictures at certain angles. Any monkey can do that, what I’m interested in is selling my vision not a formula. If an editor would rather pick someone elses photo as a result then so be it but I know I’m not going to submit anything that I am embarrased by.
Bernie – you had to know it was coming! But let’s just hope we will always be one step ahead.
Richard, yeah – I see your point, and therein lies part of what I was trying to get at in our own self examination. I think about this a lot lately when I am trying to photograph and recognize if I am following some automatic formula in assembling an image, or am I really connected with what is in front of me.
I read a piece years ago of kindergartners creating artwork that was passed off as unique work from world famous artist. The viewers were shocked to hear that it came from young children. I would imagine the response would be quite the same with robots.
oooh very thought provoking! I would love to see such an experiement. It is easy to get stuck just following the set rules and formula…and I think we all get stuck in it sometimes, but you’re right… We should break free…Your blog is intriguing and I look forward to exploring it
Somehow this particular post reminded me of something I read years ago regarding Talent:
“Talent is the presence of ability and absence of understanding about the source and operation of knowledge.”
As adults, is everything we do from memory? If so, then is there still such a thing as randomness? I believe every thing is inter-related and life itself may seem formulaic at times. I believe the most important thing we need to ask ourselves as photographers and as individuals is: What make you – You?
Hi Mark!
Thank you for the thought provoking post. When I was in college I was always amazed at some of the stuff that I thought people could come up when presented with something that someone had labeled “Art”. It evoked this or that or the other in them. Were they just going for a good grade? Probably, but still makes me wonder was it “art” or wassn’t it? I don’t know. Is the viewer the one that decides?
All I know is I have an urge to go create something different!