Will the Robots not just be our masters, but eventually our "Old Masters" as well?

Portrait of Edmond Belamy, 2018, created by GAN (Generative Adversarial Network), sold by Christie’s for $432,500. Image © Obvious (via ArtfixDaily.com)

We have always heard comments about modern and contemporary art (usually abstract) along the lines of "my kid could do that", and we have seen paintings by elephants and monkeys. Now the computer has entered the picture, and a huge price was obtained for a painting generated via computer artificial intelligence.

In this article, "Is artificial intelligence set to become art’s next medium?" a work created by computer algorithm sold for 432,500.

There are many aspects of life and work where computers and robotics are not only helpful, but can actually do a better job than humans. Will this means of producing art be one of them? While the visual appeal and technical qualities are undeniable, there is one significant difference as far as I am concerned.

A 2015 paper :Quantifying Creativity in Art Networks by Ahmed Elgammalyand Babak Salehz from the Art and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at Rutgers discussed whether artificial intelligence could evaluate the creativity of artworks. Their conclusion, in short, was yes, it could. I wonder if they have plans to now study the computer generated art for creativity. We could now have computers both creating and critiquing works of art!

Over time, our relationship to art changes, as do fashions and trends in art. But I think there is one constant we can rely on (at least for now, I hope):

While computers can "create" art, unlike humans, they don't have a need to create art.

Banksy Artwork Self Destructs

You have probably seen the news about the Banksy artwork that "self-destructed" immediately after it sold for over one million dollars at auction (If you haven't, you can read more here).

Image via Casterline Goodman Gallery / Instagram 

 

If you are not familiar with Banksy, he is an artist known for his art on walls, which often incorporates images or features of the surface to make political, satirical, or sometimes simply interesting commentary.

He chooses to remain anonymous (although this seems to be more difficult as time passes, and various outlets believe they have outed him).

Is it art? Theater? A publicity stunt? My opinion: A combination of the three.

The auction gallery claims they did not know about this in advance (a rather dubious claim), and now the discussion is whether the art's value has been harmed or escalated as the result of this shredding.

Thoughts? Is this a serious commentary on art and commerce, or simply more fodder for the "contemporary art is a bunch of idiots" crowd?