Is there a turing test for art, and what’s the detection quota?
I think any clear definition will either positively identify lots of AI works as art (along collections of random junk), or deny the qualifier to lots of supposed artworks from human artists.
Coming from theater, I agree it is about “conveying a meaning beneath the surface”. Having studied computer science, I note that is very much not in a strict sense, but very vague. It seems to be a feature, not a bug, that everyone in the audience can see something different.
I think you can pretty much present random nonsense, and someone will still find it brilliant and inspiring, and a lot more people will tell you what patterns they saw, and of what it reminded them. The meaning is created in the minds of the observers, even if the creator explicitly did not put another, or any, meaning into the “art”.
Is there a turing test for art, and what’s the detection quota?
I think any clear definition will either positively identify lots of AI works as art (along collections of random junk), or deny the qualifier to lots of supposed artworks from human artists.
Coming from theater, I agree it is about “conveying a meaning beneath the surface”. Having studied computer science, I note that is very much not in a strict sense, but very vague. It seems to be a feature, not a bug, that everyone in the audience can see something different.
I think you can pretty much present random nonsense, and someone will still find it brilliant and inspiring, and a lot more people will tell you what patterns they saw, and of what it reminded them. The meaning is created in the minds of the observers, even if the creator explicitly did not put another, or any, meaning into the “art”.