Fwd: Re: art and computers

[nd603@soton.ac.uk]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


ok. firstly david. if that is the way you understand the notion of 'rational
thought' then i accept that you idea stands, although i still dispute the
fact that animals are self aware. they clearly are. now onto the real issue
of art:

firstly, if say (to use your example) a britney spears or elton john song
does not count as art, but presumably other pieces of music do, how is this
possible? where do you draw the line between music as art, and music as
entertainment or whatever? surely you cannot create a strict dichotomy like
this because the lines will inevitably overlap significantly. take something
like handel's messiah - surely you cannot argue that this does not count as
art, yet it has mass appeal, technical worth, etc etc. i suspect that you
are going to suggest
that is something to do with handel expressing an individuality that the
pop songs lack, yet again where are you going to draw the line between a
pop songs that tries to sound vaguely individual within set boundaries, and
handel, who was undoubtedly working within the set conventions of his time?
to my mind it is impossible to distinguish between one piece of music as
art, and another as something else. all music is art. you can only
distinguish between good and bad examples, some which achieve a high status
and others which are abject examples of boring, failed art. yet they are
still art.

that might not have been what you were going to suggest, but you did say:
'As such the difference between, for instance, a Mills and Boon novel and
say a Gide or Camus novel is not that the latter are 'more unique' but that
they express an individuality that in the former is entirely lacking'

and erm, isn't saying something is unique pretty much identical to saying it
is individual? both denote an object that stands out from the crowd as being
different, and alone. (pedantic i know, and i promise that'll be the last
time i quote any of you)

secondly, you seem to assume that this individuality is what sets work
produced by humans and work produced by machines apart, but i am curious to
know how you would go about separating them in reality.you always make it
sounds like this individuality is something that is very easy to spot
(which it may be, and i just can't see it) yet although the voice of an
author often shines through, how do we know that it is the voice of the
author? as far as i know, i've never read a book written by a machine, but
if i had, would i have any way of knowing it?i think it would be much
harder than you think.especially with the like of a j.g.ballard, who creates
very inhuman, sparse landscapes for his stories .i've strayed into
epistemology now though.

not that i actually believe that machines could create art, although
theoretically perhaps they could. back to the definition of art though -
why must art be produced with any intention at all? quite frequently people
produce things which then get wildly misinterpreted, and appear far more
interesting than they would were they only appreciated with the artists
original intentions in mind.not to mention cases where a slip of the
artists hand has forced them to change the composition of the picture, to
cover the mistake, and they end up including something they didn't intend
to, which is then hailed as brilliant vision. from the various 'artistic'
people i know (and i'm mostly talking music
here) i can say for certain that music produced with a precise intention in
mind is usually far less interesting than that produced by chance, or
improvisation.i do love my jazz though, so intention is going to be less
important to me than representation, and sheer harmonic purity.intention is
also very difficult indeed to actually determine if it not spelled our by
the artist.

anyways, i'm rambling a bit now, looks like another epic i'm afraid, but
there you go.

oh and david, you'd be surprised what you can hallucinate.as proved by
pretty much anything artistic that came out in the late sixties, not to
mention the works of coleridge etc

nick




Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm