HOME | DD
HowXu β Small thought regarding modern computer
Published: 2013-06-01 11:04:09 +0000 UTC; Views: 15756; Favourites: 199; Downloads: 66
Redirect to original
Description
"Computers are no match for the average fourth-grader when it comes to creativity."The Special Exhibition for Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni ([link] 1475-1564) in national museum of history in Taiwan had finally over in 2013/05/12. Luckily I was able to pay a visit by the end of April. In there, the museum display many Michelangelo's painting and sculpture including the best-known sculpture, David. Notably, it is not the authentic work. As a matter of facts, most of the exhibition weren't either. They are replicates by computer. According to the art history professor who suggest his class to pay a visit, the original works are too precious that it cannot transport abroad. But thanks to the modern technology, the computers are able replicate the exact same pieces of work in both painting and sculpture. Therefore, although we cannot witness the genuine works, we could still feel and touch Michelangelo's grandeur artistic soul.
This make me gasp in admiration of modern technology. The computers are like Superman that could do all sorts of different tasks for us. However, no one doesn't seems to give credit to the computers in the exhibition. In fact, I heard that some people even complain that those were just replicates and they want to see the genuine works. Personally, I think whether the works are genuine or not doesn't really matters in art appreciating. What's more important is whether the art touch your souls or not. But they did have a point though. Computer is nothing more than a tool. No matter how accurate and powerful it become, it does not create.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to for providing the counter view:
" While computational creativity([link] ) is by and large nowhere near the level of an adult human, it still does some stuff. I'd say it's at least a match for the average fourth grader.
I've once seen a computer design a flying machine in soda constructor([link] ). This is impressive, considering the physics in that game clearly prohibit flying. The computer managed to take advantage of rounding errors to make the models do what should be impossible. Humans have managed to duplicate this feat, but only after seeing computers do it."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Further reading: [link]
PS. Thanks to for the tech-brush "[link] " which I used for the background of 1st panel.
Related content
Comments: 56
Well, you are right about computers and fourth-graders. Even when the computer has millions of ways they can create things, the fourth-grader is the one capable of actually putting that talent to action. After all, computers are no smarter than the ones that programmed them.
π: 0 β©: 0
Sometimes cuteness than just talent and details
π: 0 β©: 0
I wonder if computer will be able to be creative someday...
π: 0 β©: 0
did you paint the pic the computer are making?
π: 0 β©: 0
| Well, itβs a nice one, I have been looking for. Thanks for sharing such informative stuff. | criminal lawyer ny |
π: 0 β©: 2
You put all this code in for what I can guess was supposed to be an elaborate comment box. All I can see is the code though.
π: 0 β©: 0
The people are very lucky to have this blog because it has better knowledge. criminal lawyer ny
π: 0 β©: 0
SUUUUUUUUUUUUUPER COMPUEEEERRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!
π: 0 β©: 0
They can't create... yet. Computers are getting smarter, or rather WE'RE making them smarter.
π: 0 β©: 0
I like how this piece seems to put the computer in a position where you'd feel sorry for it; like it's unjust that a little kid's simple doodles should get so much attention while the computer's efforts in recreating a masterpiece go unnoticed. Thus, discrediting the validity of the human element in favor of the synthetic life form's raw skill, and making the viewer consider how much they might take for granted the modern technology that makes their way of life possible.
At least... That's what I got from it, anyway.
π: 0 β©: 0
...sometimes I'm less creative than a fourth-grader too!
π: 0 β©: 0
In my art courses, I read quite a few essays by artists who despised digital reproductions, "because it's not authentic", "because it's not historied", "because I'm a smelly hippie luddite"!
I think it's more the third one: a lot of those hippies wanted some kind of world where identity was not a default, everyone was equal, and everyone could communicate. I think a lot of them hate technlogy because instead of it being the drugs and bunk new-age spiritualism spiritualism they wanted it to be, it HAS come to pass, but it turned out to be the internet, and people still wanted (and do) express their individuality even through anonimity.
There's a distrust of tehcnology because they hated "The Machine" (ie: society, civilization, and government), and they were unprepared when a new society rose within actual machines, leaving their "simple" lifestyle of hippie-ness as an obsolite relic of the past.
π: 0 β©: 0
Pfft, the Louvre, where the Mona Lisa is kept... you can't see shit!
1. In a humidity-controleld box that's deep set in the wall
2. covered in glass
3. roped off another 5-10 feet
4. every other toruist in the city is there
5. with cameras
6. with flash on.
Too true, you get a better view just looking at her photo in her Wikiepdia entry: wasn't untill this past decade that I realized she is wearing a veil, and everyone I've pointed it out to didn't realize it.
π: 0 β©: 0
interesting commentary and counter-argument.
π: 0 β©: 0
As someone who studies programming (like you?), I can tell you that computers cannot create. Technically, we can make them seem like they "think". We can even make it seem like they take "inspiration" and make something out of that (would require A LOT of work but it is possible, the link you posted for example).
However, we cannot create a human brain (yet?) and we cannot make computers truly random. A computer's thinking must be very rigid and logical, going from simple true or false to complex but definite mathematics.
π: 0 β©: 0
Meh, needs more carton!
π: 0 β©: 0
you do know computers are just as useful for creating art as other mediums right?
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes I do. Actually, as a digital painter, I think computer is a better tool for decreasing art cost, mass reproduction, fast modification and public disseminating. However, it still takes human's creative mind to do the creating.
π: 0 β©: 1
sry, i only skimmed the description the first time around. i was under the impression that oyu were the one complaining about there being replicates and not the actual pieces of art. sry about that
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm a heavy believer in computers, but I do understand what you mean. No super computer can work unless the men who thinks can make it work.
π: 0 β©: 0
I think the inability to create and exist as a being is an engineering problem we can fix.
π: 0 β©: 0
"No matter how accurate and powerful it become, it does not create."
You have. NO IDEA. How wrong that is.
π: 0 β©: 1
Please do tell.
You're right that I have no idea. My opinion based on what I've learned and perceived. Therefore, it would highly result from Availability bias. More information and cognitive input would help to reduce the bias from occurring. I would love to know more about computers' creativity.
π: 0 β©: 2
Current computers are not powerful enough to reach the point of creating something original. A computer can create only from knowledge it has received (such as your input).
On the other hand, artificial intelligence would be able to do the kind of creativity that mattwo states.
π: 0 β©: 0
Computers can be used as a tool of creation, several programs are dedicated to art and video making and editing, and the process of making computer games and movie magic is usually completely digital these days and even video games are typically 100% made on a computer.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, I agree with you. However this doesn't controvert my opinion though.
As you said "Computers can be used as a tool of creation". So we still consider it as tool. The one who does the creating is the artist who use the tool. Although the arts are made on a computer, computers are only responded to the artist's command, therefore, the credit of creating goes to the artist. For example, I drew digital painting with my computer. We can say my computer help me with completing my works, but we can't say the computer create my works.
I think if you could suggest the evidences and examples of computers creating things without people's operating or instructions would better strengthen your argument.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well then you're looking at the situation you explained the wrong way then. Computers themselves cannot create, neither can museums.
π: 0 β©: 1
Indeed, then we had a common consensus that my conclusion:
"No matter how accurate and powerful it become, it does not create."
was right. At least for the present day.
π: 0 β©: 1
But as I said you're looking at it the wrong way.
There is no computer vs actually going with that logic. Hell, art tools don't create either. It just makes it just that much less relevant.
π: 0 β©: 1
I am confused about "looking at it the wrong way" though. My description are based on
1. Computer is a tool
2. Tools do not create, people do.
Therefore, my opinions are all tally with your arguments. Would you please tell by which part that you think my opinion is different from yours?
π: 0 β©: 1
It's not. You don't understand: The issue is whether or not actually going to a museum is superior to computers isn't it?
Whether or not a computer is a mere tool is irrelevant to that point.
π: 0 β©: 1
Perhaps we can go back to where our arguing started. You pointed out that my sentence:
"No matter how accurate and powerful it become, it does not create."
was wrong. Here, my point of the sentence is "whether the computer could create or not?". Therefore I naturally discussed this particular issue only. I was confused since I can't really tell why the sentence is linked to
"whether or not actually going to a museum is superior to computers?"
I don't know why you had viewed my opinion that way. Through my entire description, I did not express opinion or judgment regarding superiority. My views to the exhibition are
1. I'm fine with the replicates because I think whether the arts themselves could touch spectators' souls is more important
2. The reason why people didn't give credit to the computers which make the exhibition happen is that computers only responsible for replicating. The credits of creation goes to the artist, Michelangelo.
In conclusion, you're right I didn't understand because I didn't think that you were talking about superiority. We had missed the points of argument because We simply viewed this issue with different aspect.
All in all, I still can't see by which particular part that we hold different opinion. You're welcome to describe further if you'd love to.
π: 0 β©: 1
I never said it was wrong.
You said they were partially right because it's just a tool, even though that's irrelevant to the point of which is superior, neither you nor they should be using that to defend that point of view.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, I understand. Your sentence "You have. NO IDEA. How wrong that is." was referring to the question of superiority, not the question of creativity.
May I ask what particularly is the point of view you mention at the end of your sentence? I hope if we wish to further discuss the issue, we could be more clearly on our subjects and points of arguments to avoid the misunderstanding we had previously.
π: 0 β©: 1
I already corrected myself on my original reply awhile ago..
The point of view was the question of superiority.
π: 0 β©: 0
This reminded me of this quote: "A creative adult is the child who survived"
π: 0 β©: 0
"Therefore, although we cannot witness the genuine works,"
I disagree. The genuine work is not the materials it's made of. That's not impressive. Nobody cares about that. The genuine work is what they shaped the material into, which is what they had at the museum.
"No matter how accurate and powerful it become, it does not create."
Yes it does. You just went to the wrong museum. While computational creativity is by and large nowhere near the level of an adult human, it still does some stuff. I'd say it's at least a match for the average fourth grader.
I've once seen a computer design a flying machine in soda constructor . This is impressive, considering the physics in that game clearly prohibit flying. The computer managed to take advantage of rounding errors to make the models do what should be impossible. Humans have managed to duplicate this feat, but only after seeing computers do it.
π: 0 β©: 1
I agree. To me, materials doesn't matter very much. What I'm really care about is what thinking that the artist had put into. I remembered that the professor in my description once told us that the most crucial difference between an artist and an art artisan is "thinking and ideas". Without them, the art is nothing more than a well-constructed materials, only with them could the art become an art.
Although I need say a few thing about the materials. For the original works, sculptures were all made by marble. Michelangelo especially love to sculpt marble since he believed marble is the most magical material for artists. However, the sculptures in the special exhibition aren't made by marble. They are some kind of gypsum. Although the exhibition artificially made them look like marble, if we look closely, the texture are still obviously different. Therefore people might find it hard to understand why Michelangelo would love marble so much and what kind of magic did Michelangelo find. I guessed there are still some engineering difficulties so they still can't made marble-made replicates. If they could overcome all the engineering difficulties, I believe art appreciating between different nations could be much much more striving.
Your example of computational creativity was amazing. I really had underrated modern computers. Live and learn. Thanks for sharing.
π: 0 β©: 0
The quote is actually from the journal I mentioned in the end of my description.(The Rise of The Artists: [link] )
Just want to credit them properly.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh I see.
Thanks for sharing that!
π: 0 β©: 0
You get to see a priceless work of art (almost) first hand without the while slew of troubles of transporting the original long distances.
While I can't exactly fault the people complaining that what was on show were not the real thing, instead of complaining I believe they should be the ones bothering themselves to travel to were the pieces of art are kept wether it be at the Louvre or elsewhere.
They should be happy that people who are unable to see the real deal firsthand gets a chance to see and experience these works of art in a way that is a cut above a simple computer image file or print out.
π: 0 β©: 1
Hmm, perhaps they just complaining about the money( The price of the tickets are NT$ 250, which is about 8.5 dollars. Considering the Consumer's purchasing power in U.S is 3 times higher than Taiwan. The feeling of spending NT$ 250(8.5 dollars) for Taiwanese would be like the feeling of spending 25.5 dollars for U.S citizens.).XD
π: 0 β©: 1
Now that makes more sense, maybe its to high a price to see imitations.
Do you know the average entry fee for a normal art museum there? If, by comparison, the price is higher than normal then that is legitimate grounds to complain.
Personally I think art galleries should charge just above how much it cost them to maintain the gallery. Then again the only art galleries I remember going to don't charge me an entrance fee, mainly because there was an event or the pieces were up for sale. XP
π: 0 β©: 0
Hm, when i look at your drawing, i get the suggestion, that the computer is actually recreating Michelangelo's "The Creation of Adam" all by itself...
I'm a bit confused now, after i've read your comment.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>