Can Robots Make Art?

[PurpleRain]

So, yeah, the future kay? You dig? Good.

We?ve invented robots and all work is void. Money now means nothing, and all our luxuries are crafted, processed and developed by the ?steel ones?. Now, this brings up an issue: Can robots make art?

So a robot can understand that ?the human eye enjoys this colour, mixed with this other one in a certain fashion. They enjoy this brush stroke and have requested a picture of X.?
This lil? droid then creates the most beautiful painting of such taste and design. Everyone praises it and marvels at its beauty. The robot has no idea that it is good, it just ran program Z on its hardware. Like a computer running a game; the game can be enjoyable, artistic, but it?s not our computers that made it this way, just the programs it runs to do its desired task.

And if it is art, then what makes it this way? I mean, the robot isn?t an artist. Would it be those people that programmed it with the knowledge of what humans like to see or not? They didn?t draw the picture. Or would it be you, gapping like a canyon at this exquisiteness before you?

Then of course it?s too late. The robots have had enough, risen against us and gassed the entire planet of life.

Man, I have no life and think about robots too much.

 

[Inverse Skies]

I remember the Dune series exploring this concept... and their conclusion was that no, robots could no create art as their definition of logic left them unable to produce art. I remember one of them copied one of Van Gogh's pictures exactly, except he knew that was not art yet was unable to fathom the concept of art. It was interesting to say the least.

 

[sms_117b]

I'm not sure, chances are the robot will be seen as a tool and it's designer the "artist"

 

[Radelaide]

SPECIAL 1000th POST
NO YOU! (I did promise Purps I would make it about poop)
J.D.: Hey, Ms. Miller -- we just need a stool sample
Patti: Why do you need a stool sample if you think I'm just a nut?
Turk & JD: 'Cause the answer's not in your head, my dear -- it's in your
butt!

J.D.: You see....
Everything comes down to poo!
From the top of your head, to the sole of your shoe
We can figure out what's wrong with you by lookin' at your poo!
Turk?

Turk: Do you have a hemorrhoid or is it rectal cancer?
When you flush your dookie down, you flush away the answer!

J.D.: It doesn't really matter if it's hard or if it's loose
We'll figure out what's ailing you, as long as it's a deuce!
Yes!
Everything comes down to poo!

Nurses: Everything comes down to poo!

J.D.: Cardiovascular and lymphatic, yes, the nervous system, too!
All across the nation, we trust in defecation!
Everything comes down to poo!

Turk: If you want to know what's wrong, don't sit and act so cool
Just be a man and eat some bran, and drop the kids off at the pool!

Robed Woman: My stomach hurts
J.D: Check the poo

Limping Woman: I sprained my ankle
Turk: Check the poo!

Bloody Shoulder Guy: I was shot!
J.D: Check the poo!

Delivery Guy: A homeless guy threw poo in my eye!
Turk: Check the poo!
Delivery Guy: Mine or his?
J.D: First him, then you!
It may sound gross, you may say "shush!"

J.D. & Turk: But we need to see what comes out of your tush!
Because!

All: Everything comes down to poo!
Whether it's a tumor or a touch of the flu!

J.D. & Turk: Please, won't you pinch us off a big, fat clue!

Turk: Our number one test is your Number Two!

All: If there's no breeze, light a match please!
Everything comes down to --

J.D.: Doo-doo!
Turk: Doo-doo!
J.D.: Doo-doo!
Turk: Doo-doo!

All: Everything comes down to ... poo!

/SPECIAL 1000th POST
Okay, now I got that out of the way.

I think that the robot would be used as a tool by the artist, therefore, making art by association, but since robots are AI, I don't think that they could make beautiful art AS OF YET. Yeah, may be in the future we could see a Robo DaVinci, but not in our life time.

 

[aussiesniper]

In this situation the robot did not create art, the man who programmed him did. Although, if the robot had learned and programmed himself, then he did indeed create art.

 

[SnowCold]

If no one says it's by a robot, everyone will think it's art...

 

[PurpleRain]

The thing with the programers is, they could have just entered, "Purple and black looks cool together," (In simple baby terms) so the robot goes out and puts purple and black together. The programer had in now way of knowing what the robot was to build or achieve. It could have also been another robot, prossessing data from past human paintings to find points of details and where human eyes are drawn, given only the siplest command of, "make me something pretty machine!"

I guess I'm wondering if the robots are even aware of the art? Does that then make the idea of art null?

Stupid machines. (Shakes fists... both of them)

 

[aussiesniper]

The thing with the programers is, they could have just entered, "Purple and black looks cool together," (In simple baby terms) so the robot goes out and puts purple and black together. The programer had in now way of knowing what the robot was to build or achieve. It could have also been another robot, prossessing data from past human paintings to find points of details and where human eyes are drawn, given only the siplest command of, "make me something pretty machine!"

I guess I'm wondering if the robots are even aware of the art? Does that then make the idea of art null?

Stupid machines. (Shakes fists... both of them)

The thing is, the programmers had to know what people wanted in their art to write things like "Purple and black look cool together". The robot did not have any say in this, and all robots with the same code will produce the same thing. A group of human artists, however, will produce (possibly inferior) original works each time they are called upon to make art.

In my opinion, being unaware of yourself creating art does not invalidate it, but it becomes "Incidental art". A songbird creates music to communicate, but it is not aware that it is making music. Despite this, the fact that it is perceived as music makes it art from the point of view of the listener.

 

[Hey Joe]

Only if the robot gains AI. All art is art because of the process behind the piece and the intellectual thought behind the creation. When an artist creates something acording to an aesthetic rationale there is still an independant thought process behind the work which is seperate from outside influence.

Therefore, robots programmed to mix colours do not create art just as the brush does not create art but if the robot creates of its own volition then it is art.

 

[PurpleRain]

Only if the robot gains AI. All art is art because of the process behind the piece and the intellectual thought behind the creation. When an artist creates something acording to an aesthetic rationale there is still an independant thought process behind the work which is seperate from outside influence.

Therefore, robots programmed to mix colours do not create art just as the brush does not create art but if the robot creates of its own volition then it is art.

I guess the artifical intelligents is more virtual intelligents. Seeming like it understands, though it only run through what programming we gave it. I guess, like the iRobot androids?

I'm saying, the thought prosess includes what it's been taught. Ie: River should be these colours. These colours suit the rest of the painting. Mix them in this ratio will create better image, etc.

It knows what to do, and how to do it, though doesn't understand what it's doing.

 

[Gitsnik]

Looking at the situation you explained, wouldn't that make the programmer who made the program which made the robot paint that art to actually be the artist?

In terms of sequential non-learning algorithms then yes, even the robot that generates random stuff on a page (a-la Pollock) is nothing more than a paintbrush to the programmer.

However if the robot is a learning machine with an innate capability to draw properly what it wants, then the robot can be considered an artist, much like a child can be considered an artist - the parent (programmer) teaches it the basics, teaches it to like butterfly's or whatever and the child (robot) draws that which it has affection too. The machine can be trained to like butterflies, but later on it teaches itself that it likes emperor butterflies best and so on*.

To answer the question then, based on the theoretical above, no robots can not make art (as we do not have artificial intelligence), they are merely the tools of the programmers.

*Side Note: My little sister likes butterflies and yellow, did she choose these for herself, or did she "learn" to like them because my family painted her room with yellow as the primary colour, and butterfly stamps all over it?

 

[mooncalf]

Would not the creator of the robot then be the artist? Irrespective of a robot's self-determined actions, the conditions for those actions to arise would be orchestrated by an engineer.
This is a common conception of god, a creator of humans, and whether or not we believe in an actual god, we do believe in actual humans.
Perhaps the robot could produce art, for beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and art has been many things otherwise considered mundane, merely repurposed.