Continued from Part 2/3: Artworks as Attractors in Practice.
As a postcript, I must mention the taboo these essays are breaking. For in fact today it is a taboo to talk about a definition of Art, because it is considered undefinable due to the currently prevailing ideas of "freedom of creation / interpretation". In other words, it is up to the viewer to decide if they consider something Art or not, worthy of their appreciation. This is a rather over-simplified and rarely-doubted view, analogous to early Humans' worship of what they could not explain.
In these essays, I am suggesting a meta-definition existing independently of viewers or creators, since I believe that Art does exist on the meta level, and it does have a genuine universal definition, which may or may not be the ones I have proposed. However I do believe in the validity of my second (current) definition, as it is closely based upon my own experiences and inner feelings while creating. A more refined definition will only be possible if we uncover the biological mechanisms of artistic imagination within the brain, or possibly beyond it.
Deep inside everyone feels that this quest for the true definition of Art is a potentially dangerous one. For if a rational/algorithmic method gets to be devised for creating an artwork, computerized machines may then be capable of envisioning, generating, and improvising genuine refined true Art, likely surpassing any Human Art. Many types of generative media already exist, including fractal art and abstract video art. However, I mean here algorithms capable of turning a piece of marble into a piece of Art, due to their ability to envision and improve a piece via their non-deterministic Taste, resulting in various Artworks from the same piece of marble. It is no surprise then that a deep fear resides in us for such an ominous possibility, which might easily surpass any visual art formerly created by a Human.
However, I believe that Homo Sapiens won its dominance due to its intellect in devising tools to extend its abilities. Machines aiding the creation of Artworks through mathematics and programming, only represent new brushes, canvases and chisels for manifesting Human visions in reality. So then what is a greater quest than devising machines capable of envisioning and creating Art in a split second?
In the future, artists must also become mathematicians and programmers, and that time is not far. As a first stage, their art may very-well become a combination of Human improvisation using computer-generated elements, resulting in a sort of performance-like "Cyber-Human Art", described in my essay On the Future of Art.
As I wrote in that essay: "I hope that today’s generation of artists will remain open to any new advancements, and will profit from these opportunities when they become available, thus allowing themselves to open doors to higher levels of creative freedom."
As a postcript, I must mention the taboo these essays are breaking. For in fact today it is a taboo to talk about a definition of Art, because it is considered undefinable due to the currently prevailing ideas of "freedom of creation / interpretation". In other words, it is up to the viewer to decide if they consider something Art or not, worthy of their appreciation. This is a rather over-simplified and rarely-doubted view, analogous to early Humans' worship of what they could not explain.
In these essays, I am suggesting a meta-definition existing independently of viewers or creators, since I believe that Art does exist on the meta level, and it does have a genuine universal definition, which may or may not be the ones I have proposed. However I do believe in the validity of my second (current) definition, as it is closely based upon my own experiences and inner feelings while creating. A more refined definition will only be possible if we uncover the biological mechanisms of artistic imagination within the brain, or possibly beyond it.
Deep inside everyone feels that this quest for the true definition of Art is a potentially dangerous one. For if a rational/algorithmic method gets to be devised for creating an artwork, computerized machines may then be capable of envisioning, generating, and improvising genuine refined true Art, likely surpassing any Human Art. Many types of generative media already exist, including fractal art and abstract video art. However, I mean here algorithms capable of turning a piece of marble into a piece of Art, due to their ability to envision and improve a piece via their non-deterministic Taste, resulting in various Artworks from the same piece of marble. It is no surprise then that a deep fear resides in us for such an ominous possibility, which might easily surpass any visual art formerly created by a Human.
However, I believe that Homo Sapiens won its dominance due to its intellect in devising tools to extend its abilities. Machines aiding the creation of Artworks through mathematics and programming, only represent new brushes, canvases and chisels for manifesting Human visions in reality. So then what is a greater quest than devising machines capable of envisioning and creating Art in a split second?
In the future, artists must also become mathematicians and programmers, and that time is not far. As a first stage, their art may very-well become a combination of Human improvisation using computer-generated elements, resulting in a sort of performance-like "Cyber-Human Art", described in my essay On the Future of Art.
As I wrote in that essay: "I hope that today’s generation of artists will remain open to any new advancements, and will profit from these opportunities when they become available, thus allowing themselves to open doors to higher levels of creative freedom."
