首页> 外文期刊>Arts >Can Machines Be Artists? A Deweyan Response in Theory and Practice
【24h】

Can Machines Be Artists? A Deweyan Response in Theory and Practice

机译:机器可以成为艺术家吗?杜威理论与实践的回应

获取原文
       

摘要

To speak comfortably of the machine artist (as outlined in the call for papers for this Special Issue) makes key assumptions about what it is to be an artist. It assumes, for instance, that the experience of living as an artist, which includes the socialisation, hard work, single-mindedness, and focused energy of creative activity, is incidental rather than essential since these aspects are not comfortably applicable to machines. Instead, it supposes that what is essential is the artistic product, and it is the similarity of human and machine products that makes it possible to speak of machine artists. This definition of art in terms of products is supported by modern psychological theories of creativity, defined as the generation of novel ideas which give rise to valuable products. These ideas take place in the mind or brain, regarded as a closed system within whose workings the secret of creativity will eventually be revealed. This is the framework of what is widely referred to as “cognitivism”. This definition in terms of novel ideas and valuable products has been widely assumed by artificial intelligence (AI) and computational creativity (CC), and this has been backed up through a particular version of the Turing Test. In this, a machine can be said to be a creative artist if its products cannot be distinguished from human art. However, there is another psychological view of creativity, that of John Dewey, in which a lived experience of inquiry and focus is essential to being creative. In this theory, creativity is a function of the whole person interacting with the world, rather than originating in the brain. This makes creativity a Process rather than a Cognitivist framework. Of course, the brain is crucial in a Process theory, but as part of an open system which includes both body and environment. Developments in “machine art” have been seen as spectacular and are widely publicised. But there may be a danger that these will distract from what we take to be the most exciting prospect of all. This is the contribution of computer technology to stimulate, challenge, and provoke artistic practice of all forms.
机译:轻松地说一下机器艺术家(如本期特刊的征文要求所概述),对要成为一名艺术家的工作做出了重要假设。例如,它假定作为艺术家的生活经历是偶然的,而不是必不可少的,其中包括社交化,努力工作,专一精神和创造性活动的精力,因为这些方面不适用于机器。相反,它假定最重要的是艺术产品,而人与机器产品的相似性使人们可以谈论机器艺术家。对产品的艺术定义得到了现代创造力心理学理论的支持,这些创新理论被定义为产生有价值产品的新颖思想的产生。这些想法发生在大脑或大脑中,被认为是一个封闭的系统,在这个系统中,创造力的秘密最终将被揭示。这就是被广泛称为“认知主义”的框架。人工智能(AI)和计算创造力(CC)广泛采用了关于新颖创意和有价值产品的定义,并且已经通过特定版本的图灵测试来支持这一定义。在这种情况下,如果不能将其产品与人类艺术区分开,则可以说该机器是创意艺术家。但是,还有另一种关于创造力的心理学观点,即约翰·杜威(John Dewey)的观点,其中生动活泼的探究和专注经验对于创造力至关重要。按照这种理论,创造力是整个人与世界互动的功能,而不是起源于大脑。这使创造力成为过程而不是认知主义者的框架。当然,大脑在过程论中至关重要,但在包括身体和环境在内的开放系统中却是至关重要的。 “机械艺术”的发展被认为是惊人的,并被广泛宣传。但是,可能存在这样的危险,即它们将分散我们认为是最令人兴奋的前景的注意力。这是计算机技术对激发,挑战和激发各种形式的艺术实践的贡献。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号