首页> 外文期刊>Philosophy & technology >Special Section: Rethinking Art and Aesthetics in the Age of Creative Machines: Editor’s Introduction
【24h】

Special Section: Rethinking Art and Aesthetics in the Age of Creative Machines: Editor’s Introduction

机译:专题:对创意机器时代的艺术和美学的反思:编辑介绍

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

As machines of various sorts and configurations encroach on human abilities in areas like manufacturing, decision making, communication, transportation, etc., the one remaining bulwark of human exceptionalism appears to be creativity and artistry. But maybe not for long. There are already technologies that can produce what appear to be creative work. There is, for example, Shimon, a marimba-playing jazz-bot from Georgia Tech University that can improvise with human musicians in real time (Hoffman and Weinberg 2011); Experiments in Musical Intelligence or EMI, a PC-based digital composer that can create new classical music scores that are (by some accounts) virtually indistinguishable from the master works of Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart (Cope 2001); The Painting Fool, an algorithmic painter that aspires to be "taken seriously as a creative artist in its own right" (Colton 2012, 16); and Narrative Science's Quill and Automated Insight's Wordsmith, natural language generation systems that are designed to write original, human-readable stories by drawing down and reassembling data residing in the cloud (Dorr and Hollnbuchner 2016). Consequently, it appears that what we have called "creativity" and "artistry" may not be as uniquely human as one might have initially thought. This special section of Philosophy and Technology examines the philosophical opportunities, challenges, and repercussions of increasingly creative machines. In one way or another, the three essays collected here seek to address and respond to one seemingly simple question: Can machines create art?
机译:随着各种类型和配置的机器在制造,决策,通信,运输等领域侵害人类的能力,人类例外主义剩下的唯一堡垒似乎是创造力和艺术性。但是也许不会太久。已经有可以产生创造性作品的技术。例如,佐治亚理工大学的马林巴爵士演奏机器人希蒙(Shimon)可以实时与人类音乐家即兴表演(Hoffman and Weinberg 2011)。在基于PC的数字作曲家Musical Intelligence或EMI中进行的实验,可以创建新的古典乐谱(从某些方面来说)与巴赫,贝多芬和莫扎特的主要作品几乎没有区别(Cope 2001);绘画傻瓜,一种算法画家,渴望“被独立认为是一个有创造力的艺术家”(Colton 2012,第16页);以及Narrative Science的Quill和Automated Insight的Wordsmith,自然语言生成系统,旨在通过绘制和重组驻留在云中的数据来编写人类可读的原始故事(Dorr和Hollnbuchner,2016年)。因此,似乎我们所谓的“创造力”和“手工艺品”可能不像人们最初想象的那样独特。哲学和技术的这一特殊部分探讨了越来越有创造力的机器的哲学机遇,挑战和影响。以某种方式,这里收集的三篇论文试图解决并回答一个看似简单的问题:机器可以创造艺术吗?

著录项

  • 来源
    《Philosophy & technology》 |2017年第3期|263-265|共3页
  • 作者

    Gunkel David J.;

  • 作者单位

    Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, United States;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-18 02:18:52

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