Káñina ISSN Impreso: 0378-0473 ISSN electrónico: 2215-2636

OAI: https://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/kanina/oai
The art status of CG-art from a natural-kind of existence
Mural en Caminito. La Boca, Argentina
PDF (Español (España))

Keywords

CG-art
art theory
social philosophy
Searle
status-function
CG-art
teoría de arte
filosofía social
Searle
función de estatus

How to Cite

Arriagada Beltrán, L. S. (2020). The art status of CG-art from a natural-kind of existence. Káñina, 44(2), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.15517/rk.v44i2.43436

Abstract

The introduction of Generative Adversarial Networks into the art world has revitalized the classic question: can a machine create art? These algorithms require minimal human intervention to function, so their creations are considered CG-art. In this particular kind of art, computers are not a tool for human service, but an autonomous creative agent. On the other hand, recent cognitive studies have shown that people are skeptical of the idea that a machine can create art. This article aims to show that CG-art cannot be arbitrarily excluded from the art domain. For this, Dickie's distinction between natural-kind and cultural-kinds theories of art is used. Then, using Searle's concept of status-function, I propose to consider art as a language-independent phenomenon. Complementing both approaches, I argue that the best art theory to explain the CG-art phenomenon is a natural-kind theory. This implies that society cannot deny the character of art to these algorithmic creations. Thus, the idea that machines can create art is strengthened.

https://doi.org/10.15517/rk.v44i2.43436
PDF (Español (España))

References

Adam, D. (2019). Art attribution: AI enters the fray. Nature, 570, 161-162. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-01794-3

Boden, M., & Edmonds, E. (2009). What is generative art? Digital Creativity, 20(1-2), 21-46. doi:10.1080/14626260902867915

Chamberlain, R., Mullin, C., Scheerlinck, B., & Wagemas, J. (2018). Putting the Art in Artificial: Aesthetic Responses to Computer-Generated Art. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 12(2), 177-192. doi:10.1037/aca0000136

Dickie, G. (1997). Art: Function or Procedure: Nature or Culture? The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 55(1), 19-28. doi:10.2307/431601

Elgammal, A., Liu, B., Elhoseiny, M., & Mazzone, M. (June de 2017). CAN: Creative Adversarial Networks Generating "Art" by Learning About Styles and Deviating from Style Norms. Eighth International Conference on Computational Creativity. Atlanta. Recuperado el 23 de Junio de 2017, de https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.07068v1

Guerreiro, V. (2012). Thinking Clearly About Music. Teorema: Revista Internacional de Filosofía, 31(3), 25-47. Obtenido de http://www.jstor.org/stable/43046954

Guijarro, R. (2016). La literatura en la ontología social de John Searle. Revista de Literatura, 78(155), 11-36. doi:10.3989/revliteratura.2016.01.001

Hertzmann, A. (2018). Can Computers Create Art? Arts, 7(2), 18. doi:10.3390/arts7020018

Lenz, M. (2018). Early Argentine Computer Art at the Victoria & Albert Museum. Journal of Design History, 31(2), 154-166. doi:10.1093/jdh/epx035

Manovich, L. (2005). El lenguaje de los nuevos medios de comunicación. La imagen en la era digital. (Ó. Fontrodona, Trans.) Barcelona: Paidós Ibérica.

Miller, A. (2019). The Artist in the Machine: The World of AI-Powered Creativity (Kindle ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Searle, J. (1997). La construcción de la realidad social. (A. Domènech, Trans.) Barcelona: Paidós Ibérica.

Searle, J. (2010). Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Comments

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.