On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:46 PM, David Barbour <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Loup Vaillant <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I actually have hope that we eventually get to the point where we >> can actually understand what makes good art with mathematical >> precision (if we choose to). >> >> Of course, I agree that this question is far from solved. It probably >> won't be before we fully understand the human brain. > > > I expect we will reach the point where computers can create good art > before we understand what makes good art. We will do so by *teaching* the > computer and leveraging feedback mechanisms (such as popularity and critic > ratings). There is already a lot of progress in this direction (cf. > http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/mp3page.htm) > > Our computers will have the same problem we do: "I can't say what good art > is, but I can heuristically recognize it when I see it." > True. I often stop to look at spray can artists on the street mass producing quite nice pictures in a couple of minutes. It's not 'good art' but i looks kind of like it and people buy it. I like looking a the procedurally generated worlds I see on the various sites. Karl > > Regards, > > Dave > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
