Dear all, James A Stimson wrote:
> These composing machines and programs seem able to copy lots of things > about a composer's work, except those things that make the work worthwhile > -- inspiration, individuality, diversity, unexpected charms, grace, > elegance, spirit, etc. Are you really sure? I do not say I disagree, but in communication there is the sender and there is the reciever. This question is philosophically very interesting! And I would certainly not underestimate the reciever - in our case the listener! Who is the one who really makes the art? Is the message really sent by the artist? Or is it produced while reciving by the reciever? To take an analogy from visual arts: If a painting is defined to be painted by Rembrandt, many can see the artistic values. If after a couple of years it is proofed that the painting was not by Rembrandt, the artistic value diminishes - not to speak about the economical value... To me - in music - the claim that some piece is "composed by J.S. Bach" is a kind of red herring (was this the saying?). Every spot of ink by him should be a gem - and to me every spot certainly is not. Well, many are... But at the end, I totally agree with James: The only importantant art is made by men/women! And the reciever is the judge! There just is, and has been, that much of "wannabe-art" that could easily been produced by machines, too. The "real thing" - whatever it is or could be? - cannot be achieved without human makers! All the best Arto To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
