TATE Art Terms defines ‘FORM’ in relation to art as accompanying two meanings: it can refer to the overall form taken by the work; or within a work of art it can refer to element of shape among the various elements that make up a work. Alan Fletcher in The Art of Looking Sideways remarks (Fletcher, 2001);
“Man invented things by imposing a shape on nature”
“Man discovered things by revealing the pattern of nature”
Apparently both ideas communicate the same vision on works of art, as a check-and-balance process, between imposing the presence, and revealing the absence of reality (truth), in where we find ourselves.
Approximately more than 1,500,000 years ago, across Africa, Europe, and Asia, archaeologist have discovered the earliest human-made tool, identified as the ‘Acheulian hand Axe’, since the Lower Paleolithic Period. The ‘Form and Function’ of such tools demand primordial roots and respects towards our ancestors, upon how they navigate art not merely as vacuum, exclusively absence from society, nevertheless complimenting its dynamic presence, empowering society through time and space. Its presence demands significant preference, as well as personality of its maker. A novel masterpiece.
Nevertheless the reality we addressed ourselves today, is far departed from one which resolves only between humans and nature, as we seek to identify centuries ago. Science and Technological advancement has progress more rapidly as ever before, celebrating an autonomous age, highlighting robots and artificial intelligence (AI) as the stars of the show, and taking on human jobs in the name of progress, celebrating the pre-zenith of the 5th Industrial Revolution. Such progress owes a check-and-balance process, in regards to its presence as well as absence.
In Art History, tastes (aesthetics) as well as preferences (common shared characteristics) have always been the cornerstone which celebrates novel art styles, resolving as avant-garde movements. However in todays age of the 4th Industrial Revolution, the presence of artificial intelligence (AI), does accompany a tight challenge towards the nature/nurtured intelligence of humankinds. For the record, ChatGPT could write an art appreciation on Mona Lisa in less than a few seconds. Midjourney could create a logo or illustrate visual appealing photos of a scene or subject which has never existed, in regards to its prompts, within few seconds of its command.
Interestingly dialogues on Intelligence (Truth) found its philosophical roots in the western cannon since the classical Greeks. Ironically it did spark with ideas termed as ‘The World of Forms’. Plato in Republic draws on the theory of 'Forms', where conscious of the mind and body is made out of the dichotomy between 'The World of Form (Ideas)', and 'The World of Object' (reality) we find ourselves. Such philosophical ideas has identified works of Art as an imitation process termed ‘mimesis’, which Plato remarks as imitation from the world of Forms. Plato made an example of the ‘carpenter’, ‘chair’, and ‘painter’ (artist). The carpenter created object ‘chair’ from the ‘World of Forms (Ideas)’, through its qualities as well as attributes, which formulates its anatomy such as; ear, back post, cross rail, stile, spindle, and legs, in which Plato remarks this process as ‘is once removed from reality’. Nevertheless, eventually after witnessing such creation, the painter decided to capture (draw) the carpenters ‘chair’, where here Plato remarks such process as twice removed from reality. Thus, art itself in the eyes of Plato is an imitation process, as rather opposed to as a creative outcome we perceive today.
Evidently, through his dialogues of the Republic Plato is postulating an objective reality, or an objective quality one which he identifies as superior to 'The World of Object' (reality), in one we find ourselves today. Deliberating, Plato would argue against the sophist (Relativism); that after all no one could claimed that a triangle had no more or less than 3 angles or edges, despite what shape the triangle takes place. Protagoras was an influential relativist who proclaimed existence of subjective reality, one such as ‘Man is the Measure of all Things’.
When we encounter a form of a ‘Cube’, place in front of us, how do we recognize it as a ‘Cube’? or at least a form of a ‘Cube’. Is it through experience of the senses, or through established innate qualities/attributes that we recognize a form of a ‘Cube’. Such deliberate discourse on the demarcation of objective and subjective reality has been a classic topic, on ethics (aesthetics), authority (power), and outcome (impact) which relates between art as well as the artist. Williams (2009) remarked:
“...from an art devoted to objects, to one devoted to relations between objects, and, finally, to one devoted purely to the relations themselves...”
Gazing at a form of the ‘cube’, the first artist would represent its formal qualities, through the lines and lights, capturing tonal as well as shade value. At this stage, the artist is interested in imitating (mimesis) objects of reality. This is a classical Grand-Narrative aesthetic, which ranges from the classical Greek all the way to Renaissance, and the Academy of Arts. Empowering the Trompe-l'oeil; an artistic term for the highly realistic optical illusion of three-dimensional space and objects on a two-dimensional surface. This exemplifies full control of artistic techniques, skills, as well as talents, subjected to ‘an art devoted to objects’.
Encountering a form of the ‘Cube’, the second artist would interrogate its formal qualities, amplifying its formal space and structure. This artist would be interested in attributes beyond the formal representations of the cube. In the form of a ‘Cube’, there is volume, this volume creates depth, which apparently is constructed from at least; six (6) squares, eight (8) edges, and twelve (12) lines. This is a Meta-Narrative aesthetic, which paved its way since the earliest avant-garde movements of modern art, formulating works of out beyond the representations of mere imitate reality. Henry Moore once remarked that even space can have form; ‘A hole can have as much shape meaning as a solid mass’.
Picasso and Braque perfected the Analytical and Synthetic Cubism, analyzing, interpreting, as well as synthesizing forms of reality beyond the 3-Dimensional reality. Eugene Chevreul in his essay ‘Abstraction considered in its relationship to the Fine Arts (1864)’, remarked that the fine arts offer us only abstractions, even when they present us with work that apparently reproduces a concrete image. Seurat began to construct his scene of life through his static geometric solids with clear edges define by the change in color by Chevreul’s Color Theory. This exemplifies an exploration on techniques and approaches in art, subjected to ‘from an art devoted to objects, to one devoted to relations between objects’.
Confronting a form of the ‘Cube’, the third artist would dwell between the concepts of objective and subjective reality, between what Plato addressed as 'The World of Form (Ideas)', and 'The World of Object'. Contrary, Aristotle would address mimesis as Hyomorphism; where both entities (True/false) are fragmented and identical to one another, in a contemporary setting of a Fragmented-Narrative aesthetic. In such process, the artist challenges the example provided by Plato, in the ‘Carpenter’, ‘Chair’, and ‘Painter’, in a way dismissing Plato’s argument of “as twice removed from the Truth (Reality)”.
The artist dwells beneath the primordial idea of the ‘Cube’ in itself, as an essence and presence of reality, in regards to our existence in this world. This technique and approach is well celebrated in contemporary art (Conceptual Art), one depicted in the works of Joseph Kosuth ‘One and Three Chairs (1965)’; the piece consist of a chair, a photograph of the chair, and an enlarge dictionary definition of the word “chair”. A dichotomy between temporal vs atemporal, spatial vs aspatial, subjected to ‘from an art devoted to objects, to one devoted to relations between objects, and, finally, to one devoted purely to the relations themselves’. Resulting as pure conceptual ideas of the ‘Cube’ in itself.
From the situations of the three (3) artists experimenting and exploring the human abilities and capacities in a nature/nurtured intelligence, we can agree that artificial intelligence (AI) is progressing quite-well in the creative industry or perhaps art scene. Nonetheless, using the 4W1H (What, When, Where, Why, How) method of questioning, we have listed five (5) supporting key points in question of ‘Creative Intelligence versus Artificial Intelligence (AI)’, as follow:
1) What is the nature of Artificial Intelligence (AI)? AI essentially is a digital autonomous transformation, processing information and interpretation of algorithms (data), in producing a set of outcome, claimed as Artificial Intelligence. According to the DIKW pyramid which roots knowledge management and transformation, from the lowest-highest level of; ‘Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom’, superficially AI has the capacity to process and produce knowledge, however when it comes to decisions and actions in the level of ‘Wisdom’, there are grey areas. Creativity is a process which acquires commitment for synthesis, between true and false, or between both, as a bias byproduct of identity, personality, and culture. It is within such commitment of creativity which dwells with creations of novelty, that human intelligence is valued in the world we find ourselves. Avant-Garde movements of the 20th centuries were the testament of such creative process. How do we differentiate a capitalist and communist AI? Is one better than the other? Or both better together? Ethically human beings decides the picture of his dreams with rationales beyond the superficial, as well as artificial intelligence.
2) When superficial or artificial value bothers the Fine Arts? Literally, in fact it does bother for a few artist and designers. Moreover in the course of Art History itself, there is a term called as ‘Kitsch’, according to The Oxford Companion Art; “A German term for ‘vulgar trash’ which became fashionable in the early 20th century. Its application ranged from commercial atrocities such as touristic souvenirs and fake decorations to any pretended art which is considered lacking in honesty or vigour.” Exclusive as it is, Fine Arts up until today still brings this ethos of ‘Art for Art Sake’. After more than a 100 years does ‘Kitsch’ still happens and where? Well these so called superficial or artificial replicas of works of art does and still operates at one of China’s ‘Art Factory’, at the Dafen Village, Guangdong Province, where artist imitates realistic replicas of impressionist as well as post-impressionist painters notably van gogh’s, for the exact same reasons to sold outside as souvenirs with its own value. Its material and appearance renders the same outcome, however if placed at our own houses, as an art collector, we know how bad its taste would hurt. Hence AI is a mere ‘Kitsch’ as opposed to the Human Creative Intelligence.
3) Where can Artificial Intelligence (AI) have value in competence to Human creative intelligence? Superficially AI does process a lot faster in generating creative outcome, however to position or market Ai as intended to have a value as human creative intelligence is the root of the question. To acquire a superficial outcome does not make one as valuable as the other. A synthetic diamond are created in labs with less amount of time that than natural diamonds, its appearance are identical to the original, but does it carries the same value to be appreciated as a precious gemstone? After all, what makes a diamond is its isometric crystal structure between bonds of carbon. However some natural diamonds takes years to be recognized as diamonds, there are diamonds which exist 3,000,000,000 (billion) years since genesis in the crust of our earth, some years way beyond like ages of the stars. Art itself owes its narratives in cannons of art history, through movements from one another. Such heritage definitely would appear with a thick price tag, one as a ‘Chanel’ handbag, you can buy one at the night market, however only you know the truth. Thus, the question to portray AI with an idea that it brings the same value as the human creative intelligence is more superficial or artificial in the nature as well as reality we address ourselves.
4) Why does Artificial Intelligence (AI) destroy the market of Human Creative Intelligence, specifically the Fine Arts? Ideally in economy, we would address that when there is high in supply, the demands will be low. Indeed, AI users exist and increases every day especially in the creative industries, even some of our devices have algorithms of themselves. Nevertheless, it does not mean that AI would destroy the fine arts market, even some artist are harnessing the idea of AI as a part of their existence or identity where they find themselves. More than 150 years ago, when the first camera (Daguerreotype) was perfected, its invention after being mass-marketed gave a significant impact on the fine artist of its time, realistic as well as naturalistic portraits could be perfected within a few minutes, even Leonardo took years to perfected Mona Lisa. However, in the milestones of Art History, these contributing factors of technological and scientific advancement become cornerstones responsible in producing more avant-garde art movements of the 20th centuries, ones which define some works of art we experience today. Even fine art photographers evolved with purist as well as the f/64 photography groups. Hence, as long as there is Human Creative Intelligence, the Fine Art market will owe its place in its further milestones.
5) How can we identify who is in control between Artificial Intelligence and Human Creative Intelligence? In questions of authority, both are in control between one another, in regards to the needs of each other. For years we have been with questions of the mind and body or as Aristotle would have posited Hylomorshism, the wax and the seal, both identical, like two sides of the same coin. Kandinsky and Marz in the early 20th century Modern Art, formed and leaded ‘The Blue Rider’ Art association. It was Kandinsky’s painting ‘Der Blaue Reiter (German)’ which inspired its art forte movement. In horse racing both the horse as well as the rider matters! Especially towards the gambling market. The horse brings the speed and agility, whiles the jockey (rider) with proper control, executes its directions as well as tactics towards completing the race. Human Creative Intelligence has always been the subject to what AI operates, as well as perceive to appropriate. It is slightly devastating if we see the picture from a perspective vice versa, when the horse takes charge of the rider. AI has always been a part of the creative tool, however it has never defined what Human Creative Intelligence should have been. Humans control themselves, not as hardware or software, uniquely as beings that self-nourishes, grow, as well as decay, the process itself is a testament of value and determination, stated as Kunstwollen by Riegl as the ‘Will-to-Form’. The actions and decisions humans make are choice which reflects our forte in how we find ourselves.
Highlighting back Plato’s point on 'The World of Form and 'The World of Object', how does Artificial Intelligence (AI), differentiate between both an objective as well as subjective reality, or even synthesis between both the thesis and antithesis of the reality we find ourselves. AI’s existence in itself is subjected towards the human experience, its ethics are controlled through ethics of its algorithms, utilized through prompts and commands of its user.
AI does not carry the commitment of beings in its own, albeit the decisions and choices it generates. It generates superficial reality by certain level a ‘Kitsch’ of its own, an artificial outcome of synthetic value, which steals the idea of the rider charging the horse, autonomously, indeed we experience autonomous cars presented before us, however these autonomous cars also operates from the commands authorized by the human being.
‘My Modern Met’ published an article ‘AI’s Version of the “Perfect” Person Is an Eye-Opening Look at Unrealistic Beauty Standards’ in May 2023, by Jessica Stewart. The Bulimia Project generate prompts on the “ideal body” from popular image generators, experimenting on stable diffusions such as Dall-E 2 as well as Midjourney. The results were unrealistic beauty standards which portray the developer’s data and information fathered did not achieve a holistic nor heuristic outcome.
Furthermore it brings us to question how do we differentiate a capitalist and communist AI? Is one better than the other? Or both better together? Or does an AI share the same dream as its developer? Well it does proves a point or two that AI still struggles to differentiate between objective and subjective reality since its intelligence is directly or indirectly obligated towards visions and missions of its control panel, in regards to its developer.
In a nutshell, apparently both ideas communicate the same vision on works of art, as a check-and-balance process, in where we find ourselves
DECLARATION:
This Research Topic was published at BUDI Publications by Hikayat Studio Copyright 2024
IMAGE SOURCE (IS):
IS1: https://scads.ai/cracking-the-code-ai-creativity-vs-human-expression/
IS2: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Acheulean-handaxes-from-the-site-of-Boxgrove-England-which-dates-to-about-500-Ka-The_fig1_291516839
IS3: https://www.cuemath.com/cube-formula/
IS4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wine_Glass
IS5: https://www.pablo-ruiz-picasso.net/work-1611.php
IS6: https://www.dailyartmagazine.com/conceptual-art-of-joseph-kosuth/
IS7: https://blog.sagipl.com/artificial-intelligence-vs-human-creativity/
Comments
Post a Comment