Technology and the Art World

The age of robots is quickly approaching if not already here, and it may pose a threat to aspiring artists. There are two technological advances that will have a particular impact on the art industry: Virtual/Augmented Reality and Artificial Intelligence.

Virtual Reality devices provide fully immersive experiences that allows users to personally interact within a computer-generated, three-dimensional environment. Virtual Reality is not limited to video games. Graphic Designers may want to take a look into this, not only for game design but also for social media platforms and educational platforms. Videographers ought to consider adapting to this trend by training themselves on how to use 360° cameras. Painters may want to have a go at Google’s Tilt Brush, which allows you to paint inside a virtual reality. Augmented Reality devices allow users to function in the real world, supplemented by computer-generated information. There are an increasing number of exhibitions that allow viewers to interact with art pieces that ‘come to life’ through augmented reality with their smartphone. Those who like to stick with traditional mediums may want to consider using augmented reality to show photographs of their artworks at multiple galleries at the same time.

Machines with Artificial Intelligence function in ways normally thought to only be associated with human minds. For example, some AIs are self-learning or are able to understand human speech. What does this have to do with artists? Well, people have created algorithms that allowed them to 3D-print an original painting that looked exactly like a Rembrandt.

Scared now? But Artificial Intelligence cannot possibly encroach on the beauty of the human soul…can it? Take a look at Cozmo, an AI robot designed to mimic human emotions. Of course, this robot is not the end-all-be-all; but neither were flip-up cell phones. It may not be impractical to predict that one day, AI will be able to do everything that we artists can do.

A few consoling thoughts; I expect that ours would be one of the last occupations to be replaced by AI, considering how challenging it is to quantify emotions and personalities. I also imagine that after the robot-craze over digital realities, autonomous vehicles, 3D-printers and AI, people may look once again to the value of the ‘human touch’ and the raw, natural world. Humans are flawed, and we may need to be prepared to market that aspect of ourselves; our struggles are what makes us unique – what makes us beautiful.

It is very important for us artists to begin asking ourselves how we are going to adapt to this increasingly technological world. Once upon a time people bought from whatever artists were in the local area. Now, people can buy from any artist they like via the internet, making it all the more challenging for each one of us to stand out among millions of other artists. How exactly do we do that?

Let me explain one approach with a personal experience of mine. Two summers ago in Anchorage, Alaska, I found a very nice handmade belt with native designs on it, made by a man who called himself Ziggy. We talked briefly about our lives, and he told me that he painted most of the murals in Anchorage, learned more than 100 trades throughout the course of his life, and ran for mayor of Anchorage 3 times. After I bargained the belt down to $75, I watched him finish making it by customizing it to fit my waist. Had I seen the same exact belt for sale at Macy’s, I would never have bought it in a million years. But I got a handmade Alaskan belt made by a man with a scraggly beard who ran for mayor three times – I do not regret a thing.

There is a saying that people do not buy artwork – they buy the artist. Marketing one’s artwork on social media is just the beginning. One needs to market their personality, their character, their visions, and even other passions. Our art is not the only thing that has to be relatable; the more relatable you as a person are, the easier it becomes to make exchanges.

In summary, current technological advances have as huge an impact on our industry as any other. I strongly encourage other artists to think critically about how they can adapt to current and incoming trends in order to share their individual gifts and insights to the world.


This is a rough-draft article expected to publish on The Stillman Exchange sometime in the near future.

12 thoughts on “Technology and the Art World

  1. Gregory Medina

    Throughout history, mediums of art have continued to develop and open new doors to creativity. For example, photography came into existence with the creation of the daguerreotype. Though taking minutes for an exposure to occur, photography would not have evolved to what it is now if it were not for such an invention. In a sense towards music, new sounds have often become known changing the playing field for music as an art. For instance, consider the arrival of blues from the United States. This new sound set the stage for modern music today as the frontrunner for jazz, rock, soul, rhythm and poetry, and pop. Modern musicians owe their credit to the creation of blues due to its new scales and meter. As new technology continues to emerge, it is not surprising that art will be affected. On the other hand, artists should not fear what new technology can bring to art, but use new technology as a new medium for art.

    Consider the evolution of art. Starting off as simple tools, mediums of art have grown from the craft of a person to how well a person can perform an act. For example, dancing, though ancient in behavior, now encompasses a variety of rhythms and methods as well as the use of color and self-expression. Dancing today, such as salsa, hip hop, tap, jazz, and the like, is far different from the ring dances from Medieval Europe. The same can be said for the other fine arts. Painting now involves other mediums other than canvas such as programs that one can use on the computer. Artists now use programs such as Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator, and the like to make striking portraits and landscapes that look real to the eye. As a result, this medium of painting has created a demand for said artists to create works used in advertising, marketing, film, and gaming. Overall, new technology has open doors to new and enhanced forms of art.

    To continue, new technology and software have made art practical. Before, only the students from the best schools could be successful artists. On the other hand, today many people are experts in the field of fine arts and, thus, are also successful. Consider architecture, before architects would have to draft their building plans by hand, some with huge swaths of paper. Today, building drafts are now created on the computer with smart software that brings into consideration special awareness and 3D modeling. Programs such as CAD and Rhino now assist architects with the creative process as such programs continue to get updated with new and more efficient inputs for the architect to use. Due to such, people are now allowed to be more creative as they can bring into mind the properties of physics through their drafts before making any test models. Overall, new and smarter software have made forms of art practical.

    Nevertheless, it is understandable to wonder where new technology can bring art and what mediums it can create. Regardless, processes and programs such as artificial intelligence will only do what they are planned to do, aid the individual, especially with new and better art.

  2. Sahnera Spruill

    I’ve always been one opposed to the idea of artificial intelligence being incorporated more and more. My main reason for leaning to the opposing side was because artificial intelligence runs on logic and algorithms. I’ve always thought that it would be impossible for an AI technology to encompass human judgement, bias, and emotion. If an AI isn’t capable of these things, it isn’t capable of having a full function in a human society where emotion and bias are just as important as logic. Before, I’d say the same for art. As it is now, artificial intelligence and neural networks have one fundamental flaw that limits their artistic ability: they do not have any affective intent. AI can only mindlessly regurgitate what it’s fed, and does not and currently cannot create works for an audience. Art is communication and vice versa. AI can create affect by accident or mimicry, but human artists generate affect directly, through an understanding of their audience and how they would react. AI, lacking a concept of “self,” or “other,” or “mind,” currently cannot understand their audience well enough to consciously elicit a response. In order for AI to truly understand art, it must first understand humans. But now, 20 minutes later, from watching the video featured, I have an enlightened new perspective. A woman in the video stated “The next Rembrandt makes you think about, where innovation can take us.”

    To me art has always been about things like fashion, painting, music, cooking, etc. But watching this video has made me think that maybe math and science are also art. What literature, fashion, music, painting etc. have in common is that we use these things as an act to explore ourselves and discover who we truly are. Now art to me is more than expression, it is discovery. Math and science are tools used in order to explore and discover more about the world! Math and science are art! I think an AI’s “weakness” of only functioning on logic and algorithms may not actually be a weakness. The development of an AI technology took passion and discovery to create. As something able to create a mock piece using discoveries of math and science, I don’t think that we are too far off from an artificial intelligence that gets curious. An AI that wants to acquire more knowledge than it’s fed, an AI that can make its own art with intent. Take a garden for example. A garden is both discovered and created. The plants present existed in nature already, but the way in which they are brought together, arranged, and cultivated reflects the human gardeners. I think the same can be said about future artificial intelligent technology. An AI can begin with the ideas that appear natural to it and then as rational beings (like humans), interact with creation by rationally extending these ideas (into art). It may be 100 years from now but I think it’s possible. And I definitely don’t think that artificial intelligence can encroach the beauty of the human soul, but I do think it can get pretty close.

  3. Joe Murdaco

    I appreciate this article because it broaden my thoughts on artists and art itself. I have never been a huge fan of art because I did not have direct exposure to it. Now, after reading the excerpt about Ziggy, I understand a little about how hard it is to be an artist. They depend on locals to buy their pieces because the competition for the industry is too hard to make it nationwide. I have written numerous comments to blogs about artificial intelligence. Mostly, the articles include stories of robots taking over simple tasks that humans do every day. This is yet another example of robots stealing jobs away from people.
    Virtual reality takes away a lot of the things that make art personal and unique. It removes the artist from the piece of art. It leaves just a painting that no one knows anything about. I can understand that small scale artists are afraid that their livelihoods will be ruined. People like Ziggy will not make any money because the art from other artists from around the world will be easily attainable. There is something very special about art. It starts with the artists. It is almost like how a mother makes her food with “love”. Their food might not taste exceptional but you know it was made with love so you appreciate it. Like mothers, an artist might not have work that looks like the Sistine Chapel but it was made with blood, sweat and tears.
    Having robots take over the jobs of the artists is unfair. However, it is more than likely to happen. We see this problem occur over different industries in the world. Delivery drivers, taxi drivers and construction workers are among the many that will lose their jobs from robots. It is sad to know that millions of people will be out of work because of this artificial intelligence.
    I think there are places where robots will make life easier but art is not the place. That being said, I think that art can use some technological advancements. These advancements can help artists get their masterpieces all across the country for everyone to see it. This can get the artist a lot of fame and attention. That can, in return, make the artist a lot of money. So, in ways, the technology can help an up and coming artist get the publicity they need. For veteran artists, this technology might not help because their art work is special and they probably do not want everyone having access to their works,
    In this case, the technology can probably be tested to see the effects. The good thing about this instance is that the artists can decide whether or not they want their art pieces to be displayed everywhere. In other instances, the workers do not have much of a choice. They are forced to lose their jobs. I am definitely interested in watching what happens with the artificial intelligence and art. It is something a lot of people should keep an eye on.

  4. Hakeem Marshall

    Another day, another article on technology, more languishing about lost lobs, more luddites coming out of the wood work advocating regressive policy to a problem that does not really exist. I feel tired reading these articles because they all have the same doomsday vibe to them. I want to say, to all the “pitchforkers” of the world, calm down. A robot will not be sweeping down to steal your only ways of providing for yourself. You will not be homeless and starving meanwhile your formal employer is making more money than ever. This Luddite attitude toward technology is, and has always been, regressive. The only difference between now and then is, back then, we did not know what we knew now with regards to technology. Your technophobia has even less acceptability. With all that being said, I believe the article was fine, especially for this topic. While the technophobia was present in this article, it was surprisingly balanced.
    The article was about how technology affects the art industry specifically. I find this interesting as the effect of technology on the art industry is not something I generally think about. Usually we talk bog standard employment with regards to robotics. With that being said, I believe there is a discussion to be had in this topic. What does it mean to be human? Is art necessarily a human endeavor? What is art? These are all questions that grab me about this topic. It is easy to brush this discussion aside by just saying, AI Art takes the human out of the equation and, therefore is not meaningful.” There is a valid point here. A big part of makes art beautiful is the artist’s emotion that go into producing it. Many of the legendary paintings come from a period of incredible strife and turmoil. The art, perhaps is not as meaningful as it was not created by a human. I feel differently on this topic, however. If we placed two identical paintings in front of a group of people, one done by a human and the other an AI recreation, and gave them no further context on this topic, would they really feel differently about one painting than the other? I do not believe they would. The average person probably would not care one way or the other. If you asked them to search for discernable differences they likely could not and feel the same way about the paintings.
    Something I feel that is often overlooked in the “what is human” debate is what is not human is often created by a human. I feel as though we humans tend to forget that technology is not autonomous. We have regular conversations with our phones. We can communicate with people from all over the world. Our artificial intelligence is beginning to outpace the human mind. Technology is becoming increasingly complex and, as a result, we tend to attach human qualities to them. In spite of all the things that technology can do, we must remember that, without humans, technology is useless. A machine without a Programmer to make it work is only really worth whatever scrap metal it contains. As far as AI goes, we should also remember that that is being made by a human. Humans are complex creatures with emotions and feelings. The things we create will always be affected by this, AI included. It is because of these reasons I fell as though the idea that art created by AI are useless do not meaningfully hold up to scrutiny. AI might not be human but it made by humans who have the feelings that are used in the creation of art.
    We need to see AI and other technologies as aides to humanity and not replacements.

  5. Javon Diggs

    The beauty of art may possibly be the most under-appreciated aspect of life today. People see it all the time, and it’s hard not to be amazed at some of the creations that many of the world’s great artists have managed to create over the history of this world. From the world famous paintings of the Mona Lisa and The Scream, to the magnificent sculptures such as David, and the humongous statues such as the Statue of Liberty and Christ the Redeemer, art scattered all across the world. Even in the major cities there are artists on the streets lining up to sell some of their artwork- some have went so far to even create stores around art. It’s everywhere, and there’s no avoiding that.

    The question now remains, how is art under-appreciated if it’s everywhere? One reason is that many people tend to overlook the artists they see in public, passing them off as just another person trying to make a quick dollar. However, there is a deeper meaning to the majesty that is art. The main reason art seems under-appreciated isn’t that people don’t admire the hard work and precision that went it to making the beautiful pieces of art we see. It’s the fact that people don’t seem to realize that it’s even there. When someone says that art is everywhere, they really mean that it’s everywhere! Everything that is touched, used, and appreciated is a work of art. That expensive sofa in the living room, the millions of cell phones used every second, and the houses that people live in are all works of art. Someone put a lot of hard work into making all those items as nice as they are, and people seem to take all if these items for granted nowadays. Without art life could be so much different than it is today.

    Speaking of cell phones, it probably shouldn’t come all that as a surprise that technology may be coming to replace human artists sometime soon. After all, only a couple of weeks ago there was an article discussing the creation of self-driving Uber cars and robots potentially taking over the delivery business. But having robotic artists? We may also want to pump the brakes there as well. I can understand wanting to use technology to help create art, as the tools used to create art have evolved as time as gone on. But having a robot with human emotions (which, ironically, can be looked at as a piece of art itself) create the artwork that people admire so much? That not only takes away the livelihood of many people, but it also lessens the admiration that people have for the art. As previously mentioned, art is not easy to create, and can take years to perfectly craft, depending on the project. Having a robot create artwork just wouldn’t give the dame feeling of excitement and respect.

    Virtual reality seems to be all the rage nowadays. We see it in everything that we do, whether it be our smartphones, computers, tablets, video games, television, and so on. In fact, it’s become such a staple of modern times, that it’s hard for the younger generation to imagine life without it. But to see it start to take over art! Now that’s something I’ve never considered happening before, and frankly, I don’t want it to. Art is something that we see every day, and the ones that stand out can really effect a person on a much deeper lever. Having artificial intelligence create artwork just wouldn’t register with the same effect.

  6. Steven Chilletti

    This article provides an interesting look into the world of art, and how advances in technology are slowly changing that world. One thing that the author talks about is the use of virtual reality and augmented reality to create art. While I do think that virtual reality will become more prominent not just in the entertainment industry, but in the world of art as well, I think that it will not get rid of traditional forms of art. virtual reality simply provides a new way for artists to express themselves, and can even be used to create works of art that would be impossible to do in a traditional method. There is also the issue of artificial intelligence. In the future, there may be AIs that can learn for themselves and have emotions, and these AIs can create art as well. The author gives an example of an algorithm that can create a perfect replica of a Rembrandt painting. While this is amazing from a technological standpoint, it is still only a copy, and artists shouldn’t be worried about their careers and works being taken over by robots that can print out artwork. While AI is an important piece of technology that will continue to grow in the near future, there will always be a place for artists in the world, especially traditional artists. The example of the handmade belt accurately explains these feelings, since people appreciate handmade items and artwork much more than something that was created by a machine.

  7. Justin Scherzo

    I have never been an artsy person, but I am able to appreciate a nice piece of art when I see it. Whether it be a mural on an underpass or a piece by Picasso in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, art is special because everyone sees it differently. The difference between the mural and Picasso piece is the obviously the artist and that is why the Picasso is in the museum. In an ever-evolving technological world, virtual reality has the ability to revolutionize art as we know it. It has the ability to put people in places that they could not afford to go or have the ability to go to. For example, imagine using augmented reality and being in a false reality where you feel like you are actually in Monet’s garden. It would create endless possibilities for artists and would allow them to work on different pieces of art during the same period of time without even leaving their house. We all have heard of the term “starving artist”, many of these people are tight on cash and this type of device could be a game changer.
    The article goes on to talk about an AI robot called Cozmo, which is used to mimic human emotions. This reminds me of a TV show that I am watching called Westworld. A group of designer begin to build robots for a theme park that you can adventure in, like Jurassic Park. In this show the robots become so lifelike that they eventually end of knowing more than real human beings. We are very far from this happening but just in my lifetime I have seen technology change so much, that I could not count out the possibility of something like this happening.
    He goes on to write about how he believes that artists could be replaced by these bots. While on one hand it seems kind of cool to see a robot create a piece of art, it could be kind of detrimental. When you have so many of one piece of art and it looks exactly like another piece of art, it becomes confusing. While he argues that because art is an expression of oneself, the piece of art by the original artist has the most value. I would have to agree with him that robots could not replace previous pieces of art, but I do believe that if robots start making original pieces of art there could be some repercussions.
    He makes a very good point in his last few paragraphs saying that “people do not buy the artwork- they buy the artist”. This is true to a certain extent but definitely is not always true. Art is not like music where there are one hit wonders, although I do not know that much about art there are no artists that I know of that are famous for just one piece of artwork. While one could have made them famous, it is not like they do not have any other great pieces of art. I believe that virtual reality could definitely change the art world but I do not believe that it could ever replace art as we know it today.

  8. Dean Falcone

    This article was not only well written, but it raised many thought-provoking ideas and questions. Of course with technology becoming so integral to day to day activities, we would think every field is going to be modernized. I am not sure how long 360° cameras have been in place, but I have seen them used a few times when photographing at music festivals. That sort of camerawork is amazing. I really enjoyed the way the author used flip-up cell phones to say that the technology first being showcased now is just the tip of the iceberg. These big steppingstones might just be the very beginning of something greater soon to come. Hopefully the 360° cameras are one of those cases and they are just the start to something unimaginable. Artificial intelligence and other brilliant advancements of technology in general are becoming more frequent and common in everyday life than ever before. We are witnessing new apps that are servicing us more efficiently and using them regularly. Autonomous vehicles are no longer just science fiction and now we are seeing art being effected by the rapid technological developments.
    The biggest concern for all of this technological progress is the self-learning aspect. In the article, it is mentioned but looking on it more positively than I do. I do not believe that the AI with self-learning capabilities will only yield helpful outcomes. A negative I can see is how they can learn enough to put artists out of work as was talked about. Also, they would be able to produce art that some artists cannot do, since their “imagination” may be greater than that of a human. They would be destroying the local and global art seen, with no emotion or feelings for their art, unless they learn so much to the point they develop feelings and emotions.
    I thought the video, “The Next Rembrandt”, was incredibly fascinating. To see technology produce something that a mastermind was doing 400 years ago was amazing. There was such precise math involved in doing so, I cannot see replicating what was done again. That is what makes me think that AI is not going to change the world of art and put artists out of business. It looked like it took quite long from start to finish to complete the painting desired. All of the data needed to be gather and analyzed then put into practice seemed to take longer than an artist would to produce their own piece. If people want to wait long periods of time in between pieces, then a problem may arise, but I see that to be unlikely. I do not feel that artists should have to worry about AI stealing their business.
    The AI used to imagine a new Rembrandt piece was impressive, but nothing to scare artists. The human touch was still very much so present in all of that. The robot did not do everything themselves, it took a whole team to produce it. As long as artists are involved in the process of AI art, there will always be work for them. Also, the problem of human emotion and feelings in a painting or drawing will be present more than ever. Since the technology to study exactly how all of that is put into a piece is available, the AI can optimize those characteristics and make it even more powerful.

  9. Vannesa Martinez

    In the article “Technology and the Art World”, it discusses the potential and probable possibility that artificial intelligence form will be integrating itself soon in the art culture. I found this writing piece particularly interesting for the fact that I have never heard anything like this before being done in the art industry. It is so much more common to integrate technological advances in other sectors of our daily lives but never would it occur to me that there are a group of people who want to see robots recreate historical artists. On one side, I celebrate the use of technology being used for advancement and use exploring new methods and routes to make mankind technologically successful. However, I do not agree with the idea to want to copy history and take credit as it were our own works. History is something that should never be toiled with and it does not seem right to want to copy someone else’s work. People, particularly artists, do need to realize that the incorporation of technology will be coming sooner than what anyone fathomed and need to both be prepared and follow these changes themselves.
    There was copious amounts of information presented in the article that described this transition. One of the most impacting statements that the article referred to was the idea of what paintings provide to its viewers, emotions. Paintings are supposed to garner emotions from its audience. And if a robot is doing all of the painting, a machine cannot replicate human emotion. Sure, AI will soon be able to do everything that artists can do, but not human emotions. Somethings so innate and not tangible except to humans cannot be transferred. To me, it does not seem correct that people should be building robots that replace this genuine fact. Yes, artificial intelligence is amazing, but it should not mimic human emotions because it has no soul, it has no feelings that understands where a living human being is coming from.
    Likewise, the video was helpful in giving a lot more insight as to how people are applying it in the world today. Once seeing the final product of the Rembrandt painting, i was left totally in shock because the visual representation of a robot made painting looked incredibly identical to the man-made painting. The way the computerized robot used logarithms to determine the appropriate width of the facial structure of the man that the computer is trying to process is what amazed me the most. How numbers and letters and symbols can equate to producing a masterpiece. On the plus side it is cool to see how technological is being perversely spread into and field we never would have thought it would never arrive to. However, i do not think it is right. We should not be copying the work of predecessors. Although it does create more paintings, the machines are plagiarizing their works and their names. With art that should never be done because of the uniqueness of that each painting holds.

  10. Robert Luba

    The brush digs deeper than the canvas. Human art is not always about what the art depicts, or should I say, what it directly depicts. Human art is about the emotions of the artist at the time of the painting. Images can be beautiful, but the same image could be painted in an infinite number of ways.
    My family recently took a trip to a small art studio for a birthday, and the hostess of the studio had us all draw our dogs. My dog ended up being painted three times over by my mother, brother, and myself. The results were all incredibly different. Each one of captured a different, subjective view of our same dog. While incredibly imperfect and unprofessional, each one was as endearing as the last. The human touches and the fact that it was made by the dog’s collective owners made them each reflective of how we all see the dog.
    I would suggest that it would be hard for a computer system to capture the same knowledge of the dog that each of us was able to being her owner. While Cozmo, the computer AI that is able to reflect human emotion in the expression of artistry, could likely make an accurate, handmade-looking portrait of the canine, it would likely have trouble with the subtle details and brush strokes of a loving owner. Someone who is in love might have a different approach on a subject than someone who feels anger or confusion or humor.
    Even if some institute has created an AI that they believe can reflect human emotion, I would doubt that something that cannot be entirely understood cannot be programed and implemented. The poster even explains that Cozmo is not the extent of attempts at human emotion mimicking, merely the tip of a developing ice berg.
    Speaking of the poster’s opinion, he notes the importance of other individualities found in humans. He explains his experience with a native Alaskan and a bespoke belt that was sold to him by this native. It was handmade, hand designed, unique, and beautiful. Mass production, even mass production of designer clothing inherently takes something away from the article. Exclusiveness, the idea that something is original and may never be recreated. People desire to stand out and be noticeable when they dabble in fashion. They also expect exceptional uality and longevity of articles. Both quality and unique nature can be lost in mass production.
    The poster got his unique belt and can hold the satisfaction that he may never run into someone wearing a similar belt close to him. He can be sure that belt was made by a tradesman who became skilled in making leathers. He can also ask the crafter directly the origins of the leather. Finally, he had the belt fit specifically to himself. All of these attributes of a bespoke article are lost when we give fashion and design to a machine. Compassion, satisfaction, bargains, all lost.
    Although the mass production of synthetic art works might find their market, I might firmly state that the appreciation for truthful human arts will never be lost.

  11. Jesse Klarfeld

    This is another article that touches on AI and how it is trying to accomplish tasks that humans do, but lack emotions and feel. Art is derived from emotion, feeling, drive, and AI just doesn’t have that. Many paintings have been created and although some are beautiful, they represent much more than just the looks. There are background stories that come from true though. This is a big deal compared to those created by certain terms and constraints. Artwork is very interesting for many different reasons, however, manmade pieces will always be better in my opinion.
    Art is and always has been overlooked by many people. These people do not realize that art is much more than just a creation. The purpose, the time, and the effort, as well as many more determination factors are what make the piece of art so majestic. Artists are very fond of their work and treasure each piece. I too, would care for everything I made if I was a good drawer, painter, etc..
    Recently, one of my bucket list items has become to visit a museum. I have never been, but I know a lot of my friends have and it actually seems pretty cool. I always thought that is was just a looking type of thing and then it is over, but there is much more meaning that I was not even aware of. The Museum of Modern Art for example, many of my friends have gone on trips to there and they really enjoyed it. Just seeing the artworks and in person and just getting the feel from it. I personally cannot say that I know of that feeling, but I am sure it exists.
    Moreover, AI creating artwork would be interesting. I think that it would create some wonderful pieces, but only make a picture, with no symbolism. The precision would be amazing; I do not doubt it at all. With inventions such as the 3D printer, these artworks could serve many purposes. The main conclusion is that human artwork means more than just AI creations. For AI to have emotions, it would take years to implement. This is scary to think about because robots are closer to society than we think. With self-driving cars and self-managing stores, the future is ahead of us sooner and sooner each day.
    Many people will argue the point that AI is disrupting society. Artists can fight for this notion in this type of aspect. If AI artwork starts to become the new thing because people only appreciate the looks of artwork, and therefore favor AI artwork more popular, then Artists will be really mad. This would be a problem and many traditions will change. Can an AI really remake the Mona Lisa? Or the famous Van Gough piece? I do not think so. The only thing it would be able to do is just copy it, and that is what printers are for. Artwork cannot be washed away by AI creation because this will ruin the true meaning of art.

  12. Thomas Batelli

    After immediately reading the first sentence of the article, my attention was inevitably grabbed. What an interesting statement: “The age of robots is quickly approaching if not already here, and it may pose a threat to aspiring artists”. First of all, when I think of art, there is no way, shape or form in which I assimilate robots to that topic. When I think of art, I think of natural creativity exhibited through drawing, painting, sculpture, film, dance, theater, etc. performed by a human, or living object. One could even consider the sun rising and setting and the beautiful colors that align with that experience, as art. Perhaps the way that stones have naturally formed on the side of a brook illustrates a beautiful geometric form, in which you consider to be art. The point being is art is natural and technology is far from that.

    The article addresses that virtual reality devices are creating a deeper dimension of “art” that artists are not naturally able to accomplish. For example, an artist can utilize Google’s Tilt Brush to paint in a virtual reality. However, does that determine that the technology now is the artist? I think not. Artists whom have access to these capabilities should not be hindered, but assisted by this technology. Virtual reality can provide experiences many people do not ever achieve in real life. Using virtual reality sets a greater perspective for the artist, allowing them to create a greater detail and embed personality into their work from their experiences. The robotic mind cannot trump the human soul, and the natural creativity that comes from the human soul can be untouched by technology. Although some robots are able to understand human speech, robots are still not able to address and feel human emotion, in which I personally believe it should stay that way forever.

    Why must we warp technology to simulate human action? Virtual reality is a perfect example of how technology can be used for positive use. However, the bar is set beyond the limit when we start to have fear that technology may take over the art world, because naturally, that just is not possible. Robots should never be able to even come close to human emotion, and the day that we aim to achieve such a thing will be the day we give up on the true moral importance of the matter. Art has been around since the beginning of time, where technology is just an infant to the world. I think that it is important that we do not overlook the importance of art, and the help and happiness it brings to so many people.

    All in all, art is a form of beauty, which without impulse, accidents and creativity, would lack the true nature it deserves. “There is a saying that people do not buy artwork – they buy the artist” and I do not think that could be any truer. Art is used for not only aesthetic pleasure, but for healing, teaching, learning, and fun. Art and technology may cross paths, but they are entitled to their separation. The adaptations that artists will inevitably have to make in the modern world are unavoidable with technology so rapidly advancing. With that being said, I believe that art should remain untouched and in it’s natural, uncorrupted and creative state of serendipity.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *