With the advent of modernism, trends in art have shifted toward a greater autonomy in the definition, and practice of art. Art is no longer bounded by the constraints of traditional conceptions of beauty, and more importantly, of its primary function of representation. The result of such trends is, unfortunately, the widening distance between the culture of the art connoisseurs, and that of the larger public. Especially in today's highly modernized, and capitalist society, where fast gratification is widely available with the advanced technologies, art is often perceived as something esoteric, or something irrelevant to one's daily life. At this confusing time in the history of art, there seems to be no right answer to how art or the experience of art should be defined.
One may suggest that aesthetic experience in response to works of art should be defined as an experience qualitatively different from everyday experience. It is apparent that works of art can allow people the feelings of admiration, fascination, and awe, which are certainly distinguishable from everyday emotions; however, the value of art would truly manifest only when it is enjoyed as a part of our daily lives. Among its countless functions, one of the irremovable functions of art is to be consumed, and to be enjoyed, as if it is nearly impossible to ponder the meaning of art without considering the presence of its audience or appreciator.
But still there remain some big questions, such as about what to appreciate, or what to qualify as a work of art. Despite the social notion on the judgment of taste, which has been reinforced by the gap between the two cultures, of the art experts and of the public at large, there is no innate hierarchical measure in judgments of taste, or of art itself. The efforts, however, have been made in determining the value of works of art, either for matters of convenience or sometimes for one's benefit. With the rise of the art market, the works of art are typically being evaluated according to the two separate terms: an aesthetic, and a commercial value. Although setting the price for artwork, the product of human gift, might be considered as an attempt to degrade human creativity, the commercial value is now an inseparable part of the artwork as a whole, indirectly representing people's demand in art.
Nowadays, the works of art that are preferred by the larger public appear to be the works that can offer unquestionable beauty without invoking any complex philosophical questions. Such artworks are produced with clear objectives to fulfill human desire for beauty, functioning as an instrument to offer visual satisfaction. Among those works, some observable similarities can be found as listed below.
- There are (preferably) no discernible figures or shapes;
- The mood or atmosphere of an artwork provides positive (or at least neural) connotations;
- Any negative reactions (e.g. fear, contempt, disgust, and etc.) should not be evoked to the viewers
If what has been presented exceeds the underlying aesthetic or philosophical intention in terms of significance, the mere appearance of an artwork then becomes the primary reason for its existence. In the production of such kind of works, the presence of the creators or artists loses its importance. And the potential of artificial intelligence as an art-maker begins to reveal at this very point.
THE PROJECT
The project had been proceeded with the aims to shed light on the true value of art, and to challenge the traditional conceptions of art. The code used in the project are heavily borrowed from ArtGAN (https://github.com/cs-chan/ArtGAN/tree/master/ArtGAN). ArtGAN proposes a novel framework to synthetically generate more challenging and complex images, which is in contrast to most of the current solutions that focused on generating natural images such as room interiors, birds, flowers and faces. The model suggests innovative approaches for conditional image synthesis, allowing backpropagation of the loss function with respect to the labels to the generator from the discriminator. As a result, ArtGAN exhibits the phase of training that is dramatically less susceptible to mode collapse compared to other traditional models.
The major change to ArtGAN is the use of customized data loader function to facilitate a more of general use. The new label Abstract Art has been added to the original Wikiart dataset. Abstract Art contains 4,000 images (1,000 collected from web sources, 3,000 data augmented) that qualify the above-listed characteristics.
Sample of the real artwork
Sample of the generated artwork
Although it should be acknowledged that there still are numerous limitations of an intelligent agent in the creative field of art, the results have shown that the images generated by artificial agents can elegantly fulfill one of the pivotal functions of art, offering an unconditional visual satisfaction to the viewers. The generative model is also capable of generating a massive number of images. Thus, despite the absence of the traditional artists, the images generated by ArtGAN, and by other generative models, have revealed their future potentials to satisfy the larger demographics of people in terms of appearance and a method of production.
With the advent of modernism, trends in art have shifted toward a greater autonomy in the definition, and practice of art. Art is no longer bounded by the constraints of traditional conceptions of beauty, and more importantly, of its primary function of representation. The result of such trends is, unfortunately, the widening distance between the culture of the art connoisseurs, and that of the larger public. Especially in today's highly modernized, and capitalist society, where fast gratification is widely available with the advanced technologies, art is often perceived as something esoteric, or something irrelevant to one's daily life. At this confusing time in the history of art, there seems to be no right answer to how art or the experience of art should be defined.
One may suggest that aesthetic experience in response to works of art should be defined as an experience qualitatively different from everyday experience. It is apparent that works of art can allow people the feelings of admiration, fascination, and awe, which are certainly distinguishable from everyday emotions; however, the value of art would truly manifest only when it is enjoyed as a part of our daily lives. Among its countless functions, one of the irremovable functions of art is to be consumed, and to be enjoyed, as if it is nearly impossible to ponder the meaning of art without considering the presence of its audience or appreciator.
But still there remain some big questions, such as about what to appreciate, or what to qualify as a work of art. Despite the social notion on the judgment of taste, which has been reinforced by the gap between the two cultures, of the art experts and of the public at large, there is no innate hierarchical measure in judgments of taste, or of art itself. The efforts, however, have been made in determining the value of works of art, either for matters of convenience or sometimes for one's benefit. With the rise of the art market, the works of art are typically being evaluated according to the two separate terms: an aesthetic, and a commercial value. Although setting the price for artwork, the product of human gift, might be considered as an attempt to degrade human creativity, the commercial value is now an inseparable part of the artwork as a whole, indirectly representing people's demand in art.
Nowadays, the works of art that are preferred by the larger public appear to be the works that can offer unquestionable beauty without invoking any complex philosophical questions. Such artworks are produced with clear objectives to fulfill human desire for beauty, functioning as an instrument to offer visual satisfaction. Among those works, some observable similarities can be found as listed below.
- There are (preferably) no discernible figures or shapes;
- The mood or atmosphere of an artwork provides positive (or at least neural) connotations;
- Any negative reactions (e.g. fear, contempt, disgust, and etc.) should not be evoked to the viewers
If what has been presented exceeds the underlying aesthetic or philosophical intention in terms of significance, the mere appearance of an artwork then becomes the primary reason for its existence. In the production of such kind of works, the presence of the creators or artists loses its importance. And the potential of artificial intelligence as an art-maker begins to reveal at this very point.
THE PROJECT
The project had been proceeded with the aims to shed light on the true value of art, and to challenge the traditional conceptions of art. The code used in the project are heavily borrowed from ArtGAN (https://github.com/cs-chan/ArtGAN/tree/master/ArtGAN). ArtGAN proposes a novel framework to synthetically generate more challenging and complex images, which is in contrast to most of the current solutions that focused on generating natural images such as room interiors, birds, flowers and faces. The model suggests innovative approaches for conditional image synthesis, allowing backpropagation of the loss function with respect to the labels to the generator from the discriminator. As a result, ArtGAN exhibits the phase of training that is dramatically less susceptible to mode collapse compared to other traditional models.
The major change to ArtGAN is the use of customized data loader function to facilitate a more of general use. The new label Abstract Art has been added to the original Wikiart dataset. Abstract Art contains 4,000 images (1,000 collected from web sources, 3,000 data augmented) that qualify the above-listed characteristics.
Sample of the real artwork
Sample of the generated artwork
Although it should be acknowledged that there still are numerous limitations of an intelligent agent in the creative field of art, the results have shown that the images generated by artificial agents can elegantly fulfill one of the pivotal functions of art, offering an unconditional visual satisfaction to the viewers. The generative model is also capable of generating a massive number of images. Thus, despite the absence of the traditional artists, the images generated by ArtGAN, and by other generative models, have revealed their future potentials to satisfy the larger demographics of people in terms of appearance and a method of production.
ART LIBERATION
RE-EXAMINE THE TRUE ESSENCE OF ART IN NEW MEDIA AGE
Art has been defined within the harmonious collaboration between artist, artwork, and observer. However, this common way of defining art has begun to falter in modern times. People are generally sure that they have quite an accurate view in discriminating a flimsy result of some random action from a fine work of art. This ephemeral faith is of no use when we come across works of contemporary art. With the advent of modernism unconventional artists emerged, the boundary of art became blurred, and active observers started to express their views on art more aggressively. It is no longer possible to define art with simple glossaries. If this is so, how should art be defined? Or, can art even be defined?
A work of art is a representation of one’s intent or purpose. An artist creates their works based on their intention while depending on their educational background or inspiration. Even though one selects the process of artistic creation relying on spontaneity or an unplanned nature in realizing his or her artistic intent, one’s desire for creation is already inherent in the artistic act itself. That is, his or her artistic intention has already been manifested at the moment, the moment like when one single line is rendered on paper to create something. Thus, it is sensible to regard an artist with such an artistic intention as a departure point of any artistic deed, considering an artwork a manifestation of any artistic purpose. An artist’s involvement in creating artworks seems integral. The artist’s position becomes unprecedentedly solidified in defining art. Assertive artists seem to have gained privileges to raise any object to the level of art amid experimental, avant-garde ideas, as if experimenting with the limits of art.
An artist is thought of as the source of artwork but it was not so long ago that the artist was given prominence in art history. Artists began to become distinguished during the Renaissance. Prominent artists such as Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and Raffaello emerged, and their status was something different from previous artists. Artists were of little importance in creating artworks during the Middle Ages before the Renaissance. Treated as technicians or craftsmen, those artists remained tied by collective restraints as members of a guild. Art in the Middle Ages was subordinate to religion since artists could not express their individuality, their creativity was strictly excluded, and the only clergy with political and social status was allowed to enjoy art. An icon that is a religious work of art created in the medieval period was not created obviously based on any artistic intent but simply produced for religious objectives. Like this, even the concepts of not only artists but also art and creative activity were not established. It was not until the Renaissance that new art styles emerged amid religious reformation and change in the economic system.
Examples of icon paintings: Madonna and Child on the left, The Christ Pantocrator (Sinai) on the right.
Art has become more liberal as many restrictions were removed with the advent of modernism. Art today is no longer wedded to any specific interpretation of beauty and is free from any physical limitations. Although art seeks more freedom in its form, the fact that an artwork is something painted or made has barely changed. The artist’s creative desire has lost its purity in the process of becoming something manifested through an artist's purpose or an observer’s interpretation. If an observer intervenes in artwork in a deeper way, the artist pursues the more beautiful or the more eye-catching while dragging art to an impure state. Fine art is the term referring to the pure state of
What can be interpreted as art by us as an observer? An aesthetic experience is referred to as a process of embracing and relishing works of art. That is, it is an experience of exploring the beauty. Any aesthetic experience per se is universal even though the objects of such beauty or the intensity of such experience vary. What we feel is beautiful (a young woman’s beautiful body or the earth tinged in blue) is often anchored in some biological advantage or benefit, if seen from the evolutionary point of view. If seen from another viewpoint, beauty is an empirical or social commitment. And, a work of art has been deemed as integration of beauty. Every work of art does not have to be beautiful in the conventional sense. The ugly or the provocative at times can be the objects of aesthetic experience. There may be some guidelines in defining beauty such as golden ratio, color combinations, and structural equipment. All the same, an aesthetic experience itself has no specific criteria as it is subjective.
Art is often thought of as the product of human desire. Discovered even in the images of hands in the Cueva de las Manos (Cave of Hands) dating back to 40,000 years ago are also the desire to represent oneself, the desire to communicate with others, and the desire to be remembered. Art is either a means of achieving creative desire or practice of converting images and inspiration in an artist’s mind into physical forms. Difference between artistic intention (or creative desire) and produced artwork is thus inevitable. The gap between the two is predestined, just as an actual object can never be the same as its perception in one’s brain. And yet, artists are often identified with their artwork as it is deeply imbued with their intent. The artwork is often deemed something subordinate to an artist or inseparable from its creator. All the same, an artwork is not something affiliated to an artist but an indirect manifestation of an artist’s purpose. You are able to hear an artist’s voice both as an observer and an interpreter but the message conveyed by his or her voice has to be interpreted and couched in your own idioms. An observer’s intervention works as a factor to widen the gap between the artist’s purpose and his or her artwork in this process of interpretation and description.
Cueva de las Manos, Río Pinturas. (declared as a Unesco “World Heritage Site” in 1999)
If so, can medieval paintings so wed to monotonous painterly idioms and standardized subject matter be referred to as artworks? Of course, it is possible to gain aesthetic experience through medieval paintings; however, can we say that what an observer feels in works of art excluding artistic intent and creativity is a true aesthetic experience? Obviously, artworks in the Middle Ages were produced in a state in which the concept of art had not yet been established. Nevertheless, an observer who is the subject of interpreting or experiencing artworks comes across past works of art at a point of time when the concept of art has already been established, transcending space and time. That is, the observer cannot intervene in the process of creating artworks but his or her role in defining art should also be considered. Therefore, the observer actively joins any aesthetic experience as an evaluative artist, not as a creative artist.art. But, it is also another form of measure to restrict the purity of art and does not contribute to recovering its purity.
There is no right answer to questions about art. There may be countless definitions of art and as many as its observers (respondents). There is no right answer among them as a matter of course. If there is no right answer to questions concerning art, there is no wrong answer and those answers are merely different. Art was not initially set up under some absolute criteria. Art has not defined itself just as the sky has not defined itself as blue. Art has never represented itself as a work of art, simply implying human involvement.
Art has been considered the preserve of humanity since both artistic activity and aesthetic experience are such humane actions. Humans have brought art in isolation to a place close to them in order to achieve it. Therefore, we have to return to ourselves rather than finding the right answer in art itself.
For long periods of time, humans have considered any artistic experience as a privilege granted to them. And, art has shared its rise and fall with humankind, profoundly influenced by human history and society. Art has been defined or limited in this process for the sake of humanity’s convenience. We have to remove or at least minimize humanity’s intervention in art to bring art back to its pure state. If so, can we define art with no artist, artistic intent, or observer’s involvement as something veritable? In addition, can art maintain its life in a lonely state with no creator or interpreter?
References
Berlinghiero (possibly 1230s). Madonna and Child. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Retrieved from https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/60.173/
Anonymous (6th century). Christ Pantocrator. Saint Catherine's Monastery in Sinai. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spas_vsederzhitel_sinay.jpg
Cueva de las Manos. Río Pinturas. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Retrieved from https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/936