Depends if you consider it pure raw material (I think it is) that you can use to convey something of your own or if you can relate to some point to it (and do the same, but to some further extent).

At a rather utilitarian level, one wouldn't consider a spoon exactly the same way whether it was: 1) carved out of wood by someone you can relate to (by history, reasons, knowledge); as a unique piece, or part of a series; 2) or built in a factory, by workers; and available in the same fashion in X instances; 3) or built in a factory by robots; and available as an exact copy in X instances; 4) or a pure unique artefact that got the practical shape of a spoon.

And that would be for a spoon only.

I am of the school of thought that one doesn't make art without the intent of communicating/transmiting (it/through it) with other people, however remote/intimate it can be. If only because one cannot live alone.

In this line, whatever pleasing something can be, if there's no transmission/communication/need/desire behind the creation of it, if there is no social reason behind it, it has no resonance, no affect to me that makes me actually relate to it (and to the person that thought of it, fell on it, carved it in their words, sounds, silences, colors, shapes, steps, etc.).

To me, whatever the artist intent was, when anything is done, it is done by someone - this someone cared, if only enough to make it, and that way attached something to their work.

That is something I can try to relate to (to the product itself, and to the intent perhaps).

When something is produced by a system, there still may be the intent of the person(s) that designed this system. But it may also be totally independant of the designers scope. That is interesting also, as pure rough material.

But it isn't remotely as profound, interesting, human as something that is done by someone real.

Now consider this: Something generated by a computer, in this case music, has no intent.

But what happens if I curate it, judge it, only publish the best ones. Through that I add my intent.

Where is the difference between curating a number of computer generated songs into an album, and curating a number of computer generated sounds into a piece of music?

Both require some sort of talent, both add intent to something that a computer generated.

Of course. You add your intent of curation/collection. The part that's original to you is the curation itself. Not the songs being collected themselves.

It's the same with instruments that generate a sound (whether mechanical or electronic ones). The sound source might be more or less generated. But what you do with it, the music you compose and play with it, that is original to your self. But the source sound material is just that: raw material.

How much of that profoundness is within our own heads because we know someone made it. We might imagine their intent, working back from the final representation to imagine what they might have felt creating it.

So in that regard, as long as we're honest with the viewer, I imagine your point holds; it won't ever be the same.

Yet I have to imagine that how most art is consumed these days already does away with any notion of "intent of the artist." Did the artist intend for their work to be displayed in large galleries, alongside countless other works, hundreds of years later? Who knows? We're constantly re-imagining these works by placing them in new contexts and priming viewers in different ways. However it is different when the artist is still with us.

Would cubist paintings have the same depth if the viewer was lead to believe that a computer had generated them?

Context. You said it with context.

I don't think art is experienced in one way only, and context is important (as almost always).

In the case of cubism—it was a response to the mode of the time. Form was being questioned. It was a philosophical effort expressed and communicated in its own way. That's one experience. Another is purely aesthetic.

Much the same with music.A computer wouldn't likely [at this stage, anyway] developed the blues. It's not purely algorithmic, though the resulting form can be used to develop one. A lot of that kind of music only developed as a result of empathy and the ability to relate to the poetry and the mood and feelings imbued by it. Likewise, that's one experience. Another is purely aesthetic. Another yet begins with the aesthetic and might explore the history to develop a more profound experience through the attempt at understanding.

I'm quite brazenly biased here. I don't resent the efforts, nor would I disparage the results of computer generated music. But I don't think it compares. By that I don't mean one is objectively better or worse than the other; I mean quite strictly that I don't think they compare.

It wasn't experience that resulted in the emergence—just mild variations on a "consciously" used algorithm. (I know I'm oversimplifying—it's not meant to degrade the author's or other commenters' work in the field)

Fair enough, that's a good point. Art is constantly given new meaning, whether initially by the artist, or those who choose to display it, and finally by those who view it (and in some cases those who then try to ban or suppress it!). I do see the argument that a human element is required. Is computer generated noise "music" until someone selects and features it?

I'm not necessarily arguing for one view over the other, I'm just not yet entirely convinced that a computer can't generate art, without devolving into debating what is and isn't art altogether.

I think in that case, and also without getting too into the weeds, I'd put forward that a precursor to art would be consciousness. Until then I figure it's pattern matching—or instruction-following. Origin I guess I also consider important... but we'll get into the weeds if I do go one (as I was about to start questioning if a child learning drawing techniques from a 'how-to' book is creating art in that moment)

That's my quick first thought, anyway.

Yes - the real medium of art is culture itself. "Content" is just a means to that end.

AI is culturally blind, tone deaf, and dumb. So although it's going to be capable of generating adequate content at some point, it's not going to be changing the foundations of the cultural currents around it in the way a groundbreaking work of art does. (And no - producing "content" mechanically is culturally trivial. It's a change of medium, not a change of message.)

That won't happen until it understands and can influence cultural processes as a personality with agency and something original to say, and isn't just spinning its wheels on MIDI notes and virtual paint splotches.

Supposedly because it devalues the value of manual created artwork, or because people are afraid for change.

> And if computers are just spitting out terrible music, who cares?

Well, I loved the 90s goa trance, but it got snowed under by the 00s psytrance. If that 00s psytrance was never made available, perhaps there would've been more of the style I preferred.

My point being that:

1) What is popular matters

A) in ways which might not be apparent at face glance.

B) even if you specifically dislike it.