Can a machine create a materpiece?

Can a computer create a beautiful work of art or compostition, or martial art form, or anything even comparible to that of a human? I don't think so. Because humans can make mistakes, and no human can create something which is perfect.

This scentence is just to meet the 45 word requirement.

It can if it is programmed to do so. Even then it is technically still the human doing the programming. Also whether or not it is a beautiful work of art is only opinion. It cannot be proven to be beautiful.In my opinion computers do help us create beautiful works of art aka Lamborghinis.

It can if it is programmed to do so. Even then it is technically still the human doing the programming. Also whether or not it is a beautiful work of art is only opinion. It cannot be proven to be beautiful.In my opinion computers do help us create beautiful works of art aka Lamborghinis.

I think you answer it here, even though you begin by suggesting "yes".

Computers may help, but they do not create.

What if a computer programed another computer to create a masterpiece?

And by your logic, if there is a god then they are the one that created the Mona Lisa, and any other work of art, music, ect..

What if a computer programed another computer to create a masterpiece?

And by your logic, if there is a god then they are the one that created the Mona Lisa, and any other work of art, music, ect..

The orginal computer would still have to be programmed by a person.

Plato wrote about Socrates touching on the same idea about God being the creator of art in the dialogue "Ion".

All of this is out of context so it's better that you just read it yourself but here are a couple sentences.

"some divine power is moving you" "this magnet atracts iron rings but not only that but puts the same power into the rings so that they can do the same" "in fact all good poets who make epic poems use no art at all but they are inspired and posessed when they utter all these beautiful poems"

The answer may lay in Derrida, their is no intentional meaning in writing.

Imagine I write the most beautiful poem ever and a literary critic writes a review "Grendel has intentionally filled his poem full of aesthetic images, made insightful personal metaphors about life and given a profound analyses of our existential plight with its allegorical meaning"

Then suppose I reveal I never wrote the poem but generated the poem by simply letting a computer randomly output letters and punctuation at a gazillion bytes pers second and in a few short weeks my poem had been completely randomly produced.

Can the literary critic still say "the random computer process has intentionally filled the poem full of aesthetic images, made insightful personal metaphors about life and given a profound analyses of our existential plight with its allegorical meaning"

What if a computer programed another computer to create a masterpiece?

And by your logic, if there is a god then they are the one that created the Mona Lisa, and any other work of art, music, ect..

My logic isn't one of referring back to an ur-creator of something to give mastership of the thing to a distant originator.

My logic is one of looking as what it is that makes a masterpiece a masterpiece (greatest work in a craftsman's oeuvre, a work giving the best expression of a craftsman's accumulated skill and perseverance) and applying it to discern the artist.

To say that a person designs a robot which is in some way capable of creating a brilliant work (not yet achieved, but in theory this may be possible), the robot in the scenario is more like the artist's brush or the sculptor's stone, with the "mastership" clearly belonging to the artist who has consciously decided on the form and parameters for the artwork and who has spent many hours in the design and refinement of such a machine.

There's no sense talking about a robot-artist, and it's not clear to me in what way the matter is valuable to philosophy.

P.s.Derrida talks balls.

What if a computer programed another computer to create a masterpiece?

And by your logic, if there is a god then they are the one that created the Mona Lisa, and any other work of art, music, ect..

My logic isn't one of referring back to an ur-creator of something to give mastership of the thing to a distant originator.

My logic is one of looking as what it is that makes a masterpiece a masterpiece (greatest work in a craftsman's oeuvre, a work giving the best expression of a craftsman's accumulated skill and perseverance) and applying it to discern the artist.

To say that a person designs a robot which is in some way capable of creating a brilliant work (not yet achieved, but in theory this may be possible), the robot in the scenario is more like the artist's brush or the sculptor's stone, with the "mastership" clearly belonging to the artist who has consciously decided on the form and parameters for the artwork and who has spent many hours in the design and refinement of such a machine.
There's no sense talking about a robot-artist, and it's not clear to me in what way the matter is valuable to philosophy.

P.s.Derrida talks balls.

I apologize. I didn't think about it that way.
As for your question about the relevence of the topic philosophy behaves in such a way that one topic is just as important as any other.

-- Updated March 3rd, 2012, 10:30 pm to add the following --

And also what does "Derida talks balls" mean?

It means I don't rate his work, that he writes nonsense.

I know we can't agree on if freewill exists or not but I just wanted to say that if you could program a robot to have free will then it could create art.

It's not about free-will, which is a fairly technical thing once you get into it, but about volition, will, creativity and skill!

If in an 'existence is only the present' mind frame, a simple test would prove that machines can create art: blind testing people on computer generated pieces to declare their artistic merit without knowledge of their origins. It is conceivable you could refine your way of doing this until you get something good enough to be declared a masterpiece.

However you could follow the logic of saying all machines have to be made by humans(or humans make machines that make machines that make machines etc), therefore humans are ultimately responsible for any 'creation' by a machine.

But overall I would say that a masterpiece, or even the concept of art, is subjective and makes any absolute answers to that question pretty rubbish.

It can if you let it.

I think art does not exist.

No, but eventually most people will think "yes."