@@jarate8076 lies and deceit of what ? Its alredy happening, if you can automate one aspect you can automate the rest also, its not a matter of if we can but of if we should
Believe me if humans alive during the renaissance could mass produce works of art they would. Everyone should have a collection of unique works of art that say something about themselves in their own homes. In a way with AI this is almost possible now. I've been asking AI to make interesting images that convey the meaning I intend. Nothing wrong with this and it's the future. The world is getting better and our standard of living is increasing. We will always have poverty for so many reasons, but never before has so much been possible for ordinary people.
@@apophisxo4480they did. The ancient Greeks and Romans also created copies of their sculptures and sell them. They just have a human to carve the copy/replica instead.
Leonardo da Vinci, a Renaissance man with accomplishments of his own in math and science, would have probably been suitably impressed with this technology, considering it art himself.
Dude didnt do all the work himself either. He had scores of nameless apprentices do the hard work for him. At least with a robot it wont get carpal tunnel doing all your work for you.
He would be impressed, yes, but I doubt he will consider this as an art. Leonardo is known to be a perfectionist and is critical to his apprentices' work. He was perfectionist, and was called a master artist for he wants to show that he is capable of creating masterpieces with his own hands. For artists, the joy in arts comes from creating something and being careful not to mess up. And when the art is done, they would say, "Damn! I can't believe I made this". A piece of art becomes valuable. If Leonardo is a programmer, sure he would enjoy this innovation but no, he's an artist and this is not how he wants to create art.
@@evonne315art is about making a deep emotions connection to other human beings, and celebrating the pinnacle of what a human being can achieve. There’s a reason why handmade China by an artisan is considered art, and factory made dinnerware is not. This is being done by cold robots. This is not something that needs to be automated, nor desired by the art community. No one asked for this, other than capitalists who only care about profit. What people asked for is the automation of hard monotonous labor. We don’t get that, because it’s still more profitable to have poor people do that for pennies. We have a choice in how we apply technology. Unfortunately, those choices aren’t made democratically.
art is about making a deep emotions connection to other human beings, and celebrating the pinnacle of what a human being can achieve. There’s a reason why handmade China by an artisan is considered art, and factory made dinnerware is not. This is being done by cold robots. This is not something that needs to be automated, nor desired by the art community. No one asked for this, other than capitalists who only care about profit. What people asked for is the automation of hard monotonous labor. We don’t get that, because it’s still more profitable to have poor people do that for pennies. We have a choice in how we apply technology. Unfortunately, those choices aren’t made democratically.
@nickg2561 no decent painter artist thinks that at all. When you study art you have to study photography. All the most important things they do. We do.
Jewelry isn't a painting, but that can be art. Photographs aren't paintings either. Art shows constantly feature photographers in their competition. A photograph becomes art when the photographer decides to create a feeling, a mood, an effect, or make a statement. Without the creativity, fueled by passion and emotion, it is not art.
This makes it possible for people to enjoy sculptures who don't have the original one. Artists produce multiple prints which they sell in limited numbers, so that each is an original. That is also art.
Gayle has a very valid point that he quickly dismissed just by talking so aggressively. A book with thousands of copies does not mean there's no art in reproduction. This also applies in photography, animation, graphic design, cinema, etc. etc. If printed art is art, then why not 3d printed art be considered art? -----Because it is art.
I know a town all the 1820 homes are mansions in impeccable condition and can't be made today without it costing millions of dollars. So hand-crafted back in the 1800's meant something, but hand-crafted in 1900's was not as ornamental as the 1800's and materials became thinner. Timber beams used to be used in building homes to withstand hundreds of years of living in the home.
nha he right tho 3:53 today EVERY MASS production is cheaply made with AS MUCH CORNER CUT AS humanly possible. And that's why ACTUAL art made by a human hand and dedication lasts longer than smt a machines gave 2 minutes time to stamp out. And the house example by the other news caster is also brain dead. Even today alot of houses and made by contractors so no you can't just claim "99% of the work is already done by a robot and we humans do 1%" no in home making there is still many human influence and elements
I'd say it is still art considering someone had to sculpt the model first. Even in museums, people often look at just the copies of the actual paintings.
That's why we invented category. Just like we have men and women sports, we need categories for art. In the category of inventions, this machine producing intricate sculptures is impressive. in the category of the "art of sculpting", this sculpture is not as impressive, because the tools used were too good and broke the mold, so much so that it belongs in an entirely new category : sculptures made by machine art. Art can be whatever, but we just need to compare what's comparable.
Dehumanizing? I read it the way it was intended, to uplift engineers by saying they have learned from the history of sculpting so much that they can do it in a whole new way. Without sculptors, how do we teach machines to sculpt? And without engineers, won't all sculptors forever be stuck with tedious, time-consuming hand tools?
@@xx133 art begins in the mind bringing forth creativity, beauty etc .The instruments used for this; whether hands, tools , Robots etc don't matter as long as there's a human mind behind the process.
Art is literally the EXPRESSION or APPLICAITON of human creative skill and imagination. I argue coding and engineering is a creative skill and engineering a robot to express your imagination fits well in this definition.
In that case, if the program was a creative endeavor, then sure. You can call the program a work of art. Good luck entering that into an art gallery. But the output of that program is inspired by an artist who that program is simulating. The output is not created by human emotion. That intangible can never be replicated, only simulated.
I agree with you 100%. It will be hard to accept for some now, however 100 years from now it will be accepted as a legitimate art form. The skill and nuances of a coder to create beautiful things will be greatly appreciated!
Part of what makes art worthwhile is the human struggle that goes into making it. If you remove that it loses it's value even if the end result is identical.
This is definitely not cheating. There is still so much artistry involved. Even if you taught me how to use the software and how to use the machine - I couldn't make any of these sculptures. This is art
its VERY simple its like putting a stamp on a piece of paper a child could do it. a robot has no soul no humanity, putting a picture into a computer and letting a robot do 99 % of the work isnt art. you might think its cool but its not art its just stuff to be bought and broken and re purchased, more and more until its worth nothing. this is mass produced because its cheaper and made with cheaper material. a machine doing a service like for science is wonderful but a machine doing a humans job because we're lazy and we want more money for less work isnt art. but you wouldnt know any of that unless you were an actual artist and knew what art was
@@nc161 It sounds like you’re focused on the idea that only human hands can create ‘real’ art because of idealistic views on creativity. But art isn’t limited to traditional forms or materials-it’s about the ideas and skill behind it. Coding, programming, and engineering are creative skills, too. The fact that a robot can produce art doesn’t mean it’s ‘lazy’ or ‘soulless’-it means we’re using tech as a tool to expand human creativity. Just like a paintbrush, a robot doesn’t make art on its own; it’s guided by human imagination.
@@corpsesofliberty3661yes, only humans can create art, because art is about making deep emotional connections with each other. It’s also about celebrating the mastery of techniques developed over thousands of years, and the hard work and ingenuity of the artist. This is a cold emotionless robot. It’s a facsimile, not art. Just like factory made pottery/painting vs a skilled artist made pottery/painting. In the process we lose that much more of our humanity, and connection with others. It further atomizes all of us. No one asked for this, what people do ask for is automation of hard monotonous labor. However, the decisions about automation are made by capital owners, not the workers, and those decisions are made strictly on a for profit basis.
If I ever made any negative comments about Tony Dokoupil this makes up for it. He is 100% right. Humans make art. To create art you need emotion, soul, and heart. You can program a computer to simulate an artist, but the artist was the inspiration. Art is the communication of emotion. Machines can only simulate that, not replicate it.
Machines can 100% replicate it. The sculptures have the absolute potential to captivate and inspire awe, wonder and emotional response. Therefore it meets the criteria to be considered art. Some people may not even know that the sculptures were made by machine -therefore it is irrelevant.
@@gdavidelliott You're comparing apples and oranges. If you replicated the Mona Lisa by painting it would still be art and have soul. The sculptures here are not photocopies there are physical marble being carved in the real world Just by a machine They do have soul.. there is a person behind the machine. But speaking specifically on photocopying, It could still be art. You may not cherish a piece of computer paper.. but someone else in the world would.. If the photocopy invokes emotion it is thereby art, it does not need to be expensive. A person interested in art perhaps from a third world country would cherish the photocopy, If you were to take that photocopy back in time, they would be mesmerized by it. Also many people have made art using photocopied images, Art-ception if you will. Art truly is in the eye of the beholder.
@@Luniel11 It's called an analogy. I had a feeling you would misunderstand it. The act of creating is art, it is a connection to an inexplicable influence that is whether by intention or the subconscious, no matter how simple, we are the product of all our experiences and that drives the output. Some call it the Muse, some Inspiration, some the Soul. AI has no soul.
I wouldn't consider this art. To me, it's just new technology for mass production. Even when they employ skilled workers to finish the product's details by hand, this is regularly done the same way for many products. For instance, mass produced ceramicware which involves a handpainted step during the process made by many skilled factory employees to get the same end results: faster, cheaper products that serve mainly decorative purposes. It will certainly make it easier to improve the look of architecture, gardens, parks, homes, businesses, etc., which is good. On the other hand, I believe that only humans can make art and only time can really tell who deserves artistic level attributes to be considered an artist.
So . . . what is art if not made for a "mainly decorative purpose"? Or, are you saying that anything designed for mass production should not / can not be appreciated as art?
@@Stratelier Just second-rate artists coping, if high quality mass-produced art is available then lesser-quality art, once valued for the effort put in, is no longer as valuable on the market. It also enables many more people to enter the space and utilize the technology to produce pieces that they are capable of conceiving but not producing with their own hands, further flooding the market and diluting the value of their second-rate works. The record player never got rid of live music, but it did get rid of house musicians that play at parties, all this will do is raise the standards of the consumer and make artists who can't make the cut seethe.
@@theeccentrictripper3863 "Raise the standards of the consumer".... The consumer will pay for the cheapest knockoff or even buy something stolen be it the non patented design or something taken from the producer and fenced to them on the street for a better price. You have such a high regard for mindless consumers and none for artists who work for a lifetime to hone their craft. All of you who push this argument sound like this talking of "seething" and "coping", and yet here you are seething towards artists yourself in defense of the "consumer". I wonder what you cope over in your life maybe we can all belittle it here and call you a fool for caring as well.
@@youscaredjodie1248 Just more coping, just like I would rather listen to a recording of Queen than some random band just because they worked really really hard I will be much more likely to buy a high quality statue or painting made using a machine than I would a second rate statue just because the sculpter or painter spent a decade learning how to do it. The effort doesn't decide the material value, and I'm under no obligation to value the labor of an artist just because they believe their work is worth more.
@@commanderboom2626ofcourse he would be in aw. But art takes time wisdom , soul, talent , hand eye coordination that’s what makes it worth something this is soulless 😂😂😂
He's wrong. It is art. You can't program the robot unless you have a background in sculpture. The sculptor is needed to create the sculpture via the robot. Adapt or die. Use the new tools such as AI or robots or fall by the wayside.
For centuries, sculptors would have the rough outline of a marble statue prepared before the stone was shipped, saving time and cost of shipping. It also saved the expense of the marble cracking or breaking when shipped since defects would be found early.
He is absolutely right. The average person sees software almost equivalent to a game. For the developer it is art, they literally are racking there brain to create lines of code which could be equivalent to lines or strokes on a canvas.
The developer makes the software to translate 3d data into mechanical movement, nothing to do with the 3d data itself, you still need an artist of sort to model that 3d data
@@3DJapan People out here thinking robots are doing things without human prompting will never cease to amaze me, they're either delusional or just trying to move the goalpost so they can argue new forms of artistry can't be art.
Where is the artistry? Geez. That’s why artists look down on ignorant people who phrase questions this way. This is a process based method without any creativity employed by a human being
Why are They copying .. WHY Not create New.....Are they at a loss for Ideas..??? Then it would be considered ART of the 21st Century.... Just my opinion 😊
@@Strateliernah, it is not art because they didn't even digitally sculpted it. They just 3dscanned an existing public domain sculpture, printed it using this robot, then called it done. That's just like scanning The Starry Night by Van Gogh, make multiple copies of it faster by printing it. Then calling it an authentic art of Van Gogh. Would you praise the printer/scanner for making an exact replica of Van Gogh's art? And would you praise and called the person using the printer, for printing Van Gogh's art? No, right? The real artist here is the original sculptor, not the robot/printer and definitely not the person who just uses a printer.
It's marble printing at best. It would be more impressive if it was actually done by hand, and thus an actual reflection of one's skill and technique. If it was designed ahead of time by the person themselves, and then "printed" on the marble, that would be one thing, but if a machine does all the thinking and work with almost NO human input, then there's no actual effort being presented. And before anyone comes at me with this: A tool is an extension of the person who wields it (like a third arm). If a "tool" doesn't need you to operate properly, then it's not a tool; it's an assembly line.
@@Brendissimo1 we could very easily have a 3d image made by an AI. Just like painting and drawing has gone by the waste side... just tell the AI to make me a painting of a Swan landing in a pond surrounded by forestry, then take the file to walmart. Does that make me an artist?
IMHO, you can make original sculpture designs with this AI tech. It is considered art if a human behind it coded the tech and designed the sculpture. It is art but has low craftsmanship (meaning not carving it by hand)
Here's my take on software as art. There's a reason why it's called software architecture. Just as there are architectural styles in buildings across the world - There are architectural themes such as sloping roofs and materials used that originally were defined by necessity, but are now considered landmarks in art and style. The amount of creativity and ability to express yourself in code - not just visually but programmatically, too - makes the process and execution more than just art. Would you say a web developer is artistic? that websites can be art? Just like automobiles, architecture, and websites, the art becomes a product of necessity. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean you can dismiss it. Those of us do understand and appreciate that the finer details are not left up to chance.
So, my question is, why do we need robots creating art backed by software? Just because it can be done, it does not mean it is needed. Personally, the same goes for AI created paintings, novels, etc. Is this relieving humankind of a dangerous repetitive labor or is this something that will greatly benefit us in anyway? Eventually, the AI will have learned enough to forego the need for the human "creative" behind it and start "creating" pieces on its own, so that a high % of it's work would be considered original and better than what a human can create, but mostly cheaper, and that maybe the key behind all of these initiatives behind an "artistic AI". Right now, the artist is using AI to help speed up his delivery, but for how long? 10, 15 years? There will be many professions where you will need less people and just a few good operators who understand how to instruct, not even program, the AI to get a certain result...once more, why use it for art?
Oh, Tony! You are so right! Homes and buildings used to be works of art and craftsmanship. Now it is all about how cheaply you can put 4 walls together. Also, very little music is art anymore. The wonderful instrumentality so carefully blended is just missing, and tunes we can learn. I love old country music for that, just not the words. There are so many weird sounds now, so you can't find the tune or the passion that went into the song. It will come back, i bet one day, but i will be with the Lord by then. Thank you for speaking the hard truth! Thanks all of you. Keep praying, and remember we know the end of the story.
very little music is art anymore. Just because you don't understand something or find it pleasing doesn't diminish its artistic value. That is such a small way to view art.
It’s about how the piece makes you feel, not how it is made. If technology made things not art, then everything other than finger painting wouldn’t be art.
That is the definition of salty lol. The reason there aren’t men creating the chiseled architecture of 100+ years ago is the people who want that kind of artistry aren’t willing to pay the price tag
The ancient Greeks and Romans would've been absolutely blown away and would have fully taken advantage of this tech. Imagine what all they'd have built with it.
The artistry also comes from the people that wrote the program, how much can the computer do 99% how about 0% without the humans that made it. Like making a cake and saying the mysteries oven did 99% of the work... perspective folks.
Traditional artists have NOTHING to worry about and Italy’s artistic heritage is NOT on the line. Even if the robot does the carving, you still need an artist to come up with the idea and design it using CAD software. Robots are giving humans the ability to build cathedrals in one life time. @ 2:05 This is NOT cheating. Is it cheating to use robots to make cars and other products? @ 2:12 The artistry is in the idea and using CAD software.
@314jrock the physical work is the majority of the work. Whereas before you'd have 10 job openings for sculptors now, you'll need just one because the robot will handle 99% of the carving, thus lessening the need for hiring more human sculptors. You saw this happen with car manufacturing and nearly every other manufacturing industry.
That guy on the left clearly doesn't understand what this is. The DESIGN is created by a human. It is the sculpting that is done by the robot. Unless you believe all digital art (digital paintings and drawings created on tablets, etc.) is not art, then this is most definitely art. Whether or not it is artisanship is a more interesting question. I wonder how much of that human finishing work really goes on. But there is no question that this is art. If the DESIGN, rather than just the SCULPTING, was done by generative AI, for example, then it would be a very different conversation.
There is a difference between a digital art vs just printing a photo. And the one above, is just like downloading a public domain artwork, make multiple copies faster with a scanner and a printer, and called it theirs because they "printed" it. The one above looks likes it was 3dscanned to make a digital copy of it, then gets "printed" by a robot, and called it art. The original sculptor is the artist, not the printer.
@@kristinejane-o9w "The one above looks likes it was 3dscanned to make a digital copy of it..." - This is just speculation on your part. Show me where you see evidence that this company did that, other than the fact that they merely could have. Even then, what you're talking about is more akin to making a replica than merely printing a photo. And if we were talking about printing a photo, prints of famous paintings are still are still widely considered to be art.
@Brendissimo1 haha jokes on you. I just found an instagram post from the company that links to an article where it proudly say that they took photos using iphone which has Lidar sensors that can be used for photogrammetry/3d scanning where they recreate a public domain sculpture a model of a 3d horse even though they were refused/forbidden to do so. So it's not just speculation, they are truly 3d scanning before they can use the robot. You can search it for yourself: The robot guerilla Campaign to Recreate the Elgin Marbles. Even the artist using this "tool" are even afraid to admit they are using the "tool". What's there to be afraid of? I've never seen someone be afraid of stating that they use photoshop to create a digital art.
@Brendissimo1 then my printed photo of a mona lisa is considered art? Then it should also amount to millions because it is equal to the original, but it is not, right? Even though I did the bare minimum by downloading the photo, using the printer and printing it, is it still equal? If I tear down this printed copy, it won't matter. But if the original was consumed by fire in the museum, it would be catastrophic.
Ancient building are protected because their are a testimony of our history, not because people made them the old fashion way. Most people can't even tell the difference between something man made and another made by a machine unless you tell them. 100 or 200 years from now, a lot of the iconic architecture of today will probably be protected the same way.
You need a back ground in the skills of sculpture to program the robot. However, as the technology improves, fewer people will have that skill level. Which means fewer people who can guide the robots in making complicated pieces.
@ 3:00 I loved his answers, he’s completely and absolutely right! We value art, and beautiful designed homes because of the craftsmanship. When a machine does the job you can tell there’s something not right. You can never ever replicate art with machinery!
To me it's like the difference between nautral and lab grown Diamonds. One is more "genuine" than the other, however it's up to the consumer what they want to pay for.
Sure, the output of the robot looks beautiful, but it has little artistic value compared to sculptures made by master artists from hundred years ago. The Pieta sculpture by Michelangelo is a priceless work of art because of how impressive it was made and who made it. Michelangelo, who spent his life studying the human anatomy, carved the marble impressively by hand, careful not to mess it up. He didn't mess up and the output is is almost perfect, if not perfect. It's one of its kind! Meanwhile, the output of the robot can be perfect but it's not as valuable as traditionally-made ones because we know the machine can do so. In the near future these machines will mass produce such sculptures that will be considered as mundane as the monoblocks we have today. Definitely art is subjective, but it will never be a priceless art. Cheap art it is.
This will bring down the cost of sculpture significantly so all of us plebes can now have marble sculptures too. But there will still be plenty of rich people willing to pay for sculptures made by hand.
Exactly, he not a critical thinker, just surface level… the person designing that pen probably had to model it in some software and prototype it before it got made. It’s like saying modern cars aren’t art because it’s not carve in clay or hammered out of aluminum.
Yes, but I think his point is that afterwards it was mass produced. It's a replica, not the original. It doesn't have the same inherent value as the idea that gave birth to it because of this. If the artist were to spend time to construct it manually, then perhaps it is art. I think that was his point. Do I agree with it? Somewhat...i can see why it makes sense when thought about like this.
What is the big deal? Where I work, they brought in an automated line and laid off 65 manual operators. How is this any different? If anything, the line operators needed their pay and benefits more than these artists. It is called, life.
And that's EXACTLY/precisely what makes ART, ART. Because they didn't and it's unique and with human imperfection. No to pieces will every be the same no matter how hard an artist tried, there will be difference in chipping, strikes, brush strokes etc. If you looked at a PROPER artist's earlier and later work you can see his improvement made in his work. How the works are done different from earlier to his later work. Tech just makes everything equal and same because they are to follow a "standard" of acceptable and "standard deviations delta" how different two items made by the machine are, art is because it is unique, not because it can by mass stamped in a factory somewhere in china.
Do you have to be a great singer to determine who sings well? A chef to understand which food is is prepared and cooked really well? Do you have to be a filmmaker to be able to tell a movie or show is good? Maybe exposure to a lot on a particular subject can help one appreciate the actual efforts put into it and the overall result.
As Shakespeare said Art, Beauty is in the Eyes of the beholder. Is A Volkswagen Beetle Vs a Ferrari Roma Slick Car An Art form design? Both art Design by an Artist car design and assembled on industrial scale vs Ferrari assembled by Hands, Yes both Sculptures or Beetle or Ferrari designs are Work of Art, based on the Eyes of the Beholder, says Shakespeare, the Artist!!!😋🤗⭐️🙊😘😊🙈🙉😊🙃
It's simple. The equations for excluding human creativity are already being worked out. Now once we've taught AI how to create robots, we can soon be excluded all together.
The question is more so whether the original model is created by an artist, which I’d assume is the case. People are looking at this under the misnomer that traditional sculptures were done directly from block to model, but that isn’t the case. A smaller sculpture was modeled in clay and cast in plaster then a grid system was used to measure the depth of points on that sculpture. A secondary grid scaffolding was created to drill holes into the marble block, thereby transferring the points. Artist would carve the marble down to the end of those points and then do the finishing work with chisels by hand by using a robot to do 95% of the carving it’s merely of more efficient technical process than the traditional technical process point being it was done through transferring points in 3-D space so it’s not that dramatic of a categorical change. It’s more a matter of the technical efficiency of modern CNC milling, etc.would’ve been a better story if this basic fact was pointed out rather than this superficial treatment of the subject.
Crazy that the people at cbs news aren’t smart enough to know what A.I. really is. Where is the A.I.? Just cause there are robots and computers? A color printer can make art too. What is the difference?
No fools, "artisans" are not outraged. Even the great masters, while creating the designs and compositions of a piece, had subordinate apprentices doing the grunt work of roughing out the massive marble blocks before taking over for the final touches. This will allow true artists to create works more quickly, instead of taking years or decades.
![เปิด อาณาจักร หมื่นล้าน "สาระตั้ม" l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3XE0nPF4YkQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![fellow fellow - พรุ่งนี้ไม่มีใครรู้ feat. INK WARUNTORN [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QP6JyjYx_W0/mqdefault.jpg)
The artist is the 3D modeller
agreed
Give it a few more years
The 3D modeller is the AI
@@barzo9034 lies and deceit
@@jarate8076 lies and deceit of what ? Its alredy happening, if you can automate one aspect you can automate the rest also, its not a matter of if we can but of if we should
It's a different way of doing mass production .
Believe me if humans alive during the renaissance could mass produce works of art they would. Everyone should have a collection of unique works of art that say something about themselves in their own homes. In a way with AI this is almost possible now. I've been asking AI to make interesting images that convey the meaning I intend. Nothing wrong with this and it's the future. The world is getting better and our standard of living is increasing. We will always have poverty for so many reasons, but never before has so much been possible for ordinary people.
@@apophisxo4480they did. The ancient Greeks and Romans also created copies of their sculptures and sell them. They just have a human to carve the copy/replica instead.
Leonardo da Vinci, a Renaissance man with accomplishments of his own in math and science, would have probably been suitably impressed with this technology, considering it art himself.
Dude didnt do all the work himself either. He had scores of nameless apprentices do the hard work for him. At least with a robot it wont get carpal tunnel doing all your work for you.
He would be impressed, yes, but I doubt he will consider this as an art. Leonardo is known to be a perfectionist and is critical to his apprentices' work. He was perfectionist, and was called a master artist for he wants to show that he is capable of creating masterpieces with his own hands. For artists, the joy in arts comes from creating something and being careful not to mess up. And when the art is done, they would say, "Damn! I can't believe I made this". A piece of art becomes valuable. If Leonardo is a programmer, sure he would enjoy this innovation but no, he's an artist and this is not how he wants to create art.
@@evonne315art is about making a deep emotions connection to other human beings, and celebrating the pinnacle of what a human being can achieve.
There’s a reason why handmade China by an artisan is considered art, and factory made dinnerware is not.
This is being done by cold robots. This is not something that needs to be automated, nor desired by the art community. No one asked for this, other than capitalists who only care about profit.
What people asked for is the automation of hard monotonous labor. We don’t get that, because it’s still more profitable to have poor people do that for pennies.
We have a choice in how we apply technology. Unfortunately, those choices aren’t made democratically.
art is about making a deep emotions connection to other human beings, and celebrating the pinnacle of what a human being can achieve.
There’s a reason why handmade China by an artisan is considered art, and factory made dinnerware is not.
This is being done by cold robots. This is not something that needs to be automated, nor desired by the art community. No one asked for this, other than capitalists who only care about profit.
What people asked for is the automation of hard monotonous labor. We don’t get that, because it’s still more profitable to have poor people do that for pennies.
We have a choice in how we apply technology. Unfortunately, those choices aren’t made democratically.
He would definitely think this robot was cool and artistic
So is a photograph art? 100 years ago, painters would say no.
no photography is not art..... or is far less art compared to painting
@nickg2561 no decent painter artist thinks that at all. When you study art you have to study photography. All the most important things they do. We do.
@@nickg2561 Photography can be art… It depends
Jewelry isn't a painting, but that can be art. Photographs aren't paintings either. Art shows constantly feature photographers in their competition. A photograph becomes art when the photographer decides to create a feeling, a mood, an effect, or make a statement. Without the creativity, fueled by passion and emotion, it is not art.
@@nickg2561 "far less art" how pretentious.
This makes it possible for people to enjoy sculptures who don't have the original one. Artists produce multiple prints which they sell in limited numbers, so that each is an original. That is also art.
The "art" is in the original idea and execution of the piece. A copy is not art in itself. The prints are valuable but for different reasons.
Everything that made the sculpture was man-made, the software, the hardware, programming, the tools they use now.❤
And some people on here forget that part.
A lot of things are man-made that are not art
It's in the idea; an individuals' artistic approach. Well said
They are just jealous
Gayle has a very valid point that he quickly dismissed just by talking so aggressively. A book with thousands of copies does not mean there's no art in reproduction. This also applies in photography, animation, graphic design, cinema, etc. etc. If printed art is art, then why not 3d printed art be considered art? -----Because it is art.
I know a town all the 1820 homes are mansions in impeccable condition and can't be made today without it costing millions of dollars. So hand-crafted back in the 1800's meant something, but hand-crafted in 1900's was not as ornamental as the 1800's and materials became thinner. Timber beams used to be used in building homes to withstand hundreds of years of living in the home.
Everything’s always getting worse - enshitification
nha he right tho 3:53 today EVERY MASS production is cheaply made with AS MUCH CORNER CUT AS humanly possible. And that's why ACTUAL art made by a human hand and dedication lasts longer than smt a machines gave 2 minutes time to stamp out. And the house example by the other news caster is also brain dead. Even today alot of houses and made by contractors so no you can't just claim "99% of the work is already done by a robot and we humans do 1%" no in home making there is still many human influence and elements
It might not be art, but I am glad that we have the ability to make marble statues using machines.
I'd say it is still art considering someone had to sculpt the model first. Even in museums, people often look at just the copies of the actual paintings.
Makes better sculptures then any human in the last 100 years
That's why we invented category. Just like we have men and women sports, we need categories for art. In the category of inventions, this machine producing intricate sculptures is impressive. in the category of the "art of sculpting", this sculpture is not as impressive, because the tools used were too good and broke the mold, so much so that it belongs in an entirely new category : sculptures made by machine art.
Art can be whatever, but we just need to compare what's comparable.
The robots are equal to the sculptors. Both are a result of brilliant human thinking applied in different ways.
nope
@@jakeleo4518 explain your reasoning? are you trying to say the engineers and scientists who developed the robot sculpting arm are not brilliant?
@@FloofyTanker don't bother, dude's just a contrarian, he ain't here to think
@FloofyTanker That’s not what the comment says. The comment says sculptor are equal to robots, which is really disrespectful and dehumanizing.
Dehumanizing? I read it the way it was intended, to uplift engineers by saying they have learned from the history of sculpting so much that they can do it in a whole new way.
Without sculptors, how do we teach machines to sculpt? And without engineers, won't all sculptors forever be stuck with tedious, time-consuming hand tools?
Can't lie, that is impressive
Right, what ever happened to "art being in the eye of the beholder?"
it’s art - the brush is just fancier.
No, art is about making a connection with other human beings. This is being done by cold emotionless robots.
@@xx133 They didn't show the art breing made, they just showed the tool after the fact.
@@3DJapan huh?
@@xx133 art begins in the mind bringing forth creativity, beauty etc .The instruments used for this; whether hands, tools , Robots etc don't matter as long as there's a human mind behind the process.
Finally someone who gets it.
But artists consider taping a banana on wall as art
Sounds like someone got a free trip to Italy.
Kudos to the presenter on the left for his correct judgement and understanding of what art is - a rare understanding, these days...
They should’ve hired this company to make Dwayne Wade statue.
I was just going to comment this 😂😂😂
Facts
😹😹😹😹😹😹
Art is in the mind of the creator no matter what tool you use.
Art is literally the EXPRESSION or APPLICAITON of human creative skill and imagination. I argue coding and engineering is a creative skill and engineering a robot to express your imagination fits well in this definition.
In that case, if the program was a creative endeavor, then sure. You can call the program a work of art. Good luck entering that into an art gallery. But the output of that program is inspired by an artist who that program is simulating. The output is not created by human emotion. That intangible can never be replicated, only simulated.
@gdavidelliott If we disagree with something, we can change the definition to suit our feelings?
Well, it seems that "art" has taken on a whole new meaning, and there's absolutely nothing YOU can do about it. So just accept it.
@d.lawrence5670 What is the new definition? Perhaps if you could define it, I would be more open to agreeing
I agree with you 100%. It will be hard to accept for some now, however 100 years from now it will be accepted as a legitimate art form. The skill and nuances of a coder to create beautiful things will be greatly appreciated!
Part of what makes art worthwhile is the human struggle that goes into making it. If you remove that it loses it's value even if the end result is identical.
Wow. Are they cheaper too
It is art but with minimal craftsmanship.
May this grow rapidly.
Artists are not “outraged”. There’s not many artists with the skill to do this work or the patience. These sculptures could take months or years.
This is definitely not cheating. There is still so much artistry involved. Even if you taught me how to use the software and how to use the machine - I couldn't make any of these sculptures. This is art
its VERY simple its like putting a stamp on a piece of paper a child could do it. a robot has no soul no humanity, putting a picture into a computer and letting a robot do 99 % of the work isnt art. you might think its cool but its not art its just stuff to be bought and broken and re purchased, more and more until its worth nothing. this is mass produced because its cheaper and made with cheaper material. a machine doing a service like for science is wonderful but a machine doing a humans job because we're lazy and we want more money for less work isnt art. but you wouldnt know any of that unless you were an actual artist and knew what art was
@@nc161 It sounds like you’re focused on the idea that only human hands can create ‘real’ art because of idealistic views on creativity. But art isn’t limited to traditional forms or materials-it’s about the ideas and skill behind it. Coding, programming, and engineering are creative skills, too. The fact that a robot can produce art doesn’t mean it’s ‘lazy’ or ‘soulless’-it means we’re using tech as a tool to expand human creativity. Just like a paintbrush, a robot doesn’t make art on its own; it’s guided by human imagination.
@@nc161I'd love to see you sculpt these figures if it's so easy.
@@corpsesofliberty3661yes, only humans can create art, because art is about making deep emotional connections with each other. It’s also about celebrating the mastery of techniques developed over thousands of years, and the hard work and ingenuity of the artist.
This is a cold emotionless robot. It’s a facsimile, not art. Just like factory made pottery/painting vs a skilled artist made pottery/painting.
In the process we lose that much more of our humanity, and connection with others. It further atomizes all of us. No one asked for this, what people do ask for is automation of hard monotonous labor. However, the decisions about automation are made by capital owners, not the workers, and those decisions are made strictly on a for profit basis.
@@corpsesofliberty3661 Not to mention that somebody had to sculpt that figure before the robot even started.
If I ever made any negative comments about Tony Dokoupil this makes up for it. He is 100% right. Humans make art. To create art you need emotion, soul, and heart. You can program a computer to simulate an artist, but the artist was the inspiration. Art is the communication of emotion. Machines can only simulate that, not replicate it.
Machines can 100% replicate it. The sculptures have the absolute potential to captivate and inspire awe, wonder and emotional response. Therefore it meets the criteria to be considered art. Some people may not even know that the sculptures were made by machine -therefore it is irrelevant.
@@Luniel11 I can photocopy the Mona Lisa. That's art, but I didn't make a work of art. That's my point. Basically, AI has no soul.
@@gdavidelliott You're comparing apples and oranges. If you replicated the Mona Lisa by painting it would still be art and have soul. The sculptures here are not photocopies there are physical marble being carved in the real world Just by a machine They do have soul.. there is a person behind the machine.
But speaking specifically on photocopying, It could still be art. You may not cherish a piece of computer paper.. but someone else in the world would.. If the photocopy invokes emotion it is thereby art, it does not need to be expensive. A person interested in art perhaps from a third world country would cherish the photocopy, If you were to take that photocopy back in time, they would be mesmerized by it. Also many people have made art using photocopied images, Art-ception if you will. Art truly is in the eye of the beholder.
@@Luniel11 It's called an analogy. I had a feeling you would misunderstand it. The act of creating is art, it is a connection to an inexplicable influence that is whether by intention or the subconscious, no matter how simple, we are the product of all our experiences and that drives the output. Some call it the Muse, some Inspiration, some the Soul. AI has no soul.
Someone had to draw it in a computer, it just doesnt draw itself
I wouldn't consider this art. To me, it's just new technology for mass production. Even when they employ skilled workers to finish the product's details by hand, this is regularly done the same way for many products. For instance, mass produced ceramicware which involves a handpainted step during the process made by many skilled factory employees to get the same end results: faster, cheaper products that serve mainly decorative purposes. It will certainly make it easier to improve the look of architecture, gardens, parks, homes, businesses, etc., which is good. On the other hand, I believe that only humans can make art and only time can really tell who deserves artistic level attributes to be considered an artist.
Amen.
So . . . what is art if not made for a "mainly decorative purpose"?
Or, are you saying that anything designed for mass production should not / can not be appreciated as art?
@@Stratelier Just second-rate artists coping, if high quality mass-produced art is available then lesser-quality art, once valued for the effort put in, is no longer as valuable on the market. It also enables many more people to enter the space and utilize the technology to produce pieces that they are capable of conceiving but not producing with their own hands, further flooding the market and diluting the value of their second-rate works. The record player never got rid of live music, but it did get rid of house musicians that play at parties, all this will do is raise the standards of the consumer and make artists who can't make the cut seethe.
@@theeccentrictripper3863 "Raise the standards of the consumer".... The consumer will pay for the cheapest knockoff or even buy something stolen be it the non patented design or something taken from the producer and fenced to them on the street for a better price. You have such a high regard for mindless consumers and none for artists who work for a lifetime to hone their craft. All of you who push this argument sound like this talking of "seething" and "coping", and yet here you are seething towards artists yourself in defense of the "consumer". I wonder what you cope over in your life maybe we can all belittle it here and call you a fool for caring as well.
@@youscaredjodie1248 Just more coping, just like I would rather listen to a recording of Queen than some random band just because they worked really really hard I will be much more likely to buy a high quality statue or painting made using a machine than I would a second rate statue just because the sculpter or painter spent a decade learning how to do it. The effort doesn't decide the material value, and I'm under no obligation to value the labor of an artist just because they believe their work is worth more.
The Italian artists of the 17th century would be shocked by this
And thrilled for an opportunity to use it.
Shocked that it didn't exist to use it
They would love it instead of spending weeks chiseling for hours per day
Don’t forget Da Vinci was also an inventor, he would have been in awe of this leap in technology
@@commanderboom2626ofcourse he would be in aw. But art takes time wisdom , soul, talent , hand eye coordination that’s what makes it worth something this is soulless 😂😂😂
He's wrong. It is art. You can't program the robot unless you have a background in sculpture. The sculptor is needed to create the sculpture via the robot.
Adapt or die. Use the new tools such as AI or robots or fall by the wayside.
I would say whoever made the model is the artist, the robot made the sculpture
For centuries, sculptors would have the rough outline of a marble statue prepared before the stone was shipped, saving time and cost of shipping. It also saved the expense of the marble cracking or breaking when shipped since defects would be found early.
As an artist myself I definitely say this is art.
He is absolutely right. The average person sees software almost equivalent to a game. For the developer it is art, they literally are racking there brain to create lines of code which could be equivalent to lines or strokes on a canvas.
Who says that the developer is writing the code? It could be ChatGPT that is writing the code to guide the drill. Is it still art?
You have a point. Do you have any experience writing code? You still have to troubleshoot and tailor the output from ChatGPT.@
@@temper44ChatGPT is a tool like a brush or chisel. Someone had to tell it what to make.
The developer makes the software to translate 3d data into mechanical movement, nothing to do with the 3d data itself, you still need an artist of sort to model that 3d data
@@3DJapan People out here thinking robots are doing things without human prompting will never cease to amaze me, they're either delusional or just trying to move the goalpost so they can argue new forms of artistry can't be art.
Where is the artistry? Geez. That’s why artists look down on ignorant people who phrase questions this way. This is a process based method without any creativity employed by a human being
As long as a human has a hand during the design phase it is art.
Skill issues then.
This means more people can have access to beautiful statues in homes, businesses, and public places. It’s a great thing.
Why are They copying .. WHY Not create New.....Are they at a loss for Ideas..??? Then it would be considered ART of the 21st Century.... Just my opinion 😊
because they produce whatever the client wants
They showed an iron man one being sculpted in the video.
The "art" in this case is the creation of the source 3D model to be carved -- the machine just handles the (majority of) actual carving.
@@mistermood4164yea bc the client is too lazy to do it yourself
@@Strateliernah, it is not art because they didn't even digitally sculpted it. They just 3dscanned an existing public domain sculpture, printed it using this robot, then called it done. That's just like scanning The Starry Night by Van Gogh, make multiple copies of it faster by printing it. Then calling it an authentic art of Van Gogh. Would you praise the printer/scanner for making an exact replica of Van Gogh's art? And would you praise and called the person using the printer, for printing Van Gogh's art? No, right? The real artist here is the original sculptor, not the robot/printer and definitely not the person who just uses a printer.
We’re heading for a time when human ideals and virtues will require an actual revolution against the things we’ve created
It's not art. It's manufacturing. Zero value in copies.
Zero value in the originals, it's just dusty crafts at the end of the day. 😂 Idk why people care so much.
If any human can appreciate it... it can be art.
It's marble printing at best. It would be more impressive if it was actually done by hand, and thus an actual reflection of one's skill and technique. If it was designed ahead of time by the person themselves, and then "printed" on the marble, that would be one thing, but if a machine does all the thinking and work with almost NO human input, then there's no actual effort being presented. And before anyone comes at me with this: A tool is an extension of the person who wields it (like a third arm). If a "tool" doesn't need you to operate properly, then it's not a tool; it's an assembly line.
The human input was from the artist. They just didn't need to get their hands dirty.
You seem to have misunderstood. The design of the sculpture, the 3d file that the robots sculpt from, is still very much created by a human.
Wrong, its CNC, no material getting deposited
The human actually models what the machine will do.
Unless the 3D model is made by a AI.
@@Brendissimo1 we could very easily have a 3d image made by an AI. Just like painting and drawing has gone by the waste side... just tell the AI to make me a painting of a Swan landing in a pond surrounded by forestry, then take the file to walmart. Does that make me an artist?
It is Art. The world is changing.
“Was using a robot a bit like cheating” people used to do manual printing before printers existed, I don’t hear anyone complaining about it
IMHO, you can make original sculpture designs with this AI tech. It is considered art if a human behind it coded the tech and designed the sculpture. It is art but has low craftsmanship (meaning not carving it by hand)
We’re losing our creativity as humans
People are outraged over a robot making sculptures, yet they consider photography, digital painting, even butter churning, to be art.
Here's my take on software as art. There's a reason why it's called software architecture. Just as there are architectural styles in buildings across the world - There are architectural themes such as sloping roofs and materials used that originally were defined by necessity, but are now considered landmarks in art and style. The amount of creativity and ability to express yourself in code - not just visually but programmatically, too - makes the process and execution more than just art. Would you say a web developer is artistic? that websites can be art? Just like automobiles, architecture, and websites, the art becomes a product of necessity. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean you can dismiss it. Those of us do understand and appreciate that the finer details are not left up to chance.
Work smarter not harder!! Genius!!!! ❤❤❤❤❤
So, my question is, why do we need robots creating art backed by software? Just because it can be done, it does not mean it is needed. Personally, the same goes for AI created paintings, novels, etc. Is this relieving humankind of a dangerous repetitive labor or is this something that will greatly benefit us in anyway? Eventually, the AI will have learned enough to forego the need for the human "creative" behind it and start "creating" pieces on its own, so that a high % of it's work would be considered original and better than what a human can create, but mostly cheaper, and that maybe the key behind all of these initiatives behind an "artistic AI". Right now, the artist is using AI to help speed up his delivery, but for how long? 10, 15 years? There will be many professions where you will need less people and just a few good operators who understand how to instruct, not even program, the AI to get a certain result...once more, why use it for art?
Art is what we say it is. A nail in a wall is art and can command a handsome sum if enough “art critics” say it is art.
Oh, Tony! You are so right! Homes and buildings used to be works of art and craftsmanship. Now it is all about how cheaply you can put 4 walls together. Also, very little music is art anymore. The wonderful instrumentality so carefully blended is just missing, and tunes we can learn. I love old country music for that, just not the words. There are so many weird sounds now, so you can't find the tune or the passion that went into the song. It will come back, i bet one day, but i will be with the Lord by then. Thank you for speaking the hard truth! Thanks all of you. Keep praying, and remember we know the end of the story.
very little music is art anymore. Just because you don't understand something or find it pleasing doesn't diminish its artistic value. That is such a small way to view art.
It’s about how the piece makes you feel, not how it is made. If technology made things not art, then everything other than finger painting wouldn’t be art.
This is not AI ffs
That is the definition of salty lol. The reason there aren’t men creating the chiseled architecture of 100+ years ago is the people who want that kind of artistry aren’t willing to pay the price tag
I'm astonished and impressed. This tech is so cool.
I consider this more like 3d printing than art/sculpture. The art is in the robot itself and the making of the 3d model
The ancient Greeks and Romans would've been absolutely blown away and would have fully taken advantage of this tech. Imagine what all they'd have built with it.
It's literally just a CNC mill. An artist made the model in CAD, spat out the program for the robot, and the robot is running it.
Should be good news for the traditional scalper. 100% handmade sclupture will sky rocket in price for sure!
Back to the “what is art” question.
The more we define. The more we question.
RIP humanity
Lol cope
Long live machine. The future supreme. Man overthrown.
The artistry also comes from the people that wrote the program, how much can the computer do 99% how about 0% without the humans that made it. Like making a cake and saying the mysteries oven did 99% of the work... perspective folks.
Traditional artists have NOTHING to worry about and Italy’s artistic heritage is NOT on the line. Even if the robot does the carving, you still need an artist to come up with the idea and design it using CAD software. Robots are giving humans the ability to build cathedrals in one life time. @ 2:05 This is NOT cheating. Is it cheating to use robots to make cars and other products? @ 2:12 The artistry is in the idea and using CAD software.
If the robot does 99% of the work than obviously sculptors need to worry about the possibility of them losing their jobs. 🙄
@ The robot ONLY does the physical work. You STILL need the artist to design it using computer CAD software.
@314jrock the physical work is the majority of the work. Whereas before you'd have 10 job openings for sculptors now, you'll need just one because the robot will handle 99% of the carving, thus lessening the need for hiring more human sculptors. You saw this happen with car manufacturing and nearly every other manufacturing industry.
That guy on the left clearly doesn't understand what this is. The DESIGN is created by a human. It is the sculpting that is done by the robot. Unless you believe all digital art (digital paintings and drawings created on tablets, etc.) is not art, then this is most definitely art. Whether or not it is artisanship is a more interesting question. I wonder how much of that human finishing work really goes on. But there is no question that this is art.
If the DESIGN, rather than just the SCULPTING, was done by generative AI, for example, then it would be a very different conversation.
There is a difference between a digital art vs just printing a photo. And the one above, is just like downloading a public domain artwork, make multiple copies faster with a scanner and a printer, and called it theirs because they "printed" it. The one above looks likes it was 3dscanned to make a digital copy of it, then gets "printed" by a robot, and called it art. The original sculptor is the artist, not the printer.
They didn't even digitally sculpted it
@@kristinejane-o9w "The one above looks likes it was 3dscanned to make a digital copy of it..." - This is just speculation on your part. Show me where you see evidence that this company did that, other than the fact that they merely could have. Even then, what you're talking about is more akin to making a replica than merely printing a photo. And if we were talking about printing a photo, prints of famous paintings are still are still widely considered to be art.
@Brendissimo1 haha jokes on you. I just found an instagram post from the company that links to an article where it proudly say that they took photos using iphone which has Lidar sensors that can be used for photogrammetry/3d scanning where they recreate a public domain sculpture a model of a 3d horse even though they were refused/forbidden to do so. So it's not just speculation, they are truly 3d scanning before they can use the robot. You can search it for yourself: The robot guerilla Campaign to Recreate the Elgin Marbles. Even the artist using this "tool" are even afraid to admit they are using the "tool". What's there to be afraid of? I've never seen someone be afraid of stating that they use photoshop to create a digital art.
@Brendissimo1 then my printed photo of a mona lisa is considered art? Then it should also amount to millions because it is equal to the original, but it is not, right? Even though I did the bare minimum by downloading the photo, using the printer and printing it, is it still equal? If I tear down this printed copy, it won't matter. But if the original was consumed by fire in the museum, it would be catastrophic.
Ancient building are protected because their are a testimony of our history, not because people made them the old fashion way. Most people can't even tell the difference between something man made and another made by a machine unless you tell them. 100 or 200 years from now, a lot of the iconic architecture of today will probably be protected the same way.
Finally explains how the ancient Egyptians made their statues with absolute mirror symmetry. They used CAD.
You need a back ground in the skills of sculpture to program the robot. However, as the technology improves, fewer people will have that skill level. Which means fewer people who can guide the robots in making complicated pieces.
I just wanna see more robots taking care of the environment than being used on art
There will always be traditional artisans we just need to find a balance and teach young artists those skills and not gatekeep it
@ 3:00 I loved his answers, he’s completely and absolutely right! We value art, and beautiful designed homes because of the craftsmanship. When a machine does the job you can tell there’s something not right. You can never ever replicate art with machinery!
3d printer hobbyists would really appreciate this form of art
To me it's like the difference between nautral and lab grown Diamonds. One is more "genuine" than the other, however it's up to the consumer what they want to pay for.
“Art is human and humans are not perfect”
Sure, the output of the robot looks beautiful, but it has little artistic value compared to sculptures made by master artists from hundred years ago. The Pieta sculpture by Michelangelo is a priceless work of art because of how impressive it was made and who made it. Michelangelo, who spent his life studying the human anatomy, carved the marble impressively by hand, careful not to mess it up. He didn't mess up and the output is is almost perfect, if not perfect. It's one of its kind! Meanwhile, the output of the robot can be perfect but it's not as valuable as traditionally-made ones because we know the machine can do so. In the near future these machines will mass produce such sculptures that will be considered as mundane as the monoblocks we have today. Definitely art is subjective, but it will never be a priceless art. Cheap art it is.
This will bring down the cost of sculpture significantly so all of us plebes can now have marble sculptures too. But there will still be plenty of rich people willing to pay for sculptures made by hand.
He's wrong about the pen. Someone spent weeks or more designing the look of that pen. He just insulted the designer who created that.
Exactly, he not a critical thinker, just surface level… the person designing that pen probably had to model it in some software and prototype it before it got made. It’s like saying modern cars aren’t art because it’s not carve in clay or hammered out of aluminum.
Yes, but I think his point is that afterwards it was mass produced. It's a replica, not the original. It doesn't have the same inherent value as the idea that gave birth to it because of this. If the artist were to spend time to construct it manually, then perhaps it is art. I think that was his point. Do I agree with it? Somewhat...i can see why it makes sense when thought about like this.
What is the big deal? Where I work, they brought in an automated line and laid off 65 manual operators. How is this any different? If anything, the line operators needed their pay and benefits more than these artists. It is called, life.
Oh boy...
They destroyed the artist career of painting and i guess sculpting is next. Soon AI will even do the coding. Don't be fooled.
The result of minimum wage hikes, disability, work place lawsuits, etc.
Art is in the eye of the beholder.
I believe the software and programming is art. Programmers of this type are artists.
it just proves the point if the robot can physically do it than any human can also do it. We are becoming lazy asf.
It is not art. Robot can not create, they ONLY do what they are programed to do.
oh trust me if this technology existed back then they would have used this technique without a doubt
And that's EXACTLY/precisely what makes ART, ART. Because they didn't and it's unique and with human imperfection. No to pieces will every be the same no matter how hard an artist tried, there will be difference in chipping, strikes, brush strokes etc. If you looked at a PROPER artist's earlier and later work you can see his improvement made in his work. How the works are done different from earlier to his later work. Tech just makes everything equal and same because they are to follow a "standard" of acceptable and "standard deviations delta" how different two items made by the machine are, art is because it is unique, not because it can by mass stamped in a factory somewhere in china.
People who are not artists determining what art is. Hmmmmm…what is real journalism? What is a journalist?
Do you have to be a great singer to determine who sings well? A chef to understand which food is is prepared and cooked really well? Do you have to be a filmmaker to be able to tell a movie or show is good?
Maybe exposure to a lot on a particular subject can help one appreciate the actual efforts put into it and the overall result.
As Shakespeare said Art, Beauty is in the Eyes of the beholder. Is A Volkswagen Beetle Vs a Ferrari Roma Slick Car An Art form design? Both art Design by an Artist car design and assembled on industrial scale vs Ferrari assembled by Hands, Yes both Sculptures or Beetle or Ferrari designs are Work of Art, based on the Eyes of the Beholder, says Shakespeare, the Artist!!!😋🤗⭐️🙊😘😊🙈🙉😊🙃
It's simple. The equations for excluding human creativity are already being worked out. Now once we've taught AI how to create robots, we can soon be excluded all together.
Ok, this is maybe going too far.
Is like telling Da vinci he need to use a rock instead of a hammer because using a hammer is not an art.
The question is more so whether the original model is created by an artist, which I’d assume is the case. People are looking at this under the misnomer that traditional sculptures were done directly from block to model, but that isn’t the case. A smaller sculpture was modeled in clay and cast in plaster then a grid system was used to measure the depth of points on that sculpture. A secondary grid scaffolding was created to drill holes into the marble block, thereby transferring the points. Artist would carve the marble down to the end of those points and then do the finishing work with chisels by hand by using a robot to do 95% of the carving it’s merely of more efficient technical process than the traditional technical process point being it was done through transferring points in 3-D space so it’s not that dramatic of a categorical change. It’s more a matter of the technical efficiency of modern CNC milling, etc.would’ve been a better story if this basic fact was pointed out rather than this superficial treatment of the subject.
Art is one of the fields that is being impacted by Ai and robotics. This will be the norm in the future.
Crazy that the people at cbs news aren’t smart enough to know what A.I. really is. Where is the A.I.? Just cause there are robots and computers? A color printer can make art too. What is the difference?
Beautiful.
No fools, "artisans" are not outraged. Even the great masters, while creating the designs and compositions of a piece, had subordinate apprentices doing the grunt work of roughing out the massive marble blocks before taking over for the final touches. This will allow true artists to create works more quickly, instead of taking years or decades.
And this is just the beginning...
To sell statues for money at a fair price is good but not to put in museums in my opinion
As a 3d modeler and sculptor, I see nothing wrong with this.
Trying to make as much money as possible with 7 employees who do not eat or sleep does not scream "art" to me.