Advertisement

Philosophy & Technology

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 267–284 | Cite as

Art: Brought to You by Creative Machines

  • Steffen SteinertEmail author
Research Article
  • 745 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, I argue that machines can create works of art. My argument is based on an analysis of the so-called creative machines and focuses on technical functions and intentions. If my proposal is correct, then creative machines are technical artifacts with the proper function to bring about works of art. My account is based on sensible conceptual connections between makers, technical artifacts, intentions, and the creation of art. One upshot of the account presented here is that we do not need a new conceptual framework or dubious assumptions about artistic agency on part of machines in order to arrive at the conclusion that creative machines make art. I will conclude the paper with some remarks regarding the artistic value of items produced by creative machines.

Keywords

Creative machines Technical function Proper function Intentions Artworks Artistic value 

References

  1. Baker, L. R. (2004). The ontology of artifacts. Philosophical Explorations, 7(2), 99–111. doi: 10.1080/13869790410001694462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barton, S. (2013). The human, the mechanical, and the spaces in between: explorations in human-robotic musical improvisation. Musical Metacreation: Papers from the 2013 AIIDE Workshop (WS-13-22), online: http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/AIIDE/AIIDE13/paper/view/7466/7667; Accessed: April 28, 2016.
  3. Bretan, M., & Weinberg, G. (2016). A survey of robotic musicianship. Communications of the ACM, 59(5), 100–109. doi: 10.1145/2818994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carter, J. (2012). Could robots be the writers of the future?, http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/could-robots-be-the-writers-of-the-future--1141399/2; Accessed April 28, 2016.
  5. Colton, S. (2012). The Painting Fool. Stories from building an automated painter. In J. McCormack & M. D’Inverno (Eds.), Computers and creativity (pp. 3–39). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Danto, A. C. (1981). The transfiguration of commonplace. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Davies, S. (2015). Defining art and artworlds. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 73(4), 375–384.Google Scholar
  8. Devereux, D. (1977). Artifacts, natural objects, and works of art. Analysis, 37(3), 134. doi: 10.2307/3327514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Floridi, L., Fresco, N., & Primiero, G. (2015). On malfunctioning software. Synthese, 192(4), 1199–1220. doi: 10.1007/s11229-014-0610-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gatys L. A., Ecker, A., Bethge, M. (2015). A neural algorithm of artistic style, www.arXiv:1508.06576.Google Scholar
  11. Hanson, L. (2013). The reality of (non-aesthetic) artistic value. The Philosophical Quarterly, 63(252), 492–508. doi: 10.1111/1467-9213.12026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hilpinen, R. (1992). On artifacts and works of art. Theoria, 58(1), 58–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-2567.1992.tb01155.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoffmann, G., & Weinberg, G. (2011). Interactive improvisation with a robotic marimba player. Autonomous Robots, 31(2), 133–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Houkes, W. (2013). Rules, plans and the normativity of technological knowledge. In M. J. de Vries, S. O. Hansson, & A. W. M. Meijers (Eds.), Norms in technology (pp. 35–55). Dodrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Houkes, W., & Vermaas, P. E. (2009). Produced to use : combining two key intuitions on the nature of artefacts. Techné, 13(2), 123–136.Google Scholar
  16. Huddleston, A. (2012). In defense of artistic value. The Philosophical Quarterly, 62(249), 705–714. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9213.2012.00089.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kroes, P. (2012). Technical artefacts: creations of mind and matter. Dordrecht; New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levinson, J. (1996). The pleasures of aesthetics: philosophical essays. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Levinson, J. (2007). Artworks as artifacts. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Creations of the mind (pp. 74–82). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lopes, D. M. (2011). The myth of (non-aesthetic) artistic value. The Philosophical Quarterly, 61(244), 518–536. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9213.2011.700.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Nanay, B. (2015). Cognitive penetration and the gallery of indiscernibles. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01527
  23. Peterson, M., & Spahn, A. (2011). Can technological artefacts be moral agents? Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(3), 411–424. doi: 10.1007/s11948-010-9241-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sauchelli, A. (forthcoming). Aesthetic value, artistic value, and morality. In D. Coady, K. Brownlee, & K. Lipper-Rasmussen (Eds.), Blackwell companion to applied philosophy. Malden, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  25. Searle, J. R. (2000). Mind, language and society: philosophy in the real world. London: Phoenix.Google Scholar
  26. Sellors, C. P. (2007). Collective authorship in film. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 65(3), 263–271. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-594X.2007.00257.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Simonite, T. (2015). Robot journalist finds new work on Wall Street. Technology review; https://www.technologyreview.com/s/533976/robot-journalist-finds-new-work-on-wall-street/; Accessed April 28, 2016.
  28. Sperber, D. (2007). Seedless grapes: nature and culture. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Creations of the mind (pp. 124–138). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Stecker, R. (2003). Definition of art. In J. Levinson (Ed.), Oxford handbook of aesthetics (pp. 136–155). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Sullins, J. P. (2006). When is a robot a moral agent? International Review of Information Ethics, 6(12), 23–30.Google Scholar
  31. Thomasson, A. (2007). Artifacts and human concepts. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Creations of the mind (pp. 52–74). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. US Department of Defense (2013). Unmanned systems integrated roadmap FY 2013–2038; Online: http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/DOD-USRM-2013.pdf; Accessed: April 27, 2016.
  33. Verbeek, P.-P. (2008). Obstetric ultrasound and the technological mediation of morality: a postphenomenological analysis. Human Studies, 31(1), 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Center for Neurophilosophy and Ethics of NeuroscienceLudwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations