MICROSTORY OF ART

MICROSTORY OF ART
ONLINE JOURNAL FOR ART, CONNOISSEURSHIP AND CULTURAL JOURNALISM

Dedicated to The Computer and Picasso

(Picture: Bill Bertram)

Picasso as a Computer (Picasso in 2023 – 5)

(29.8.2023) In 2023 it is becoming common to compare the doing of an artificial intelligence with the doing of artist Pablo Picasso – since the artificial intelligence seems now to be able to work in the style of Pablo Picasso. But it was in 1984 – the Orwellian year – that the doing of Pablo Picasso was compared – probably for the very first and perhaps for the only time – with the doing of a computer. This comparison was made by no other than by art historian Werner Spies, in the feuilleton of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. And it is interesting to think of Picasso – once – as a computer, to say then, nonetheless, why Picasso was no computer, and why an artificial intelligence cannot be Picasso.

1) Pablo Picasso as a Computer

»Das unterscheidet sein [Picassos] Werk grundsätzlich von der Tradition: ein geradezu computerhaft breites Abtasten aller formalen Möglichkeiten, die die verschiedenen Elemente eines Körpers, eines Gesichts, eines Gegenstandes annehmen können, zeichnet seine Arbeitsweise aus.« (see Spies 1989, p. 76, and for the source: p. 222)
A ›computer-like broad scanning of all formal possibilities that the elements of a body, a face, an object, could be morphed into‹ was characteristic, according to Werner Spies, for Picasso’s way of working. And while we cannot know of what computer Werner Spies was thinking, in 1984, I have chosen to show the motherboard of a Commodore 64 above. A ›computer-like‹ scanning of possibilities, while, in 2023, a computer is scanning all works by Picasso – to emulate his style, to imitate him, if being prompted to do something in the style of Picasso.
But why not saying, in 2023, why Picasso was actually not a computer, and why a computer, strictly speaking, cannot be Picasso? Here is my way of saying why:

2) On Why Picasso was no Computer and on Why an Artificial Intelligence Cannot be but Only Simulate to Be Picasso

I would say that Picasso strived for expressing less the visual surfaces of objects or persons, but rather his inner truth as to an object or a person. And for expressing his inner truth the visual appearance of an object or a person had to be changed, to be adapted to his truth, for his inner truth to become visible.
And this doing of expressing an inner truth, this search was motivated by strong reasons, not by the reason to produce great art primarily, but rather by the personal reason to see that inner truth finding expression in his art, to see his inner truth appear visually, and to clarify his view of things, objects or persons. And for this reason Picasso had also to do series, to find, perhaps in the end, or perhaps only once, within a series, or perhaps never, the visual expression of his inner truth. He had to do series, which means, to go through the possibilities of which Werner Spies was speaking. Because a certain formal possibility could be the equivalent for his inner truth. And perhaps it all was about to find out which formal possibility was adequate in the end, or at least for one aspect of his inner truth.

Artificial intelligence, in 2023, does not have an ›inner truth‹ of anything, since such inner truth is the result of a human being having relations to objects and persons. The inner truth (or idea of something) is the result of living with objects and persons that have a meaning in the life of the person that is living with them. And this an artificial intelligence can only simulate and not have, and hence the artificial intelligence can also not have any strong reasons to produce anything, but only simulate such reasons. Since also the reasons to produce art come out of the life, are the result of humans living a life, and it is living that creates the urge to produce art (because something, the visual expression of an inner truth) might be felt lacking. None of this an artificial intelligence can do in 2023, but it can – probably – already simulate it. And the future will show for how long humans may feel the distinction between art having been produced by humans due to strong reasons and an urge to produce art, and the products of artifical intelligences that produce art in the style of a human artist, or in terms of remixing styles etc., since they have been prompted to do so by humans. The question will be if, and perhaps for how long, the strong reasons, the motivation to produce art, can be felt through the art work only that has been produced by a human. And if strong reasons are implied by artificial intelligences, humans probably will not be able any longer to tell a work of art done by a human from the product of a computer.

Selected Literature:
Werner Spies, Rosarot vor Miami. Ausflüge zu Kunst und Künstlern unseres Jahrhunderts, Munich 1989

MICROSTORY OF ART
ONLINE JOURNAL FOR ART, CONNOISSEURSHIP AND CULTURAL JOURNALISM
HOME

Top of the page

Microstory of Art Main Index

Dietrich Seybold Homepage

© DS