Robot artists and artist robots The swamp of technique
by Jizaino, 31 July 2013
An Artist should be esteemed not for the technique, but firstly for what he communicates.
Technique is just a tool or an aesthetic ornamentation, and not the aim. That artist who makes of technique his only strength, declares to be an executor, an artisan, a labourer, a machine: he is a robot artist. And it will soon come the moment for the artificial art, sorry for the etymological pun. Then, hordes of artist robots could supply stylistically artistic contents restlessly and of infinite varieties, even on demand, tailored and in short times. The robot artist will be replaced directly by the purchaser, that is the commissioner, while the artist robot will be the worker. Then, who will search for the robot artists, whom in comparison will be just clumsy and pricey emulators of the more perfect machines?
Look at the early prodigies of this painter robot called e-David:
This robotic application may seem even redundant for it emulates what is already done by painters of flesh and bones, but we must consider the economical potentialities as the technology progresses, and above all, yet from the few experimental samples, we can glimpse and imagine new possibilities that a person may hardly reach, slowly at high costs. An artist could also take advantage of an artist robot, but obviously what he will propose to the public will not be the technical artwork, but just the intellectual one, as it should be since ever with all those artists who commend the making of their ideas to specialized labourers, a custom that in my opinion is ethically unbecoming anyway.
To pursue the technique leads to become addicted to it, in the perennial chase for the surmount to avoid exclusion. Instead, Art is to think, to say and to act freely, being etymologically derived from the Arian root ar that means to go, to move, to act; the obsession for the technique is just a swamp that limits freedom.
Nowadays, with the support of technology, almost everybody can boast artistic attitudes, believing amiss that to be able to technically execute an artwork is the aim. But the intent that motivates to express oneself is missing, after all even animals can learn to draw.
A technical comparison with machines built by ourselves to surpass our possibilities is meaningless, other than to be a losing game. That is the case of the chess game, where the computers, programmed by humans, have definitively defeated the possibilities of human beings, who have recently renounced, cleverly, to duel again with them. The difference between human mind and the computer is that the first is incline to error, used as a genial and creative spark. In the unfailing computer we could emulate even this characteristic, but it will always be a machine programmed to emulate, while the metaphysical mystery of human mind is the free will, at all costs. This is at last the aim: freedom, the being stands out because he is free, he is not a machine or a labourer. To worry about technique limits the possibilities to act and possibly it could make you obsolete.
It is better to care of own thought and to keep it free, to listen to own nature and to be possibly esteemed for that, either manifesting it through artistic actions or not.