Reading Response #2

The reading article that I wanted to respond to was an article that came from Harvard about the discussion of if art is generated by a computer if it could still be considered art. Daphne Kalotay who is a writer of both novels and short-stories mentioned that she was a judge in a writing contest and there were humans entered into the competition as well as AI, the catch was that she didn’t know which stories were which. After the competition was over she noted that humans had different ways of looking at the world and were able to think outside of the box. On the other hand, AI’s writing was almost perfect and there were no technical mistakes. However, what AI wrote was something that she had seen before. That was in writing, but how does AI get perceived in art? There is an artist who is an animator named Ruth Stella Lingford that chimes in on the conversation. She said that obviously AI is coming in and there is no stopping it so now it’s necessary to change the mindset from 'is it happening?’ to ‘how do I manage it alongside my art?’ Matt Maunders is another artist who makes a great point in that artists only use what they bring. If artists don’t want to use AI they don’t have to. He believes that while it is new it will be tried and tested but at the end of the day the artist holds the control over what will be created. At the end of the day it all comes down to originality. Humans have the control, free-thinking, and creativity which is something all AI lacks. While it can help aid the creative process and can be a new tool to wipe out, most artists are confident that it will not destroy the specialness of human-made art as a whole. 

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/08/is-art-generated-by-artificial-intelligence-real-art/

<-- some messed up AI art