Tim Barker reading assignment

Well this reading was interesting. I never thought about the idea of machines taking over art. The concept to me is a little confusing. First of all, if man programs the machine to be able to make it’s own choices, does this mean that the machine does in fact have consciousness?  If so, is that the basis or standard in which we would consider the machine’s artwork “authentic art?” However, if man or woman created the machine, and it’s programmed by the human, couldn’t one argue that the credit stills lie with the human and not the machine?
Another idea I was wondering about is that machines in general are imperfect, so they glitch. So to have a machine that purposely glitches, is in a way…I suppose ironic? Because we don’t want machines to glitch, or program it to mess up intentionally. So how does programming a machine to produce glitches, art? When in one concept it’s against the very nature of what it’s purpose is? It makes me ponder because the whole idea of the invention of machine was that it would indeed not glitch.
This philosophy behind this still confuses me.  “The art of the machine here is an art in which the machine, after being built by humans hands, is itself creative.” The creative part confuses me. I’ve never thought about the technical aspect of building a machine as creative. Like the computer doesn’t seem creative to me unless it has some cool physical attributes in the design or what it can do. But regardless it is also because it benefits me as the consumer, and I have power over it. Whereas a machine that is programmed to make its own art, I guess it doesn’t make sense to me because it reminds me of a factory line. The machine just keeps putting out what it is meant to make. How is this different then that?


5 thoughts on “Tim Barker reading assignment

  1. I like where you were going with your question: “If man or woman created the machine, and it’s programmed by the human, couldn’t one argue that the credit stills lie with the human and not the machine?” This definitely makes me reconsider my fear that the machine is more responsible for the art than the human, because we have the power to both make and limit the machine and its creative abilities. However, my opinion differs from yours in your second paragraph when you question the creativity of machine-building, because even in technological devices the designer makes both aesthetic and function-based design choices. I think machine creation is perhaps one of the most creative things a person could do, because the creator can literally do anything they want to create and manipulate both the interface and the function of the medium itself, and then present it to the masses to utilize the creator’s own unique design. Steve Jobs, for example, started a whole revolution with his simple yet beautiful design of Apple products, and now it is the most ubiquitous design worldwide due to his own creativity that appealed on a massive scale.


    1. I totally agree with your statement about man still being coined the inventor due to the process of man programming the machine. If the machine glitches even though it wasn’t designed to, the credit still should lie with the creator because of the way it was designed. I also never thought of the idea of the machines being ironic by creating glitches. Machines are designed to be perfect but by purposely creating a glitch defeats the purpose of attempting to make a perfect code.


  2. I really liked all the questions you asked and it got me to thinking the same thing. can we actually call something a machine produces art work? how do we define what artwork is? I also was thinking the same thing about how machines are designed to not glitch so in fact by making them glitch doesn’t that go against everything? but i guess thats the point of glitch art is to against the grain and push boundaries and limits that have not yet been tested. to expose things that are suppose to be hidden. its all very interesting and I am defiantly questioning the same thing you are!


  3. I think you’re totally right in that one could definitely argue that the credit for art lies with the human and not the “machine”, especially within the context of this class and digital/glitch art in general. Even though it’s the technology itself that is glitching and causing a disruption in the signal, I would argue that it’s actually the user that is sending the message for that interruption. I mean, we have to literally go into the coding of a photo and physically change it in order for a glitch to even happen. We, as humans and creators of the technology, have the agency that machines don’t! So it really is interesting to wonder who exactly art “belongs” to, but I personally think that, in the end, we are the total creative force behind it.


  4. I think your confusion is completely valid and something I struggle with as well. Its something people have been struggling with for a while especially with the emergence and fear of Artificial Intelligence. When a computer makes art, which they can do, is it authentic? Does authentic art have to be conscious? IM not sure I have the answers but asking these question is productive. With your second point about the irony of a purposeful error implemented by a machine, I find that intriguing because it gets to the root of if a glitch is even an error, can an error be actively made? When we glitch our photos should be still be considering glitch as an error or maybe a purposeful imperfection?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s