difference designer vs. computer
Out of context: Reply #25
- Started
- Last post
- 27 Responses
- welded0
Well strictly speaking of course a computer can create. This is a valid definition of the term.
-"Having the ability or power to create"
However, if we are going to consider intent and purpose then, no, a computer cannot be any more creative than it has been trained to be.
-"Characterized by originality and expressiveness; imaginative"If we are discussing the issue of the effectivness of a computer as a designer, then we must discuss it's ability to solve problems. That said, my definition of art and design are different. Close, often overlapping, but critically different. To me art does not need to serve any purpose or solve any problems. Sure, it can and does, but it does not need to. It's art; it can be whatever the hell anyone wants it to be or mean whatever the hell anyone wants it to mean. Design, on the other hand, by it's nature, is a means to and end; the solution to a problem.
It seems to have come up already, but I believe that one's opinions on art and design strongly influence the discussion about a computer emulating a designer.
In my book, I do not feel that a computer can be truly creative in an artistic way, but it can create some sort of art. It cannot necessarily be creative in the kind of way that we as designers are. Before I finish this up I want to acknowledge that computers can do quite well analyzing situations and solving problems, such as with chess, but think about your job - what sort of decisions did you make today that were from the gut and not strictly logical?
(Here's part of where my def. of art and design mix.)