difference designer vs. computer
- Started
- Last post
- 27 Responses
- BONE
Mark out the difference.
what charcterizes a designer?
Can machines be creative?(you could post some machine generated design/art links here)
- fate0
A computer can make art. Art is abstract.
A computer has a very difficult time with context. Context is logical.
Design is a combination of the two.
Even though it seems like those abilities contrast the computer's nature, they are viewed from the Human perspective, not the computer's. Therefore the computer fails to deliver the human's perspective of context needed for succesful design.
- BONE0
thx
other opinions??
- ********0
both art and design's goal is to communicate a message.
the computer can create graphics by itself. is it communicating a message? no.
and thats about what it comes down to.
- tkmeister0
computer is only a tool. now we see designers becoming the victim of photoshop effects. instead of us
- tkmeister0
oops.. yeah, so i was saying...
computer is only a tool. it doesn't do the thinking for you. when it comes down to it, a machine process binary data.
- fate0
I think my explaination was the best. I'll try to elaborate.
Art doesn't need to have, and often lacks, a definite meaning or message. There is always the intent of the artist, but art is always open to interpretation. That is why a computer can make art, because the meaning is abstractly determined by whoever looks at the stuff it spits out.
Now for a computer to create context would be bridging some A.I. shit, because the computer would have to have the complexity of a human mind that actually makes the distinction between "good context" or "poor context". Context in design is meant for other humans, therefore the computer (at least right now) isn't up to thinking like a human.
- BONE0
ok so far but to a certain point,
can a computer simulate thinking process? Equals thinking process =Creativity?
It's not about saying Creatives are replaceable by machines...it's about defining why not.
- ********0
actually fate, i think you're wrong.
what makes art beautiful is the message the artist is communicating. to stare at a piece of abstract image that a computer has spit out randomly and try and determine a message is in complete vain.
- fate0
Sure a computer can be creative. All it technically needs is the power to create something, and in most people's view, something original, which is wholey possible with random algorithms.
But so far a computer cannot simulate a thinking process, it can only emulate it. There's the difference, and the reason why it's not up to the job of creating the mix of art & context a HUMAN designer can.
- fate0
nick, unfortunately your opinion on the beauty of art is subjective ;)
- welded0
A computer is only as "creative" as he who programs it. A machine has absolutly no concept of creativity, it only spits out the result of an algorythm. Perhaps this result can be perceived as creative, as fate discussed in regards to the subjectivness of art, but the computer itself knows no different.
Thinking process != creativity.
- fate0
Here's the problem with the "Art needs human intent and concept to be considered art" arguement.
If no one ever sees the piece of art besides the artist, and the artist dies without writing his/her purpose, does the meaning even exist? Is it not still art? It's like a tree falling in the woods. There can be meaning defined subjectively by each and every person.
Which is why I said your opinion was subjective, nick. It was coincidental that you illustrated my point.
- ********0
yes, a computer can be 'creative' - it can surely 'create' something.
but art = communication, whether you agree with me or not.
- BONE0
I have to say that the thing with the context isn't the point;
But i very much liked the statemen, that computers can't distinguish between poor and good context.
- fate0
Art=communication? So you talk to the artist every time you visit a museum?
Exactly, you don't. The piece is presented and can be taken in, interpreted, and attached a meaning without knowing a scrap of evidence about the who, where why.
- BONE0
welded said that computer is only as creative as the one who programs it....
what if the one isn't aware of the results of his algorythms, because they involve a mix of randomness
and context only the computer has effect on?
are randomness and context a key to creativity?
- fate0
BONE, well following that arguement means we talk about A.I. and neural networks and what defines intelligence and a whole slew of other arguements. Like I said, and like welded said, the computer only emulates intelligence (by its programmer) and does not simulate it.
- ********0
ok, i concede, if an individual tries hard enough they can find meaning in any piece of garbage a computer spits out. but that being said, the credit should be placed on the interpreter rather than the computer.
but the question was actually about design. and design = communication - and you can't argue me on that one. ;)
- fate0
yeah, but design is both art and context. And I agree, computers suck at context, they suck at communication. If they didn't, I'd have the robot I was promised years ago that could bring me a martini and give me a blowjob.
- ********0
by context you mean communication... right?
and robots can certainly fix you a martini and even suck your dick.. that my friend require no communication or critical thinking.