SimUlations!
The biggest issue about simulacra is whether the art is real or merely a replication (at least to me)? Is it art if it's a simulation? My question then goes to parodies. There are plenty of parodies of songs, movies, politicians etc. For the most part these parodies are considered art (some of them might not be good, but I never said good art). And where do influences fall in this category? If I remember correctly, last semester, we talked about how in theory all the chords in music have already been played in one form or another. So, if that's the case is a new song ever new? My final question pertains to us as human beings. Technically we are always changing and the cells in our bodies are actually copies of previous cells (there's also a little piece of DNA that falls off every time, but we're mostly copies of previous cells).
So the question of whether something is "real art" feels a bit off to me. You can totally argue that the original is either better or worse than the copy. In my opinion I tend to like a lot of covers to songs that I hear. The reason for this is because sometimes another person just sings a certain song better than the original. I tend to prefer Metallica's version of Turn The Page than Bob Seger. And I prefer this guy's version over both https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I30MZsZ1tY (his name is Thomas Pederson). Words (especially song lyrics because they're like poems) can be interpreted in many different ways and the way it affects one musician may not be how it affects another musician. Also, the quality of someone's voice and/or different music can totally change the meaning of a song. So, to call a cover or a copy "not real" is off base to me.
Moving on, though, what about robots and AI. Why is a technically sound robot's version of art not considered real? I think the missing element is the human element. Or at least an organic element. If "to err is human," then I think that is what is missing. I'm NOT saying that if an artist picks up a pen for the first time and creates a masterpiece in an hour it's not art. What I am saying is that there should be some thought behind it. And my question is whether an AI's consciousness is real or simply a program? We can ask the same question about ourselves too, but I'll try not to go there because this is already a bit dense and subjective. In order to really answer this question, we'd have to answer what human consciousness is and compare it to AI. As of right now, AI isn't so advanced that it can truly contemplate the abstract and gray areas. It might be able to regurgitate what it's been told by someone else, but I question how much it actually understands and how much is the program saying: "I think this is what the person wants to hear." This is all assuming AI can even get to the "thinking level" of a human or beyond. Is it likely? Probably not, but maybe it'll never get there.
So the question of whether something is "real art" feels a bit off to me. You can totally argue that the original is either better or worse than the copy. In my opinion I tend to like a lot of covers to songs that I hear. The reason for this is because sometimes another person just sings a certain song better than the original. I tend to prefer Metallica's version of Turn The Page than Bob Seger. And I prefer this guy's version over both https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I30MZsZ1tY (his name is Thomas Pederson). Words (especially song lyrics because they're like poems) can be interpreted in many different ways and the way it affects one musician may not be how it affects another musician. Also, the quality of someone's voice and/or different music can totally change the meaning of a song. So, to call a cover or a copy "not real" is off base to me.
Moving on, though, what about robots and AI. Why is a technically sound robot's version of art not considered real? I think the missing element is the human element. Or at least an organic element. If "to err is human," then I think that is what is missing. I'm NOT saying that if an artist picks up a pen for the first time and creates a masterpiece in an hour it's not art. What I am saying is that there should be some thought behind it. And my question is whether an AI's consciousness is real or simply a program? We can ask the same question about ourselves too, but I'll try not to go there because this is already a bit dense and subjective. In order to really answer this question, we'd have to answer what human consciousness is and compare it to AI. As of right now, AI isn't so advanced that it can truly contemplate the abstract and gray areas. It might be able to regurgitate what it's been told by someone else, but I question how much it actually understands and how much is the program saying: "I think this is what the person wants to hear." This is all assuming AI can even get to the "thinking level" of a human or beyond. Is it likely? Probably not, but maybe it'll never get there.
“all the chords in music have already been played in one form or another. So, if that's the case is a new song ever new?”
ReplyDeleteI would say yes - but in a way that is perhaps more in line with how cover versions, adaptations, and translations (linguistic and otherwise) have at least the potential to present something “new” just as well.
This invites the Intertextual Element to raise her glass and say a few words at Imitation and Simulation’s little soiree. We talked about the referencing, deferential quality of performatives in terms of what the utterance means, but I think these elements have something to say about the very question of originality as well. Austin, awesomely referencing Kirby Hume, talked about “Creative Remix” and the notion that our creative output builds on, responds to, or rails against existing material while offering something "new". Of course recontextualizing doesn’t automatically equal relevance, nor does it bring whatever we’ve cobbled together from our experience to life. That comes from the singular touch of the each artist’s hand. She knows it comes from a place that not “her’s” but is aware, as well, that only her touch will revive the material for the next ones in the procession. And, since I’m all about the borrowing for the moment, here’s a quote from Cheek By Jowl’s Declan Donnellan:
…whenever we try to be original, we end up looking like everyone else who is trying to be original. We produce work that is born dead, and decomposing things look increasingly similar.
[Donnellan, 2002]
Of course this assumes the kind of profound translation that is born of two sources coming together to create something beyond either of the two (or more) individually. Not just some rehash...but how do we, objectively or otherwise, distinguish between the two?