No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Andy Warhol: The Artist as Machine
Abstract
Andy Warhol the man is a difficult creature to grasp. His art, at least some parts of it, is familiar to us; so familiar, in fact, that it is becoming difficult not to think immediately of Warhol whenever we see a can of soup or an automobile accident. Yet in spite of this almost-overpowering presence or his work, Andy Warhol has managed to keep himself apart, a kind of enigma, a striking enigma, it is true, with his artificially grey hair, dark glasses and leather clothing, but an enigma nonetheless. His presence is as striking as one of his canvases, and just as devoid of a narrative sense. Warhol offers his image, his mask, for public consumption, but deprives the public of anything more. Asked about his background he once replied, “Why don't you make it up?” The remark is characteristic. It shows Warhol's unwillingness to expose himself beyond his public mask. The exact function of this image will be taken up later; but it should be mentioned now that Warhol apparently would prefer not to be thought of as a man, with a past, no matter how obscure, and a future, but as a unique entity, a thing of our day, who sprang into existence fully grown to do his work and who will someday vanish just as abruptly and mysteriously. That we know such is not the case doesn't matter. The presence of the desire, although it has remained largely unarticulated, is more important than the objective possibility. With regard to the public, Warhol does not want to exist outside of his image. For all intents and purposes, the image is Andy Warhol. This emphasis upon a stylized exterior and the lack of concern for anything other than the obvious is a major theme in Warhol's art, as well as in his deportment.
... Finally, these models can generate multitudes of outputs, but the art is giving the right input to guide the desired output and selecting the results that best serve the concept As Andy Warhol had envisioned in 1963, eventually, art production will become mechanised and automated (Sichel 2018). In his own words: "I want to be a machine" (Bergin 1967), which was also a reflection on that time's vast industrialization process. Resonating with today's deep learning age: I want my machine to do art. ...
Artificial Intelligence is present in the generation and distribution of culture. How do artists exploit neural networks? What impact do these algorithms have on artistic practice? Through a practice-based research methodology, this paper explores the potentials and limits of current AI technology, more precisely deep neural networks, in the context of image, text, form and translation of semiotic spaces. In a relatively short time, the generation of high-resolution images and 3D objects has been achieved. There are models, like CLIP and text2mesh, that do not need the same kind of media input as the output; we call them translation models. Such a twist contributes toward creativity arousal, which manifests itself in art practice and feeds back to the developers' pipeline. Yet again, we see how artworks act as catalysts for technology development. Those creative scenarios and processes are enabled not solely by AI models, but by the hard work behind implementing these new technologies. AI does not create a 'push-a-button' masterpiece but requires a deep understanding of the technology behind it, and a creative and critical mindset. Thus, AI opens new avenues for inspiration and offers novel tool sets, and yet again the question of authorship is asked.
In this chapter, I argue that in an adaptation guided by deconstructive principles of interrogation and self-reflexivity, the task of producing the difference takes the form of différance understood as an open-ended process. In Heiner Müller’s The Hamletmachine, this process is uniquely structured as machine-like production of meaning. Müller’s concept of a deconstructive meaning-making machine works in a symmetrical opposition to Giorgio Agamben’s anthropological machine. The anthropological machine produces clear distinctions between the man and the animal to impose a particular model of politics and history. The deconstructive machine, by contrast, copiously manufactures images and sensations, without ever establishing the ultimate difference between them, to undermine the set structures of drama and history. The playwright accelerates the process of destruction by including several machines in his drama: Hamlet, Hamlet, Ophelia, and history itself are employed in the mechanical production of real and imagined scenarios. These machines do not produce any definite difference but rather function in terms of différance. They accumulate meanings with the aim of destroying dramatic and historical structures, which might bring the desired liberation from the recurrence of the same patterns.
The chapter analyses the use of Derridean trace in Igor Bauersima’s Factory. The action of this play develops inside a reality show in the style of Big Brother, where the contestants try to win the audience attention. Given extraordinary similarities between the development of events in Factory and in Hamlet, the action of Shakespeare’s tragedy runs as a trace throughout this version, creating the effects of doubling and distortion. At the same time, Bauersima’s method of adapting Shakespeare’s tragedy bears significant affinities to Andy Warhol’s view of art as a mechanical process of producing serial images. More specifically, in Bauersima’s dramatic treatment of Hamlet, we might find similarities with the technique of silkscreen printing, which depends on a close relationship between an original image and its copy. The chapter shows how Bauersima retains the plot of Shakespeare’s drama as a trace while shifting the focus from the dilemmas of revenge, politics, and history to the paradoxes of television culture and mediatized representations of reality. This shift occurs in the context of such contemporary phenomena as the rising power of media corporations and the growing obsession with celebrity.
Resumen (es_ES)
A pesar de los enormes avances que ha tenido la inteligencia artificial (IA) y la robótica, aún es polémico afirmar que una máquina pueda crear arte. Contrario a esta visión, propongo que tras la negación de las capacidades estéticas de las máquinas subyace un sesgo antropocéntrico. Para ilustrar lo anterior tomo ejemplos sobre el rol de las máquinas en la música y arte pop. He seleccionado estos géneros pues históricamente han incorporado de buena forma las novedades tecnológicas. En definitiva, este artículo toma a la música pop y el método de trabajo de Andy Warhol, para iluminar nuevos puntos de vista sobre las capacidades estéticas de máquinas y algoritmos. De este modo se fortalece la tesis de que las máquinas sí pueden crear arte.
Resumen (en_US)
Despite the enormous advances that artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics have made, it is still controversial to claim that a machine can create art. Contrary to this view, I propose that behind the denial of the aesthetic capabilities of machines there is an anthropocentric bias. To illustrate this point, I take examples of the role that machines play in music and pop art. I have selected these genres because historically they have incorporated technological innovations without upheavals. Ultimately, this article takes pop music and Andy Warhol’s method of work to illuminate new points of view on the aesthetic capabilities of machines and algorithms. At the end, the thesis that machines can create art comes out strengthened.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.