[MD] Intellectual Level

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Mary]
But you could also take the question in another direction and ask, 
"can a computer produce art?"

[Arlo]
This question, and my reply, have been eating at me a bit today, so I 
thought I'd put some more thoughts out there.

I think what's bothering me is the use of the "art" as an object, an 
"artifact" or activity rather than as an adverb to describe the 
activity itself. What we call "art" is better seen as the end-product 
of artful activity. In the case of this question, these two seem 
wrongly divorced. Couldn't the question be rephrased, "can a computer 
engage in artful activity", or can it do things "artfully", in short 
"can a computer behave artfully?"

Engaging artfully could be described as making moment-to-moment 
responses to Dynamic Quality, such as in the "artful assembly" of a 
rotisserie, or in the "artful maintenance" of a motorcycle.

And on this note, isn't this *really* an adaption of the question, 
"does a computer have a buddha nature?"

So this is how I think the question is most likely answered from a 
MOQ-perspective, as "mu".

That said, we do use the word "art" to refer to certain specific 
cultural objects, and if we are using the word in this modern sense 
then I here is an extension of one thing I had said in my response.

I remember a similar question from a class I had years ago, rephrased 
for similarity, "can a monkey produce art?"

My answer in class was that if *I* give a monkey a canvas and a 
paintbrush, and *I* examine the results of his activity and *I* 
produce a determination about whether or not a given canvas is "art", 
then really the monkey is a tool that *I* am using to produce art. 
This would be akin to dipping a top into paint, spinning it, and 
placing it on a canvas, then asking "did the top produce art?" This 
wrongly disassociates the top from the deliberate context into which 
*I* placed it.

In asking "can a computer produce art", one has to back up and ask 
"can a computer differentiate between art and not-art?" In the case 
of the monkey, for a monkey to truly produce art, it (the monkey) 
would have to be the one determining whether the object it created 
was art or not. The only entity capable of answering "can a monkey 
produce art" is a monkey. If a monkey is incapable of differentiating 
between art and non-art, how could it produce it? (Outside the 
context of the monkey being a tool in *my* production or art)

This gets back to the "mu". Because, really, "can a monkey 
differentiate between art and non-art?" is really again another way 
of asking "does a monkey have a buddha nature?"

Because, in the end, "art" (even as a cultural artifact) is a 
culturally negotiated description. No culture can define for another 
culture what "art" is to that culture. Moreso, no person can define 
for another person what "art" is to that person, despite the "art 
industry" that seeks to define "art" for all peoples and all times.

Anyways, a few more thoughts... interesting topic.