Try expressing feelings and stop using that word that has absolutely nothing to do with machine learning.
The very very very basic Idea of machine learning is at opposite with art.
These things have nothing to do together.
With my personal experiments with generative art, I think of the machine almost as a work assistant. I have a rough idea of what I'm going for, and the ways to attempt it, and I teach that to my computer using code. But then I go away from the computer and out into the world and drink coffee, sketch in my notebook, and in the meantime my computerized assistant is back home working on draft after draft of my latest piece of art.
I come home and I see what he's done, and most of it isn't great, but occasionally there is a gem! I look at what he did for that gem and then encourage him to do more of that, and then go back out into the world. I highly disagree that machine learning is the opposite of art.
If you go to any traditional artist's studio you will often find notebooks filled with discarded sketches and ideas. Paintings with color combinations or techniques that weren't ideal. This is almost exactly the same process. And I would argue that process is exactly what art is.
You've "selected" something you liked. You are no artist and should not call your self like that. If you do, you will never inspire "simple" people.
At least if you do it would become the MacDonald of art.
Do nothing, sit and say to the bot if it fits you or not.
You're even worse than a DJ. The DJ actually works his selection and works his transitions.
Sketches have been written out of artist mind. Not by some selection that fits you or not.
Art is work.
What is the difference between me selecting the specific frame made by a generative algorithm and photographer picking a specific moment in time to capture a frame?
What's the difference between me using a generative algorithm and Michelangelo using assistants to paint the Sistine Chapel?
Generation is a series of unfortunate accidents in search of something that might pass for a goal.
Get interested in some artists and what they have achieved.
A humble human being would never call it self an artist.
That's the first mistake, and it's philosophical rather than technical.
I would say the tool it self is rather an piece of art. Not what it creates.
"What is the difference between me selecting the specific frame made by a generative algorithm and photographer picking a specific moment in time to capture a frame?" -> he captures life and tries to create a embodiment of something that already has a meaning for everybody. He can have multiple ways of underlining different aspects of the same thing. He has total control over How and Why. It is not only technical but it also communicates something in very different ways depending on the subject and how he took the picture.
"What's the difference between me using a generative algorithm and Michelangelo using assistants to paint the Sistine Chapel?" -> these are people not machine.
Slowly coaxing a desired result out of a computer by painstakingly tweaking an algorithm over the course of hours or days doesn't sound like work to you? The computer wouldn't have just done it on its own if an artist didn't tell it what to do.
I think your definition of art is narrow-minded. Who are you to tell someone their work isn't art. Art is (and always has been) in the eye of the beholder.
Still, I see the work putted as an art, not only the result.
What I mean is that tools that allow re-generation without someone putting he heart into it would not result in art.
Dropping 200 pics and having a new one is no art.
If you iterate your self on how these mechanics goes on and create something with it with control and skill then that looks more like it.
But then, if you drop out an algorithm that does that, handle it to users,
would their results be art ?
Tools and way are more important than result. How you use them and how you create something original from it is the art process.
I guess it really depends on how you use this.
in the same respect, did someone not create art in photoshop because they used some fractal noise?
I've had this conversation and thought about it a lot for what I'm doing and come to this conclusion.
art can be directed, it can be accidental, it can be both (every artist loves a happy accident), it can be because of a million iterations whether by hand or computer.
it's up to you, the viewer to decide if you think the end result is good art.
If you really want to build a tool used by producers then it would be required to be a VST in the first place.
But then I really doubt (as an amateur composer) than any artist could get anywhere with this.
How can I transmit my feelings trough a bunch of data i've no control over ?
As an amateur composer as well, I have found uses for these types of models even without plugins / with "data I have no control over" for small flashes of interesting motifs/progressions that I rework, modify, and expand on my own. Inspiration comes in many forms.
[0] https://github.com/tensorflow/magenta-demos/tree/master/ai-j...
At best it can inspire.
edit : thus the title should have been "rearranging sound with machine learning" ; it's not music nor art.
However, I think it has its place if it's part of the artistic process. Many artists put the emphasis not on the end product, but on the process itself. We can perfectly imagine an artist creating an entire collection using AI, find something wicked in it and expose it as a criticism of our times. (sounds hipster yeah… I'm not an artist.)
Right. Now, my mind is full of thoughts and emotions about ML. And I use ML to make some videos that express my thoughts. And you judge my work and say it's not art? Really I profoundly disagree.
Saying something is "not art" is normally a tough argument to make. To say it about a whole category of practice is nearly impossible.