计算机创造一只猫:符号形成、故障和人工智能图像

IF 0.9 3区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Semiotica Pub Date : 2024-07-05 DOI:10.1515/sem-2023-0108
Michael Betancourt
{"title":"计算机创造一只猫:符号形成、故障和人工智能图像","authors":"Michael Betancourt","doi":"10.1515/sem-2023-0108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AI-generated images of “cats” offer novel opportunities to consider the semic role of expectations in sign formation where they act as a constraints on semiosis through the potential identification of the AImage as “correct,” or as a “glitch.” Because the identification of “errors” depends on a range of technical and cultural expertise, they offer valuable insights into the interpretive process. The automated generation of media by AI separates the artist’s decision-making process from image production, continuing a trajectory that began with the invention of photography in the nineteenth century that brings the sign formation process into consciousness by distinguishing “intentional” and “unintentional” encoding. The identification AI-produced images as-glitched provides a vehicle to consider how the sign formation process informs identifications of creative action as an intentional action: aesthetic appraisals are central to this process where cultural beliefs about creativity become ideological constraints on interpretation. The potential to understand AI “glitches” as expressive features of the image-object, rather than errors, proceeds via the aesthetics and affects of earlier art, such as the “painterly motion” shown in old master paintings by Peter Paul Rubens, or via the heritage of Surrealism. These affective constraints on sign formation reveal the central role of “glitches” in the distinction of creative and uncreative action.","PeriodicalId":47288,"journal":{"name":"Semiotica","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Computer creates a cat: sign formation, glitching, and the AImage\",\"authors\":\"Michael Betancourt\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/sem-2023-0108\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"AI-generated images of “cats” offer novel opportunities to consider the semic role of expectations in sign formation where they act as a constraints on semiosis through the potential identification of the AImage as “correct,” or as a “glitch.” Because the identification of “errors” depends on a range of technical and cultural expertise, they offer valuable insights into the interpretive process. The automated generation of media by AI separates the artist’s decision-making process from image production, continuing a trajectory that began with the invention of photography in the nineteenth century that brings the sign formation process into consciousness by distinguishing “intentional” and “unintentional” encoding. The identification AI-produced images as-glitched provides a vehicle to consider how the sign formation process informs identifications of creative action as an intentional action: aesthetic appraisals are central to this process where cultural beliefs about creativity become ideological constraints on interpretation. The potential to understand AI “glitches” as expressive features of the image-object, rather than errors, proceeds via the aesthetics and affects of earlier art, such as the “painterly motion” shown in old master paintings by Peter Paul Rubens, or via the heritage of Surrealism. These affective constraints on sign formation reveal the central role of “glitches” in the distinction of creative and uncreative action.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47288,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Semiotica\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Semiotica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2023-0108\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Semiotica","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2023-0108","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人工智能生成的 "猫 "图像为思考期望在符号形成中的语义作用提供了新的契机,期望通过人工智能图像的 "正确 "或 "故障 "的潜在识别,成为符号学的制约因素。由于 "错误 "的识别依赖于一系列技术和文化专业知识,它们为解释过程提供了宝贵的见解。人工智能自动生成媒体将艺术家的决策过程与图像制作分离开来,延续了始于十九世纪摄影术发明的轨迹,通过区分 "有意 "和 "无意 "的编码,将符号形成过程纳入意识。将人工智能生成的图像识别为 "闪烁 "提供了一个载体,让我们思考符号形成过程是如何将创造性行为识别为有意行为的:审美评价是这一过程的核心,在这一过程中,关于创造性的文化信念成为了对解释的意识形态限制。将人工智能的 "小毛病 "理解为图像对象的表现特征而非错误的可能性来自于早期艺术的美学和情感,如彼得-保罗-鲁本斯(Peter Paul Rubens)在旧大师画作中表现出的 "绘画性运动",或超现实主义的遗产。这些对符号形成的情感制约揭示了 "小毛病 "在区分创造性和非创造性行为中的核心作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Computer creates a cat: sign formation, glitching, and the AImage
AI-generated images of “cats” offer novel opportunities to consider the semic role of expectations in sign formation where they act as a constraints on semiosis through the potential identification of the AImage as “correct,” or as a “glitch.” Because the identification of “errors” depends on a range of technical and cultural expertise, they offer valuable insights into the interpretive process. The automated generation of media by AI separates the artist’s decision-making process from image production, continuing a trajectory that began with the invention of photography in the nineteenth century that brings the sign formation process into consciousness by distinguishing “intentional” and “unintentional” encoding. The identification AI-produced images as-glitched provides a vehicle to consider how the sign formation process informs identifications of creative action as an intentional action: aesthetic appraisals are central to this process where cultural beliefs about creativity become ideological constraints on interpretation. The potential to understand AI “glitches” as expressive features of the image-object, rather than errors, proceeds via the aesthetics and affects of earlier art, such as the “painterly motion” shown in old master paintings by Peter Paul Rubens, or via the heritage of Surrealism. These affective constraints on sign formation reveal the central role of “glitches” in the distinction of creative and uncreative action.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Semiotica
Semiotica Multiple-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
37.50%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: Semiotica, the Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies, founded in 1969, appears in five volumes of four issues per year, in two languages (English and French), and occasionally in German. Semiotica features articles reporting results of research in all branches of semiotic studies, in-depth reviews of selected current literature in this field, and occasional guest editorials and reports. From time to time, Special Issues, devoted to topics of particular interest, are assembled by Guest Editors. The publishers of Semiotica offer an annual prize, the Mouton d"Or, to the author of the best article each year. The article is selected by an independent international jury.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信