Aesthetics, Games & AI (Prototype))

Does the format make a difference? Would, say, a video game have a higher chance of being considered High Art than a table-top game, or vice-versa?

Would the role of gameplay elements, those we are measuring with the aesthetic dyads, make a difference in deciding whether a game was a truly classic piece of art, or would the cognoscenti simply focus on the visual and aural elements (the Wow factor)?

What role would time play in this process? Clearly Pong is not the most complex or exciting game ever created, but does that almost abstract art level of simplicity along with its place in history make it High Art?

Who would be the gatekeepers in this new realm of art? Who are the movers and shakers who lend their authority to the classification of games as High or Low art? The same as other art forms, or do they need Geek Cred?

What are the arguments made by both parties that apply to our understanding of what is and isn’t art? If human intent is implicit in the creation of art, can animals truly make art? And if they create something like art, is it really art, or something mechanical, merely made by accident or from instinct to serve a particular function (a bird building a nest, for example) with no creative intent?

If animals cannot create art, then surely a machine is equally incapable of doing so. Robots with computer numerated control can reproduce some spectacular things, including 3D printed objects. There are robots that can even ‘print’ a house. But they do so without intent or self-awareness, can only work from designs created by humans, and cannot create original works, right?

What is the main difference between AI and traditional tools like Photoshop in the context of creating art? How does this difference impact our understanding of what being ‘human’ means?