> a real distinction can be drawn between human and/or physical chance as part of music composition, and software random numbers
That's a good point.
> weird fascination with randomness among “generative” artists, which might be tied up in popular narratives about free will
A lot of modern art has a more "didactic" than aesthetic function. Once we assimilate/feel those (intellectual) lessons, they aren't of much use anymore. But the weight of habit/legacy/prestige lives on.
> each new neural network is magic for a short while, but then everyone starts to notice it’s producing the same thing
I don't agree. Deep learning is indeed lifeless/unconscious. It is also more akin to a complex system [1] than a random one. The way such systems create order out of randomness is fascinating to me. We don't know what life is (yet). So, we really can't say what a "lifeless" complex system is capable of.
That's a good point.
> weird fascination with randomness among “generative” artists, which might be tied up in popular narratives about free will
A lot of modern art has a more "didactic" than aesthetic function. Once we assimilate/feel those (intellectual) lessons, they aren't of much use anymore. But the weight of habit/legacy/prestige lives on.
> each new neural network is magic for a short while, but then everyone starts to notice it’s producing the same thing
I don't agree. Deep learning is indeed lifeless/unconscious. It is also more akin to a complex system [1] than a random one. The way such systems create order out of randomness is fascinating to me. We don't know what life is (yet). So, we really can't say what a "lifeless" complex system is capable of.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system