What if technology advanced to the point where it could produce bona fide works of art? Would we still need artists?

I had this conversation with my friend Alan, an accomplished cellist and art history student. Let’s say that we’ve developed probabilistic models that allow computers to fairly reliably produce what we deem “good music.” Would this be enough to eliminate the need for human composers?

Composers possess technical skills that guide their work, skills that could be characterized as an understanding of music theory and history. We could plausibly incorporate these skills into the probabilistic model, even with the knowledge we have today. However, a probabilistic model would fail to capture what Alan described as the “artistic vision.” That is, in the act of composing music, composers bring with them their own life experiences and imbue their music with unique energy and emotion. The best composers will succeed in conveying their artistic vision to listeners.

A machine might be able to come up with music that satisfies people, but would that be considered “good music”?¹ Tolstoy argues that art is not merely pleasure, but rather “a means of union among men.”

To evoke in oneself a feeling one has once experienced, and having evoked it in oneself, then, by means of movements, lines, colors, sounds, or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling that others may experience the same feeling — this is the activity of art.²

Built into the definition of true art is essentially the requirement that a human be the creator of art. As far as we know, the only way to transmit feeling and engage deeply with life’s fundamental questions is through the work of individuals with an artistic vision. If the probabilistic black-box can achieve this, it will probably have so thorough an understanding of humanity that the box might as well be human.

Around the same time Alan and I had this discussion, Steven Sinofsky wrote about product design, highlighting a similar concept he called the “point of view.”

A point of view has to be one of the best tools of design. A point of view is the reason for being, the essence, the very nature of a product. In a world where just about every product (but not all) is made of similar ingredients and solves problems that can kind-of, sort-of be solved in other ways, what distinguishes one product from another is a unique point of view that is followed through in the design.

The introduction of market forces and the problem-solution framework make things a bit more complicated, but the parallel here isn’t lost. Just as an artist strives to create works of art in line with his artistic vision, so too should product managers strive to create products that follow a well-defined point of view. Indeed, this is one of the predominant explanations for why Steve Jobs made Apple so successful: his unassailable point of view.

EDIT: Alan has written up an excellent response to this post, which can be found here.