Can a person with a high IQ learn art faster than a person without?

>>7662812
It could and it will.

For the same reason why computers can get high scores in an IQ test.

>>7662812

Im pretty sure a super computer will produce an opera that sounds amazing but the thing at its core art is about expressing YOUR emotions and thoughts that's why music sounds a lot better if you know the context which was written for.

Is this dogshit board always this slow? No wonder no one here gets laid.

>>7663131
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kuY3BrmTfQ
What do you think of this anon?
I'm not a very good judge of music in my opinion.

>>7662814
/thread

>>7663193
/le Threed XD :3 maymay
Not even OP

File: oppseck_043.jpg (148KB, 792x792px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 792x792px

When the Impressionists like Monet and Cezanne and post-Impressionists like van Gogh started showing their paintings publicly, the general popular consensus was that they were *crap*.

Art isn't about analyzing what people like and producing work based on that. That's basically what pop culture is. And I don't mean that in a bad way. Art is about pushing aesthetic boundaries, whether in music, visual art, or whatever. And I mean "aesthetic" in the broadest sense possible. Every artist who is in your art history text book is there because they challenged people's ideas of what art is and how the world should be represented. Yes, even da Vinci, Rubens, Titian, all those dudes we think of as "classic" actually made people gasp in their own time, just like Picasso, Koons, and Hirst do now. It was never about who could "paint the best". There were plenty of good academic painters who could paint technically brilliant work in the 1500's that no one gives a fuck about today. But we remember Giorgione, who changed shit up pretty dramatically.

Now, could a computer do that? Sure. But you'd be talking about an AI at that point, or something closely resembling one. As for the IQ question...that's tough. I have and MFA, and in my graduate class some of the best artists were not the smartest. Some of the smartest were often the worst. That has a lot to do with where contemporary art is at the moment, but I think that holds true historically as well. Artists like Picasso and Rothko were absolutely smart dudes, there's no debating that. I think, and this is just from looking around the art world now, you certainly have to have above average intelligence, but genius level is certainly not required and sometimes a detriment.

>>7662812
>Can a person with a high IQ learn art faster than a person without?

Depends on what you mean by "learn art". You can learn methods to better, or more efficiently create what you have in mind. You can learn to adapt to errors (thus making them not errors). But I'm not sure framing in terms of learning is quite accurate.

Intelligence is relative. You cannot be intelligent without something to be intelligent about. People who have certain types of intelligence... eh. There was a point I could've very easily put this into words, but I'm not really used to thinking this way at this point, and actually have a few deliberate mental blocks. That says a lot about the process of creation itself.

You need to be able to both break things down mechanically (both in an abstract mental sense and a more physical one), as well as be able to tap intuition and utilize feelings (which aren't synonymous with emotion) to drive and guide where the evolution of what you're making.

Intelligence of the wrong type can get in the way. It really depends what you want. And if you try long enough, your mind will adapt regardless. I could never create externally what I could in my head. Maybe I'll learn how eventually, but that's why I'm more into audiovisual aspect.

>>7664740
Also, I'd want to add onto this, it's not really about "intelligence" so much as how those functions are used and play out in the system as a whole. Model out your psyche however you want, and you begin to see how certain drives, desires, and functionalities are intertwined to form a given state.

If the psyche is viewed less as a processor and more a series of parts comprising a greater system, it becomes more easily manipulable. You're more easily able to track individual elements without losing sight of the whole.

>>7662812
>Can a person with high IQ learn art faster?
>Sure, people break into the contemporary art world all the time who are smart and can justify their work very well and get shows and sell work. The boundary is really understanding aesthetics and being creative with that understanding. If this person is just learning art and art practice to prove they can their career will be limited. It happens a lot actually!
If you're just talking about learning an existing art form like renaissance painting or classical music then yes...anyone can imitate.

Can an AI compose an opera or art?
Yeah absolutely! I believe it will and it will be greatly appreciated. I know of some visual artists using crude AIs already. The only issue is will it be a one trick pony? Can it make a meaningful career out of its art?

>>7664756
With enough computing power, good enough auditory perception models, and good enough heuristics, you could more or less "brute force" music itself on a per sample basis.

I can see music becoming a competition between multiple AI developers. Though they're probably settle into certain genres initially.

>>7662812
>art
>science
kek