REVIEW 1 cited by
On the Injunction of XAIxArt
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
The position paper highlights the range of concerns that are engulfed in the injunction of explainable artificial intelligence in art (XAIxArt). Through a series of quick sub-questions, it points towards the ambiguities concerning 'explanation' and the postpositivist tradition of 'relevant explanation'. Rejecting both 'explanation' and 'relevant explanation', the paper takes a stance that XAIxArt is a symptom of insecurity of the anthropocentric notion of art and a nostalgic desire to return to outmoded notions of authorship and human agency. To justify this stance, the paper makes a distinction between an ornamentation model of explanation to a model of explanation as sense-making.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Towards Standardized Light Field Quality Assessment: Hybrid Subjective Benchmarking and Objective Metric Evaluation
A hybrid DSCS+PC light-field QA framework and public dataset show objective metrics drop when view-synthesis/3DGS distortions join coding artifacts, and view pooling affects agreement.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.