[sgt101]

No, diversity isn't creativity. For example, we could search google for "great art" and if it produced a sample of one art work from ever decade of the last 500 years that would likely be highly diverse in style and content. If it returned a list of the best work from western Europe in the of the 18th century it would be rather consistent. Both lists would have the same amount of creativity though - 0.

[cratermoon]

"one art work from every decade of the last 500 years that would likely be highly diverse in style and content"

It still might not be especially diverse if all 50 examples were from western European art. 500 years only takes us back to 1524 - not especially long and mostly from the same early modern period starting with the fall of Constantinople, the end of the Crusades, and the start of the Renaissance. I wouldn't be surprised if 80% or more of the works ended up being some depiction of aspects of Christianity painted by a white male.

[robertlagrant]

> I wouldn't be surprised if 80% or more of the works ended up being some depiction of aspects of Christianity painted by a white male.

Are you saying diversity in art is signified by the artist's race and sex?

[cratermoon]

Bias is inherit in the choice of training material. I'm saying that diversity of expression is product of diversity of experience.

[robertlagrant]

It must be, ultimately, because all art is individual or group expression, and each person can only belong to so many groups. But the individual expression still allows for a giant amount of expressiveness, and the group expression is wider than race or sex.

[sgt101]

No doubt you could construct a more diverse set, but it still wouldn't be creative.