Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Love Generative Art?

artnome.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 85 posts

Re: Why Love Generative Art?

#71

Post by skybrian »

tokyodude wrote: post #42
dahart wrote: post #22

The problem with generative art is not that it isn’t considered art by everyone. The main problems are: - It is very difficult to value. One can’t see at a glance whether it took time or skill to create. And similar to other types of art that involve mechanical reproduction, e.g. photography, generative art can be produced on demand, it’s not irreplaceable like a sculpture or painting is. - It usually lacks a good st…

I also love generative art ... mostly .... and I've made quite a bit but ....... The problem I have is generally when it appears to me it didn't require much effort. Making a program that draws random dots, random rectangles, random lines, is almost a rite of passage for new programmers. A lot of generative art looks like hardly many more steps beyond that. Draw 100 rectangle each slightly smaller and rotated from th…

Maybe treat this like photography? If taking pictures is easy, take a lot of pictures and then decide which are the better than the rest.

Re: Why Love Generative Art?

#73

Post by tlarkworthy »

dahart wrote: post #22

The problem with generative art is not that it isn’t considered art by everyone. The main problems are: - It is very difficult to value. One can’t see at a glance whether it took time or skill to create. And similar to other types of art that involve mechanical reproduction, e.g. photography, generative art can be produced on demand, it’s not irreplaceable like a sculpture or painting is. - It usually lacks a good st…

For a broad definition of generative art, computer games. These are wildly popular I hear.

Re: Why Love Generative Art?

#74

Post by typomatic »

tokyodude wrote: post #42
dahart wrote: post #22

The problem with generative art is not that it isn’t considered art by everyone. The main problems are: - It is very difficult to value. One can’t see at a glance whether it took time or skill to create. And similar to other types of art that involve mechanical reproduction, e.g. photography, generative art can be produced on demand, it’s not irreplaceable like a sculpture or painting is. - It usually lacks a good st…

I also love generative art ... mostly .... and I've made quite a bit but ....... The problem I have is generally when it appears to me it didn't require much effort. Making a program that draws random dots, random rectangles, random lines, is almost a rite of passage for new programmers. A lot of generative art looks like hardly many more steps beyond that. Draw 100 rectangle each slightly smaller and rotated from th…

> Of course I know effort is probably not a valid criteria but still, it's sometimes hard not to see what appears to be low-effort generative art as barely more than the random dot/line/rectangle exercise most programmers do early in their learning.

You aren't making art because art does require effort. You have to put some thought into the product you want and then work towards it and make the thing that feels right to you.

If you never have an emotional connection to your work, it's no wonder you don't feel like you haven't made art, because you haven't.

This isn't to be mean. You could easily begin to make art, by creating your works with an eye towards purpose or feeling and demanding that what you make satisfies you. Then you'll be making art. But pointless generative stuff is just doodling, as you think. It'd be the same with a pen and paper as it is with code.

Re: Why Love Generative Art?

#75

Post by beat »

codingdave wrote: post #34
dahart wrote: post #22

The problem with generative art is not that it isn’t considered art by everyone. The main problems are: - It is very difficult to value. One can’t see at a glance whether it took time or skill to create. And similar to other types of art that involve mechanical reproduction, e.g. photography, generative art can be produced on demand, it’s not irreplaceable like a sculpture or painting is. - It usually lacks a good st…

> The problem with generative art is not that it isn’t considered art by everyone. Abstract Art in general isn't considered "Art" by everyone, especially in the days of Abstract Expressionism and Jackson Pollack. While I do appreciate the thoughts around generative art, these discussions are not new. But it is a new generation using new tools, re-discovering the arguments from the mid 20th century. The question isn't…

When Jackson Pollack was a new artist, a lot of people in the art world (and even more outside of it) rejected Abstract Expressionism as "art". Today, it is more or less universally accepted and respected. The same will happen for generative art.

As an aside, my favorite painting in the world is Jackson Pollack's "Mural", which currently resides at my alma mater, the University of Iowa. Mural is quite famous, as it was the painting that made him - his first commission, for Peggy Guggenheim, proudly displayed at the entrance to her penthouse. It was recently appraised at about $250M.

When Guggenheim moved back to Europe after WWII, she gave away a great deal of art to museums and universities. She offered Mural to the UI. It arrived with $4 in shipping costs due (it's quite large, about 20 feet wide). There was actually a debate at the museum about whether or not to pay such outrageous shipping fees for a worthless piece of abstract junk that isn't even real art. They keep the minutes of that meeting on display with the painting...

Re: Why Love Generative Art?

#76

Post by beat »

Note that generative art is not necessarily digital. I used to make generative music using a pretty mundane electric guitar and amp, with a digital delay looper (which I suppose makes it kinda digital). I leaned the guitar against the amp to induce feedback, which went into the looper, which was on a long fade (probably 20+ repeats, well over a minute of music echoing around in there), with modulation to destabilize the pitch. Thanks to the configuration, the feedback was unstable, continuously generating an unpredictable melody of feedback.

Kinda loud, but kinda lovely.

Re: Why Love Generative Art?

#77

Post by itronitron »

ForrestN wrote: post #69

Disclaimer: I come more from the contemporary art world even than from the tech world. (Much of my job is looking at thousands of art exhibitions from around the world each month. My little non-profit publishes the ones we think are most important to see at the moment so that the public can learn about them for free even if they aren't rich collectors.) First, I want to say that I'm thinking about Generative Art in t…

I found the post interesting and appreciated the copious references to 20th Century artists. In my opinion, the generative work is preoccupied with the method of creation and is nothing more than a self-pleasuring act, they provide no meaningful paths to insight or reflection for the viewer.

Re: Why Love Generative Art?

#78

Post by spot »

filleokus wrote: post #46

Are there any artists who work in kind of the intersection between data visualisation and generative art? I'm thinking of works where the main point is not necessarily to show the data as clearly as possible (i.e not a graph), but rather where the data is somehow interleaved and helps tell the story. Somewhat similar to the map of the US in the article based on the roads.

Jer Thorp and Aaron Koblin

Re: Why Love Generative Art?

#79

Post by artgen »

kowdermeister wrote: post #61
dahart wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are no problems. It's just another art form. :) You are right, of course. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The "problems" I list are based on unspoken assumptions about what the goal is. > So just ignore them. There is always an audience who will appreciate your work. Totally agree, and ignoring them is an option. I'm personally interested in hearing out the haters and learning what valuable lessons are…

I feel it's the same with music. You can't really 'tune' a Katy Perry song more to appeal a classic music lover and vice versa. > my story just isn't compelling to people who... Your work should tell a story, and the method of creation is secondary. I totally appreciate if you used equations I can't even grasp, but my mother shouldn't know about that at all and she can still consider it nice. There was a guy who post…

> Your work should tell a story

No, that's nonsense. Tons of art throughout history told no story and was still compelling. Pollock, Balanchine, Schoenberg, etc. did abstract works that tell no story. (In fact, Balanchine specifically made it a point to not have a story.)

Post reply on HN