Art Vote
artvote.net
Art Vote
1–10 of 49 posts
Re: Art Vote
#2I don't think the algorithms produce good art. Aside from that, I think changing the rating system from an emotion-based one to something more neutral like numbers would be better. Art that makes you feel "bad" can be good art.
Re: Art Vote
#3I don't think the algorithms produce good art. Aside from that, I think changing the rating system from an emotion-based one to something more neutral like numbers would be better. Art that makes you feel "bad" can be good art.
[deleted]
Re: Art Vote
#4Low-contrast images will always be unanimously down-voted (for good reason: us humans can't even see the art clearly). Wonder why the algorithm doesn't use a sane heuristic for picking color palettes.
Re: Art Vote
#5"In 1994 the artists Komar & Melamid commissioned a public-research polling firm to conduct The People’s Choice, the first poll on artistic taste in the United States. Individuals were asked approximately 100 questions on a variety of subjects, ranging from their consumer tastes and recreational activities to their knowledge of famous artists, and their preference for angles, curves, brushstrokes, and particular colors, sizes, content, and style in painting. As Russian émigrés, the artists were intrigued by the idea of the consumer-research poll as an outgrowth of American democracy. At the same time, their interest in democracy led the artists to ask what a genuine people’s art would look like. What is a democratic and populist painting?"
Re: Art Vote
#6I don't see what this could possibly tell us about art. The generated images are both too random, but also have absolutely no character or variation.
There are so many brilliant sources of understanding on what makes art appealing, and so many images of art on the internet. I don't get why the site would use these drawn-in-ten-seconds-in-mspaint images for voting.
Re: Art Vote
#7I don't think the algorithms produce good art. Aside from that, I think changing the rating system from an emotion-based one to something more neutral like numbers would be better. Art that makes you feel "bad" can be good art.
The rating scale should be quantified in that case. But yeah, I always felt that way too. Pretty landscapes and stuff end up going mainstream but I've always felt "true" art in any medium has to have something slightly jarring or uncomfortable about it. And I'm not talking about jarring and uncomfortable discordant random lines and tones made by AI...
Re: Art Vote
#8Very insightful.
Re: Art Vote
#9There might be a way to create algorithmic art that has meaning. But looking at these images, I am not feeling much. They look too much like other graphics I have seen already.
Re: Art Vote
#10I don't see what this could possibly tell us about art. The generated images are both too random, but also have absolutely no character or variation. There are so many brilliant sources of understanding on what makes art appealing, and so many images of art on the internet. I don't get why the site would use these drawn-in-ten-seconds-in-mspaint images for voting.
I think that in principle this test could produce interesting and useful results. Having researched in the field of computational aesthetics, I speak with some experience. Much of the aesthetic value an artwork 'lives' in such abstracts as its 2D geometry, its 3D geometry, its color contrast etc. I would have preferred that this test be designed to test just one of these attributes.
However, even on the currently small response rate, there seems to be some valid patterns emerging...
In the Overlapping Drops results, the red/green images is the clear favorite. This is no surprise, as this antagonist pair is the most favored in art. Around 90% of the paintings in any national collection are painted along the red/green axis.
Neither am I surprised that the most popular Nested Squares results is the one that features the greatest contrast. 'Higher than nature' contrast is a core requirement of art. This is as true in Korean soap opera as it is in visual art.
I believe that the experiment could have been better designed. A better intro to the experiment would have been a good idea. Also, (in my opinion) I believe that the images should have been presented as pairwise comparisons (Thurstone, L.L.: A Law of Comparative Judgment) with a few repeats shown in. The preference choice should be restricted to three from five. This would have made it easier to get more responses from each user. Perhaps it would have been better to have kept the images in their family groups. In that way, it would be more clear what is being tested.