Am I the only one who thinks the input data is feeding the generative art engine of someone's generator for an upcoming NFT collection?
Art Vote
31–40 of 49 posts
Re: Art Vote
#32Maybe its part of the research methodology but I can't help but feel they cut the "art" a bit short here.
What if the generated art was more something like this?
Re: Art Vote
#33Probably a good place to promote https://electricsheep.org/ which is a "crowdsourced evolving art" which has been running for easily 20 years. The "sheep" ( https://electricsheep.org/#/sheep ) show what this idea can evolve into.
Any ideas of the technologies used to get something like that?
Re: Art Vote
#34I studied photography and sculpture, and initially the only thing that made any difference to whether I enjoyed a piece of art was interpretation by someone who's seen a lot of art. There were only two or three people who could do this effectively for me. Eventually, after talking to them a lot and seeing a lot of art, and thinking about it deeply, you start to develop your own tastes, and realise what kinds of thing…
>>> like a kind of statistical fetish
Live stats at web scale is a really fun problem to have. Un-optimized, using public cloud infra, round-trip latency for collecting data, calculating statistics, and render/viz to the user, it's shockingly slow! For crowd training Art GANs, latency probably doesn't matter, but seeing the live stats displayed is still magical to me. Imagine how fun ArtVote would be just using the public collection of images from MoMA, seeing the crowd evaluate a new work live ;)
Re: Art Vote
#35I studied photography and sculpture, and initially the only thing that made any difference to whether I enjoyed a piece of art was interpretation by someone who's seen a lot of art. There were only two or three people who could do this effectively for me. Eventually, after talking to them a lot and seeing a lot of art, and thinking about it deeply, you start to develop your own tastes, and realise what kinds of thing…
> I studied photography and sculpture, and initially the only thing that made any difference to whether I enjoyed a piece of art was interpretation by someone who's seen a lot of art. There were only two or three people who could do this effectively for me. Eventually, after talking to them a lot and seeing a lot of art, and thinking about it deeply, you start to develop your own tastes, and realise what kinds of things speak to you.
I think that might be specific to you, or at least not how everyone appreciate art. My enjoyment of a piece of art is directly linked to how I feel when I see it/think about it. I can enjoy something without explanations and not enjoy something with explanations. I don't think I'm in the minority here.
> If statistically significant results come out of this, I'd argue that any information it generates is going to be extremely shallow. It's like a kind of statistical fetish.
They will be, but not because of the nature of the project, but because of the implementation. There are only a few variations of a few basic things.
> This project seems under the misapprehension that there's some kind of "perennial philosophy" of art that can be uncovered by asking enough people about randomly generated images.
I'm not sure this is a misapprehension. The project itself is limited, but there are information to learn with randomly generated images. If people like art A and not art B, you could generate a graduation of A to B and see if people like art close to A (which could mean they like art "like" A), or if they only like A (which could mean that A has something specific).
Re: Art Vote
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure... to those counter examples, I could add more: Gwen John's muted pallet, Joseph Albers' same-hue combinations, It is a trivial task to find exceptions to any principle in art. However, as a general rule, it is true that artists exaggerate. My own work examined 100 American paintings all painted at approximately the same time, of similar subject matter. These were compared to the same number of snap-shot style p…
I used to run a DA like website in 2005 and at one point had to categorize all uploadable art. The truth is art is in the eye of the beholder. There is no way to actually say something isn't art if someone sees anything as such.
100% agree. I think "the beholder" is what is often overlooked. Marcel Duchamp submitted a urinal as a piece of art (an act of provocation).
> When explaining the purpose of his Readymade sculpture, Duchamp stated they are "everyday objects raised to the dignity of a work of art by the artist's act of choice."
The important point is the involvement of a person. Computer generated art can't be art unless someone thinks it is.
Re: Art Vote
#37Probably a good place to promote https://electricsheep.org/ which is a "crowdsourced evolving art" which has been running for easily 20 years. The "sheep" ( https://electricsheep.org/#/sheep ) show what this idea can evolve into.
I can second this; I run it as a screen saver and it can really be mesmerizing
Re: Art Vote
#38Probably a good place to promote https://electricsheep.org/ which is a "crowdsourced evolving art" which has been running for easily 20 years. The "sheep" ( https://electricsheep.org/#/sheep ) show what this idea can evolve into.
Any ideas of the technologies used to get something like that?
You can find more info here: https://scottdraves.com/flame.html
Re: Art Vote
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to run a DA like website in 2005 and at one point had to categorize all uploadable art. The truth is art is in the eye of the beholder. There is no way to actually say something isn't art if someone sees anything as such.
100% agree. I think "the beholder" is what is often overlooked. Marcel Duchamp submitted a urinal as a piece of art (an act of provocation). > When explaining the purpose of his Readymade sculpture, Duchamp stated they are "everyday objects raised to the dignity of a work of art by the artist's act of choice." The important point is the involvement of a person. Computer generated art can't be art unless someone think…
I actually think that if the intention of the original programmer is to say "anything created from this code is art no matter what it is" then it's basically impossible to say otherwise.
Re: Art Vote
#40I studied photography and sculpture, and initially the only thing that made any difference to whether I enjoyed a piece of art was interpretation by someone who's seen a lot of art. There were only two or three people who could do this effectively for me. Eventually, after talking to them a lot and seeing a lot of art, and thinking about it deeply, you start to develop your own tastes, and realise what kinds of thing…
I sort of love projects like this (i.e. the attempts to automate humanity itself by trying to naively quantify experiential subjectivity) exactly because they force the issue. Each silly example of "oh look, a machine can paint, make music, write stories" gives us an opportunity to say: that's not the point.