The performative quality of computer-generated art
hyperallergic.com
The performative quality of computer-generated art
1–10 of 24 posts
Re: The performative quality of computer-generated art
#2>> "What if we are too focused on results, rather than the process?"
Well, that is kind of the problem with generative art, it is all process with no point. As Helen Pierce in Ozark would say, "It has no intention."
Re: The performative quality of computer-generated art
#3>> "What if we are too focused on results, rather than the process?" Well, that is kind of the problem with generative art, it is all process with no point. As Helen Pierce in Ozark would say, "It has no intention."
> Well, that is kind of the problem with generative art, it is all process with no point.
I don't see how this should be specific to computer-generated art. You can make drawings by hand that have no point. In my opinion computers are just another tool for artists.
Re: The performative quality of computer-generated art
#4>> "What if we are too focused on results, rather than the process?" Well, that is kind of the problem with generative art, it is all process with no point. As Helen Pierce in Ozark would say, "It has no intention."
> Well, that is kind of the problem with generative art, it is all process with no point. I don't see how this should be specific to computer-generated art. You can make drawings by hand that have no point. In my opinion computers are just another tool for artists.
When I was young I thought photographers just took like one photo and by sheer willpower and skill, they sometimes captured beautiful scenes. I then found out that they actually sit there and click the shutter thousands of times, then they go somewhere else to sit and scour through the "generated art" to find the gems. Then they polish the gems. Then they publish those.
My novice AI-art workflow involved a similar pattern. I come up with some topic or thing I want to see, then I iterate on the wording of the prompt and all the little variables the tool takes. I end up with dozens of crap pictures, but sometimes cool stuff comes out. If I keep working on this, alongside increased generation speed, I could see myself "creating" really good art.
To me it is about the process. It's the human input that makes art valuable. I mean, if AI becomes sentient then those judgements would be a valuable input in themselves too.
Re: The performative quality of computer-generated art
#5>> "What if we are too focused on results, rather than the process?" Well, that is kind of the problem with generative art, it is all process with no point. As Helen Pierce in Ozark would say, "It has no intention."
From: "Letters to a young poet" by Rainer Maria Rilke
> If, as a result of this turning inward, of this sinking into your own world, poetry should emerge, you will not think to ask someone whether it is good poetry. And you will not try to interest publishers of magazines in these works. For you will hear in them your own voice; you will see in them a piece of your life, a natural possession of yours. A piece of art is good if it is born of necessity. This, its source, is its criterion; there is no other.
Re: The performative quality of computer-generated art
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Well, that is kind of the problem with generative art, it is all process with no point. I don't see how this should be specific to computer-generated art. You can make drawings by hand that have no point. In my opinion computers are just another tool for artists.
When I was young I thought photographers just took like one photo and by sheer willpower and skill, they sometimes captured beautiful scenes. I then found out that they actually sit there and click the shutter thousands of times, then they go somewhere else to sit and scour through the "generated art" to find the gems. Then they polish the gems. Then they publish those. My novice AI-art workflow involved a similar pa…
I've had this same experience with writing music.
The trick isn't to be brilliant and pop out a masterpiece. The actual trick is to be able to generate enough variations that you can sort through them, cull the promising from the unpromising, rearrange them in various ways, stitch together the seams, and then sit back and lean on your personal aesthetic to decide whether what you've cobbled together makes you want to share it with others, keep chipping away at it, or abandon it altogether and start over (or not).
Re: The performative quality of computer-generated art
#7>> "What if we are too focused on results, rather than the process?" Well, that is kind of the problem with generative art, it is all process with no point. As Helen Pierce in Ozark would say, "It has no intention."
Generative art can have intent. Look at these [1]. I had clear intent generating townscapes specifically combining mountains and islands with cities to generate this set.
Re: The performative quality of computer-generated art
#8>> "What if we are too focused on results, rather than the process?" Well, that is kind of the problem with generative art, it is all process with no point. As Helen Pierce in Ozark would say, "It has no intention."
What art does have intention, in your view? And by what criteria do you evaluate whether art has intention?
Re: The performative quality of computer-generated art
#9>> "What if we are too focused on results, rather than the process?" Well, that is kind of the problem with generative art, it is all process with no point. As Helen Pierce in Ozark would say, "It has no intention."
What art does have intention, in your view? And by what criteria do you evaluate whether art has intention?
I think you will have a hard time finding a definition of art that allows for art without intention.
One of the few rules I learned is that "nature isn't art", precisely because nature, while pretty, has no reason for being, it just is.
I've never seen a book without intention, for instance, because almost no one sits down to write nonsense. And I say "almost" because the dadaists did precisely that, but they did it with the clear intention of subverting expectations.
Re: The performative quality of computer-generated art
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
What art does have intention, in your view? And by what criteria do you evaluate whether art has intention?
I think you will have a hard time finding a definition of art that allows for art without intention. One of the few rules I learned is that "nature isn't art", precisely because nature, while pretty, has no reason for being, it just is. I've never seen a book without intention, for instance, because almost no one sits down to write nonsense. And I say "almost" because the dadaists did precisely that, but they did it…
What is the "intent" behind a piece of classical music? Within this highly limited domain, the generative art is already indiscernible from the squishy meat art. Emily Howell passed her Turing test close to three decades ago.
What is the intent behind abstract art? What is the intent behind the tilings found in Islamic art, or in the spirals on Myan pyramids, or any of the countless splattering of paint on canvas with no discernible figures in them?
What does it mean to have intent? Does it relate to having an objective function? Lots of algorithms have those.
What if I started up some instances of a program in the cloud and gave them the same objective function as us: make enough money to pay their own rent. If the program took some art jobs on fivver, would it not be making art with the intent of paying the bills? When we say a human makes art with intent, and you follow the chain of reasons for why they made what they made and did what they did, do you not eventually reach the evolutionary prime directive of furthering their genetics? What do we have that this hypothetical "self employed algorithm" doesn't?