Computer art is not ok as much as paintbrush art is not ok.
[deleted]
There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]
11–20 of 88 posts
Re: There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]
#12There was a time I was deeply involved in procedural generated art. Everything has changed since I started working. But hey, I got come pretty cool experiments from that fase. Like this one: https://victorribeiro.com/showFractal/
Your website is impressive! Couldn't follow how to interact with Qubes, any tips?
Re: There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]
#13Semantics I think. I do not see much difference for example between Pollock's artwork and some of computer generated stuff.
Which of Pollock's works? Until I saw a drip paining in a museum, I always thought it was a dull, lifeless, messy Kindergarten style, but the actual work was quite impressive in its sheer physical presence. It was rather different from the usual pictures in books and magazines. Seeing Mondriaan (or: Mondrian, as he's known in the English speaking part of the world) was different: his paintings look great in books, bu…
Here is the example:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1e/b2/b9/1eb2b9a2d656762f8bed...
I agree that when printed on very large canvas and under proper lighting it can evoke some impression but the same would go for some computer generated art under similar conditions.
Re: There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]
#14Semantics I think. I do not see much difference for example between Pollock's artwork and some of computer generated stuff.
Which of Pollock's works? Until I saw a drip paining in a museum, I always thought it was a dull, lifeless, messy Kindergarten style, but the actual work was quite impressive in its sheer physical presence. It was rather different from the usual pictures in books and magazines. Seeing Mondriaan (or: Mondrian, as he's known in the English speaking part of the world) was different: his paintings look great in books, bu…
I had the same experience until I saw a Pollock retrospective at MoMA. Not only is his best work gorgeous, it’s vastly superior to his own early experiments. The whole “anyone could do this” thing I had going in was wiped away completely by the time I left.
Re: There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]
#15There was a time I was deeply involved in procedural generated art. Everything has changed since I started working. But hey, I got come pretty cool experiments from that fase. Like this one: https://victorribeiro.com/showFractal/
Your website is impressive! Couldn't follow how to interact with Qubes, any tips?
There's a virtual keypad below the game area, and you could use the arrow keys.
https://victorqribeiro.itch.io/qubes
https://www.outpan.com/app/99694412f2/qubes
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.victorribe...
you can also play it in any of these links
Re: There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]
#16From the article: "Questions like 'is a computer creative' or 'is a computer an artist' or the like should not be considered serious questions, period."
Interesting that the concept that the computer is somehow doing the art itself, missing the point that a computer is a tool just like a paintbrush, was even around in '71.
One wonders when the paintbrush was invented if people argued people should still finger paint, and that the paintbrush alienated artists from their work. There's a tendency to see all technology from before you were born as natural, and anything newer as unnatural.
Re: There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]
#17I've read this a couple times and can't really figure out what the argument is. Something about alienating artists from their art? And also the bourgeoisie is involved? I did notice that they narrowed their claim a couple times as the article went on.
The argument appears to be that using a computer to generate a piece of art is not a meaningful distinction from using e.g. a camera or a paintbrush, and so "computer art" is not a useful category. This appears to be couched in a more general political (and normative) theory of aesthetics which argues that art is (in the current political context) important insofar as it serves goals /beyond/ the production of "beautiful objects," e.g. highlighting inequity in the distribution of wealth, or other projects which serve the "needs of the people" contra "the rich and ruling."
Re: There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]
#18From the article: "Questions like 'is a computer creative' or 'is a computer an artist' or the like should not be considered serious questions, period." Interesting that the concept that the computer is somehow doing the art itself, missing the point that a computer is a tool just like a paintbrush, was even around in '71. One wonders when the paintbrush was invented if people argued people should still finger paint,…
The same argument also played out over the course of the 20th century around the status of photography as an art form and how it changes the relationship between the artist and their subject--Sontag's _On Photography_ is probably the best known collection of writing on the topic, but you could probably find a decent overview in any modern art history text.
Re: There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]
#19From the article: "Questions like 'is a computer creative' or 'is a computer an artist' or the like should not be considered serious questions, period." Interesting that the concept that the computer is somehow doing the art itself, missing the point that a computer is a tool just like a paintbrush, was even around in '71. One wonders when the paintbrush was invented if people argued people should still finger paint,…
Professional art is whatever you can sell as such.
What i find boring with western art is that it is completely dependent on the critic and the discourse statement, in text, that must accompany any "serious" work of art.
Zen and objects created under that philosophy makes no distinction between "high" and "low" art. There are multiple other approaches outside of the western paradigm.
The writer of the article is selling a monetary-driven agenda, as they are dependent on getting paid for their strong-worded texts, while refusing to address that particular elephant in the room, connecting western art and discourse. How tedious.
Re: There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]
#20Computer art is not ok as much as paintbrush art is not ok.
I only support finger painting with natural pigments and sculpture from unprocessed materials with no tools...
Basically, someone needs to smear fruit on a rock or punch a tree if they want to reach me. Otherwise, it's not art, just graphic design...