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

There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]

bbk.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 88 posts

Re: There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]

#21

Post by nimih »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #6

His argument is very time/context dependent. Our understanding of computer art is quite different now, in 2021, than it was in 1971 since the capabilities and ease of use of computers are very different. His point about art dealers is still interesting though.

I find the article quite compelling, honestly. If anything, reframing conversations about computer-generated products from "what were the methods of production" to "whom does the production serve" is even more relevant today than it was in 1971.

Re: There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]

#23

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

nimih wrote: post #21
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #6

His argument is very time/context dependent. Our understanding of computer art is quite different now, in 2021, than it was in 1971 since the capabilities and ease of use of computers are very different. His point about art dealers is still interesting though.

I find the article quite compelling, honestly. If anything, reframing conversations about computer-generated products from "what were the methods of production" to "whom does the production serve" is even more relevant today than it was in 1971.

Yes - exactly. It's interesting that even though the argument is still at least as relevant today as it was in 1971, it's so far outside the usual narratives that it seems harder to follow it today than it was back then.

It's much safer to frame it as a question about tools - which it isn't - than about politics and power structures.

Re: There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]

#24

Post by megameter »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #22

A lot of people seem to be missing the relevance of this critique to NFTs. It's actually uncannily prescient, politically and economically.

The medium that is changing with NFT is one of credit and incentives, not aesthetics. NFT art isn't differently made art, it's differently positioned art. It's like jumping from movies to television. And it's similar in a nominal sense with respect to current platforms, but there's a definite sense of "we have not really done everything this medium can offer yet". The phase where it's a gimmick will pass.

Re: There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]

#25

Post by kens »

andrewflnr wrote: post #9

I'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.

I had the same reaction, that I couldn't figure out the argument. (For people who didn't read the article, it's not what you'd expect about why computer art isn't art.) It seems to be from the perspective of rejecting art entirely: "There is no need for the production of more works of art, particularly no need for 'computer art'."

After re-reading the article, I think it's best understood by considering each paragraph a completely unconnected topic. (I'm not being snarky here.)

Re: There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]

#27

Post by andrepd »

NotPavlovsDog wrote: post #19
klik99 wrote: post #16

From 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 sell…

There is much art being done outside of "erudite" circles. But still, all art is dependant on the appreciation of others.

Re: There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]

#28

Post by heavenlyblue »

NotPavlovsDog wrote: post #19
klik99 wrote: post #16

From 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 sell…

By that definition seeking snake oil is also anything snake oil is because you are selling it as “not snake oil”.

Re: There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]

#29

Post by dehrmann »

megameter wrote: post #24
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #22

A lot of people seem to be missing the relevance of this critique to NFTs. It's actually uncannily prescient, politically and economically.

The medium that is changing with NFT is one of credit and incentives, not aesthetics. NFT art isn't differently made art, it's differently positioned art. It's like jumping from movies to television. And it's similar in a nominal sense with respect to current platforms, but there's a definite sense of "we have not really done everything this medium can offer yet". The phase where it's a gimmick will pass.

> it's differently positioned art

Is it even that? Art is to baseball as NTF is to baseball cards. It's something loosely associated with the art.

My real gripe with NFT is that collectibles--art, baseball cards, whatever--can be put on display. There's something to be said for tangible things.

Re: There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]

#30

Post by yoz-y »

NotPavlovsDog wrote: post #19
klik99 wrote: post #16

From 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 sell…

I feel that if you reject or ignore the critics and the elaborate descriptions, you can appreciate art as you like. (And by extension consider whatever you like as art.)
Post reply on HN