I like the idea but the way the pictures are generated seems way too obvious. It's clear that there is a small set of "patterns" with randomized parameters. So it becomes like "do people like the water drops in the corner or in the center? red or black?". Might be more interesting if the generated images were a little more sophisticated and varied.
Art Vote
21–30 of 49 posts
Re: Art Vote
#22Probably 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.
Re: Art Vote
#23If anyone is interested in understanding more about art and human perception of art, then this book is as good a starting place as you'll find: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_Art
As the book says, ″There really is no such thing as Art. There are only artists.″
Re: Art Vote
#24To those saying that this experiment is useless and provides zero information: Check out the results page.
There are clear tendencies there regarding colours, contrast and complexity, and they do provide some (limited) insight into what viewers expect in art.
Re: Art Vote
#25I 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…
It's sorely obvious that the creator of this project was a computer scientist, or someone who thinks in an overly technical manner rather than an artist, who thinks more about emotions and feel.
Re: Art Vote
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't want to be too harsh, but in my view this is mostly tosh. For example: > 'Higher than nature' contrast is a core requirement of art There are so many counter-examples I don't know where to start. Turner's watercolours. Hiroshi Sugimoto's seascapes. Do So Huh's installations. I mean come on, what about Rauschenberg's White Painting? I suppose if you don't consider anything after the 18th century you might be r…
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.
Re: Art Vote
#27In this case, I strongly prefer comparing two graphics and deciding which one is better (and creating Elo-like score).
For me, it is hard to judge these pieces of art in the vacuum.
Re: Art Vote
#28This is too random to be meaningful for "art". But it might be able to build some stats on design layout choices... and if it does so, comparing its results to the general design philosophies built over the years could be an interesting exercise.
Re: Art Vote
#29To those saying that this experiment is useless and provides zero information: Check out the results page. https://artvote.net/results There are clear tendencies there regarding colours, contrast and complexity, and they do provide some (limited) insight into what viewers expect in art.
Disagree with you, there are no clear patterns other than "slightly more interesting than the alternative". Most of it can likely be chalked up to being noise in the sampling process.
Re: Art Vote
#30I 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…
It's sorely obvious that the creator of this project was a computer scientist, or someone who thinks in an overly technical manner rather than an artist, who thinks more about emotions and feel.
I had a very different reaction. I had the sense this was an art world person (student or otherwise) who wasn’t technical enough to make it interesting. Many computer generated art projects are much more dynamic and produce much more passable art (https://ml.berkeley.edu/blog/posts/clip-art/). That said, I think I would have to agree with other comments here, I don’t think any deep conclusions could be drawn from these results. For starters the artworks are really repetitive and i would guess it biases respondents quickly toward the negative.