The performative quality of computer-generated art • Hacker News Board

Re: The performative quality of computer-generated art

#21

Post by soco » Thu, Feb 10, 2022, 2:20 PM UTC

krisoft wrote: post #16

soco wrote: post #11

This is just another step towards ruining art. Trivializing it, if you want. Why should I care for a piece of drawing generated by a computer? I care for something into which a person put their thoughts and imagination, yes. Even if it's of a lesser quality. But here, why should I be ecstatic? Nice lines, meh, I've seen nice lines thousand times already.

> Why should I care for a piece of drawing generated by a computer? I care for something into which a person put their thoughts and imagination, yes. Well then you are in good luck. The computers didn’t just spontaneously started creating these images. There is a person who programmed them, debuged (or bugged!) and tweeked the code until it was to their liking and then selected the best results. That’s right, here a…

I don't trivialize the for sure complex programming work. I just refuse to call the output of the program "art". It's not the same thing at all.

Re: The performative quality of computer-generated art

#22

Post by soco » Thu, Feb 10, 2022, 2:21 PM UTC

acjacobson wrote: post #19

soco wrote: post #11

This is just another step towards ruining art. Trivializing it, if you want. Why should I care for a piece of drawing generated by a computer? I care for something into which a person put their thoughts and imagination, yes. Even if it's of a lesser quality. But here, why should I be ecstatic? Nice lines, meh, I've seen nice lines thousand times already.

The debate over what qualifies as 'real' art is a long and ever-evolving. When photography first emerged people said it could never be real art because it was just a snapshot of the world. Why should I care for an image captured by a machine?

We might be confusing here "beauty" with "art".

Re: The performative quality of computer-generated art

#23

Post by krisoft » Thu, Feb 10, 2022, 4:36 PM UTC

soco wrote: post #21

krisoft wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should I care for a piece of drawing generated by a computer? I care for something into which a person put their thoughts and imagination, yes. Well then you are in good luck. The computers didn’t just spontaneously started creating these images. There is a person who programmed them, debuged (or bugged!) and tweeked the code until it was to their liking and then selected the best results. That’s right, here a…

I don't trivialize the for sure complex programming work. I just refuse to call the output of the program "art". It's not the same thing at all.

As is your right.

Just as a clarifying question: When you say that you refuse to call it "art" are you talking about the specific 3 pieces used to illustrate the article or the whole concept of an artist using a computer as a tool to create art?

Re: The performative quality of computer-generated art

#24

Post by iszomer » Thu, Feb 10, 2022, 8:11 PM UTC

soco wrote: post #11

This is just another step towards ruining art. Trivializing it, if you want. Why should I care for a piece of drawing generated by a computer? I care for something into which a person put their thoughts and imagination, yes. Even if it's of a lesser quality. But here, why should I be ecstatic? Nice lines, meh, I've seen nice lines thousand times already.

Do you also treat an artist's work in creating game assets as something that shouldn't be considered art?