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

31–40 of 88 posts

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

#31

Post by gradys »

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,…

The computer as a tool for an individual to use is a perspective that comes naturally to us now, but note that this article was written before even the Alto and the Apple II, and a decade before the IBM PC. Interactive computing was a fringe idea that only a relatively small set of people were thinking about. Computing meant batch computing.

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

#32

Post by shkkmo »

andrepd wrote: post #27
NotPavlovsDog wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm pretty sure you can make art purely for yourself and never show it to anyone else.

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

#34

Post by swayvil »

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,…

A computer works with symbols.

A brush works with marks.

The latter is a larger infinity.

It's like the difference between digital and analog. Or raster and vector. Or map and territory.

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

#35

Post by swayvil »

atum47 wrote: post #4

There 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/

Hey me too. I used to be deeply involved in a procedural art project.

https://github.com/johnalexandergreene/Forsythia/tree/master...

Then the project sorta met its natural end, and then I sorta moved on

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

#36

Post by iamacyborg »

ma2rten wrote: post #33

I wonder what GPT3 would have to say about this.

That sort of misses the point, which is common when people consider generative art.

Not only does the artist code the artwork into what they consider to be the finished piece, they then curate the output of that system to pick out items that are of particular appeal.

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

#37

Post by iamacyborg »

dehrmann wrote: post #29
megameter wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is something to be said about tangible things, but that’s not an NFT problem, that’s a digital art problem.

I actually wrote a thing about it on my blog today https://www.jacquescorbytuech.com/writing/irl-problem-digita...

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

#38

Post by arrrg »

iamacyborg wrote: post #36
ma2rten wrote: post #33

I wonder what GPT3 would have to say about this.

That sort of misses the point, which is common when people consider generative art. Not only does the artist code the artwork into what they consider to be the finished piece, they then curate the output of that system to pick out items that are of particular appeal.

That seems to be a weird perspective when we know that artworks that are collaboratively made by humans exist among humans. Think of films, for example, where at the extreme ends you might look at hundreds or thousands of people collaborating on them.

Sure, many people may think that the director is the central figure, (often foolishly) even going so far as to almost completely discounting the impact others have, however I don’t think many people would be willing to completely discount the DoP, editor, screenwriter, etc. as artists in their own right, with their own contributions to the finished artwork.

As such your argument seems suspicious and weird. Sure, actual people were also involved in the creation of this hypothetical computer generated final artwork in different roles but can you be so quick to dismiss the contribution of the software?

I don’t think this is as easy to discount as you make it sound.

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

#39

Post by iamacyborg »

arrrg wrote: post #38
iamacyborg wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sort of misses the point, which is common when people consider generative art. Not only does the artist code the artwork into what they consider to be the finished piece, they then curate the output of that system to pick out items that are of particular appeal.

That seems to be a weird perspective when we know that artworks that are collaboratively made by humans exist among humans. Think of films, for example, where at the extreme ends you might look at hundreds or thousands of people collaborating on them. Sure, many people may think that the director is the central figure, (often foolishly) even going so far as to almost completely discounting the impact others have, how…

The software doesn’t contribute anything it wasn’t programmed to contribute, is my point.

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

#40

Post by codeulike »

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,…

Seems to me that the author of the article is very aware that the computer is not doing the art itself. His point is more subtle than might be apparent from the headline. My reading of it is kindof that at the time (and I'm sure since) "art dealers" were pushing a new fad every few years and the 1970s fuss about computer art was very faddy. Questions like 'is a computer an artist' are relevent now, but likely weren't very relevant in 1970, and so were what we would now call hype.

The author is still around - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frieder_Nake

And still has lots to say - https://twitter.com/carlcanary

Post reply on HN