Live data from Hacker News

Pikazo

pikazoapp.com

41–50 of 99 posts

Re: Pikazo

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is possible to replace an artist. The definition of artist, that I could find, is recursive so that's the first problem with that. Then the appreciation is subjective; to replace an artist you would need something like; 'I like Rembrandt but now I like this guy instead'. I used to like Jean Michel Jarre then Beethoven then Iron Maiden then Slayer then ... etc. I still like all of these and can get ex…

> The definition of artist, that I could find, is recursive so that's the first problem with that. Huh?

something is art because the artist calls it art.

Re: Pikazo

#42
There seems to be a bit of confusion here between art and beautiful compositions.

Art is not art because it looks nice or because it looks like something else that is widely accepted as "art".

I see art as something produced by an artist combining genius + technique.

Genius usually implies being original, but also stating what the piece of art represents in contrast to the existing ones (what boundaries it breaks, what pre-conceptions it revolts against, what is its purpose (even if it's purpose is to have no purpose) etc.).

Technique means work and expertise. Sometimes genius is so overwhelming that there is little technique needed. Sometimes technique is so skilled that it overwhelms genius.

The makers of this app are probably artists (there's certainly a lot of genius involved in devising a way to produce such compositions, and work). What you create with your app probably not art though, regardless of how amazingly beautiful it turns out to be.

That's not to say artists may not make use of such tool to make art, but they'll have to find ways to be original. The fact that a button can be clicked to produce a result automatically destroys much of the artistic value of the outcomes. But hey, it's beautiful :)

Re: Pikazo

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is possible to replace an artist. The definition of artist, that I could find, is recursive so that's the first problem with that. Then the appreciation is subjective; to replace an artist you would need something like; 'I like Rembrandt but now I like this guy instead'. I used to like Jean Michel Jarre then Beethoven then Iron Maiden then Slayer then ... etc. I still like all of these and can get ex…

> The definition of artist, that I could find, is recursive so that's the first problem with that. Huh?

The artist is someone who makes art. The problem is to define what is art. Its when the artist (or others) says so.

Re: Pikazo

#44

There seems to be a bit of confusion here between art and beautiful compositions. Art is not art because it looks nice or because it looks like something else that is widely accepted as "art". I see art as something produced by an artist combining genius + technique. Genius usually implies being original, but also stating what the piece of art represents in contrast to the existing ones (what boundaries it breaks, wh…

"Being original"? That's what art is for you?

Re: Pikazo

#45

There seems to be a bit of confusion here between art and beautiful compositions. Art is not art because it looks nice or because it looks like something else that is widely accepted as "art". I see art as something produced by an artist combining genius + technique. Genius usually implies being original, but also stating what the piece of art represents in contrast to the existing ones (what boundaries it breaks, wh…

All this blah blah blah to try to redefine art, and all you end up with is some weird elitist hipsterish definition that excludes tons of artists.

Most art has nothing to do with being a genius, it's lots of work, repetition, variation, trying new things, combining.

Re: Pikazo

#46
post #44

There seems to be a bit of confusion here between art and beautiful compositions. Art is not art because it looks nice or because it looks like something else that is widely accepted as "art". I see art as something produced by an artist combining genius + technique. Genius usually implies being original, but also stating what the piece of art represents in contrast to the existing ones (what boundaries it breaks, wh…

"Being original"? That's what art is for you?

Name an art current which hasn't revolted against what was previously done. Every generation of artists tried to grasp things which were left out by the previous ones. As I said, genious, but also technique.

What's art for you?

Re: Pikazo

#47

There seems to be a bit of confusion here between art and beautiful compositions. Art is not art because it looks nice or because it looks like something else that is widely accepted as "art". I see art as something produced by an artist combining genius + technique. Genius usually implies being original, but also stating what the piece of art represents in contrast to the existing ones (what boundaries it breaks, wh…

All this blah blah blah to try to redefine art, and all you end up with is some weird elitist hipsterish definition that excludes tons of artists. Most art has nothing to do with being a genius, it's lots of work, repetition, variation, trying new things, combining.

> lots of work, repetition, variation, trying new things, combining.

That's exactly genius and technique. It's not about being a genius in the sense of intelligent, it's about having the genius to move forward from the current state.

Re: Pikazo

#48
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Being original"? That's what art is for you?

Name an art current which hasn't revolted against what was previously done. Every generation of artists tried to grasp things which were left out by the previous ones. As I said, genious, but also technique. What's art for you?

It's consciousness cast onto a medium, like casting a double to a byte.

Re: Pikazo

#49

There seems to be a bit of confusion here between art and beautiful compositions. Art is not art because it looks nice or because it looks like something else that is widely accepted as "art". I see art as something produced by an artist combining genius + technique. Genius usually implies being original, but also stating what the piece of art represents in contrast to the existing ones (what boundaries it breaks, wh…

If a computer makes up a joke and it's funny does it count? I think it does.

Art is a lot like humor, it works for people because it just 'works'. That is what matters. Not the hard work, and 'genius' of the creator behind it, that's just vanity.

Would bohemian rhapsody not count as art if it was made up by a machine?

Re: Pikazo

#50

There seems to be a bit of confusion here between art and beautiful compositions. Art is not art because it looks nice or because it looks like something else that is widely accepted as "art". I see art as something produced by an artist combining genius + technique. Genius usually implies being original, but also stating what the piece of art represents in contrast to the existing ones (what boundaries it breaks, wh…

Always Sunny's latest episode actually looks at this, haha.

The decision of what constitutes art is up to the individual. What you have described is commonly accepted great art/ists, not art itself.

Post reply on HN