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

41–50 of 88 posts

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

#41

Post by Retric »

heavenlyblue wrote: post #28
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…

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

Plenty of art is sold on the basis of the work it’s self. But, that doesn’t qualify as high art. The difference between what you’re paying 5k vs 500k is almost completely about the story around the art not the actual art on it’s own merits.

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

#42

Post by hellbannedguy »

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,…

My issue forever is where do you draw the line?

Automated computer generated art is as beautiful as the greatest paintings.

Do we end up calling the team of programmers whom coded the program——Artists, or is it just the user of the powerful program? Artist in the traditional sense?

I remember working out at Muir Woods years in the 90’s. A new guy was telling me what he wanted to do with his life. He told me he wanted to become a computer Artist.

I remember both of us debating at what point is the tool more powerful than the person. He was dead set on computer art is just art. Their was no line to cross.

I’m still unsure. I don’t want to get into a debate either.

(If the guy I had the conversation with happens to read this, I hope you are doing well. I hope you are in this industry, and happy. I always felt you were going to make it big.)

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

#43

Post by amelius »

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,…

> One wonders when the paintbrush was invented if people argued people should still finger paint, and that the paintbrush alienated artists from their work.

But how about tracing-paper? Or even a camera obscura? [1]

[1] https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2013/11/vermeer-secret-to...

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

#44

Post by eigenhombre »

hellbannedguy wrote: post #42
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,…

My issue forever is where do you draw the line? Automated computer generated art is as beautiful as the greatest paintings. Do we end up calling the team of programmers whom coded the program——Artists, or is it just the user of the powerful program? Artist in the traditional sense? I remember working out at Muir Woods years in the 90’s. A new guy was telling me what he wanted to do with his life. He told me he wanted…

> Automated computer generated art is as beautiful as the greatest paintings.

As someone who paints daily and has made a lifetime study of painting, including visiting museums locally and worldwide, as well as trying to stay abreast of the "state of the art" of the use of computers in art (as well as writing software as a day job for decades), I am puzzled by this statement.

The greatest paintings, "in the flesh," simply have a punch and an impact that, to my eyes, has not been rivaled by the "state of the art" in digital renderings of any kind, or indeed in any works where a mechanical process is anything but a small factor in the completed work.

I would be fascinated to see what you consider to be examples of "automated computer-generated art" that rivals the works of Rembrandt, Titian, Velazquez, or anyone in the top tier of art history. Those artists are world-famous (not just now, but for centuries) for a reason, but you often have to get in the same room with the works to see why.

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

#45

Post by atum47 »

swayvil wrote: post #35
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

Seems really cool. As soon as I'm on my computer I'll take a look

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

#46

Post by swayvil »

atum47 wrote: post #45
swayvil wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Seems really cool. As soon as I'm on my computer I'll take a look

Here's a nice example video

https://vimeo.com/240786024

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

#47

Post by freeone3000 »

eigenhombre wrote: post #44
hellbannedguy wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My issue forever is where do you draw the line? Automated computer generated art is as beautiful as the greatest paintings. Do we end up calling the team of programmers whom coded the program——Artists, or is it just the user of the powerful program? Artist in the traditional sense? I remember working out at Muir Woods years in the 90’s. A new guy was telling me what he wanted to do with his life. He told me he wanted…

> Automated computer generated art is as beautiful as the greatest paintings. As someone who paints daily and has made a lifetime study of painting, including visiting museums locally and worldwide, as well as trying to stay abreast of the "state of the art" of the use of computers in art (as well as writing software as a day job for decades), I am puzzled by this statement. The greatest paintings, "in the flesh," si…

One wonders if the impact is imparted not by the piece, then, but by the room. There are elements of physical texture and contrast present in physical works, but is the difference between the Mona Lisa and a high-quality print of the Mona Lisa the brushstrokes, or that one is in the Louvre?

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

#49

Post by derefr »

shkkmo wrote: post #32
andrepd wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can make something, but what, then, makes it art?

Or, to put that another way: if there is only one animal alive in a forest, and that animal produces noise intentionally, but has no organ for sensing noise, have they made a “sound”?

Some words are only meaningful in the context of interpersonal communication. “Art” is, IMHO, one of them. Without an observer secondary to the artist, the question “is this art” has a NULL answer. Not an arbitrary one — a lack of one. Because encoded in the meaning of the word “art” is the assumption that you’re asking someone else that question.

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

#50

Post by eternalban »

freeone3000 wrote: post #47
eigenhombre wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Automated computer generated art is as beautiful as the greatest paintings. As someone who paints daily and has made a lifetime study of painting, including visiting museums locally and worldwide, as well as trying to stay abreast of the "state of the art" of the use of computers in art (as well as writing software as a day job for decades), I am puzzled by this statement. The greatest paintings, "in the flesh," si…

One wonders if the impact is imparted not by the piece, then, but by the room. There are elements of physical texture and contrast present in physical works, but is the difference between the Mona Lisa and a high-quality print of the Mona Lisa the brushstrokes, or that one is in the Louvre?

Since it is painted in oil by Leonardo, yes, it is the brush strokes.

"Mona Lisa, the precious legacy of Leonardo da Vinci, represents a zenith of methodological innovations in painting. How the painter managed to obtain such delicacy of the tonal transitions still occupies the mind of contemporary art researchers. Based on published results of scientific analyses performed on the painting and relying on historical sources, a copy of the painting was made using materials that were identical or at least equivalent to the ones Leonardo used. This paper is an effort to provide an idea of the built-up of the paint layers at various stages as the painting evolved. The author discusses the detailed and painstaking method used by the painter at each step of the creation of the painting to obtain sfumato effect."

https://journals.openedition.org/ceroart/3828

Post reply on HN