Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Art Vote

artvote.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–49 of 49 posts

Re: Art Vote

#41

Post by 7373737373 »

resonious wrote: post #21

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.

I'd love to see a general purpose/turing complete language with resource limits being used for this: https://esolangs.org/wiki/RarVM#Evolving_programs

Re: Art Vote

#42

Post by frereubu »

Daub wrote: post #18
frereubu wrote: post #15

Earlier 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 also have a degree in experimental psychology and a masters in neuroscience, and to be honest, I think you're just describing the neurobiology of vision. Newborns prefer high-contrast images, but I presume you wouldn't consider them to have an understanding of art. And the "red/green" axis just makes me think of the red/green cones in the retina. It sounds like a very naive view of "art".

The comment "if you only consider fine art" also feels like you're moving the goalposts, where you're saying "within these works of visual art people prefer high-contrast images", but the categorisation of those images is that they're a subset of visual art within which people prefer high-contrast images.

Re: Art Vote

#43

Post by frereubu »

halgir wrote: post #16
frereubu wrote: post #11

I 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…

Of course art is much more than randomly generated aesthetics, but I still think this project can be insightful, if not useful. Sure, it's not telling us what objectively makes great art, but I don't believe anything can. But if statistically significant, it might tell us something more fundamental about the pure aesthetics assigned by people to patterns. It's more like the bouba/kiki experiment.

As I said elsewhere in this thread, I think this probably just approximates a description of the neurobiology of vision, from the retina to the occipital cortex. For example, newborns prefer high contrast images, but I presume no-one would consider them to have any understanding of art. The same for things like red / green preferences, which are likely to have their roots in the red / green cones in the retina. I'd argue it's not just useless, but lacks any meaningful insight into art.

Re: Art Vote

#44

Post by cush »

hparadiz wrote: post #39
beardyw wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% agree. I think "the beholder" is what is often overlooked. Marcel Duchamp submitted a urinal as a piece of art (an act of provocation). > When explaining the purpose of his Readymade sculpture, Duchamp stated they are "everyday objects raised to the dignity of a work of art by the artist's act of choice." The important point is the involvement of a person. Computer generated art can't be art unless someone think…

I actually think that if the intention of the original programmer is to say "anything created from this code is art no matter what it is" then it's basically impossible to say otherwise.

I feel like this discussion devolved into "what is art?", while completely missing my original thesis. Of course every image this app produces is art. But that's the point... art is infinitely broad, and the art that this app produces is trivially narrow. So this isn't an argument about art, but instead well-designed surveys.

The only possible conclusion one can draw from this app isn't "what are people's art preferences?", but instead "what are people's drawn-in-ten-seconds-in-mspaint preferences?"

The app would just as accurately gague people's art preferences if it presented only photos of shoes.

Re: Art Vote

#45

Post by tallies »

thewakalix wrote: post #25
bloodyplonker22 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is it? https://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/~chanusa/about/art.html

This page just confirms the above poster's hunch. A professor of mathematics who teaches one "Mathematical Design 128" class.

Re: Art Vote

#46

Post by Daub »

frereubu wrote: post #42
Daub wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 also have a degree in experimental psychology and a masters in neuroscience, and to be honest, I think you're just describing the neurobiology of vision. Newborns prefer high-contrast images, but I presume you wouldn't consider them to have an understanding of art. And the "red/green" axis just makes me think of the red/green cones in the retina. It sounds like a very naive view of "art". The comment "if you only c…

I am also sure that I am describing the neurobiology of vision, though I would love to know more about it. Such preferences need to come from somewhere. For example, I have always thought that the popularity of the vignette derives from the fact that our visual field is oval not square.

As for the fine art issue…. As the previous poster implied, art pretty much changed form around 150 years ago. It went from being pretty much rule-based to pretty much rule-breaking. It would be a waste of time to apply My own research on art to (for example) Tracy Emins tent or Joseph Beuy’s dead hare.

I always thought that art would be much easier to talk about if we came up with different names for the stuff that was made since Picasso’s gurnicca and the the stuff made before. They are different things, with different functions and it is only confusing that they are both called art.

Re: Art Vote

#47

Post by thewakalix »

tallies wrote: post #45
thewakalix wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? https://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/~chanusa/about/art.html

This page just confirms the above poster's hunch. A professor of mathematics who teaches one "Mathematical Design 128" class.

As linked on that page, he is an artist as well: https://christopherhanusa.com/

I don't know how "technical" or "emotional" that is, but it's certainly art.

Re: Art Vote

#48

Post by cush »

Daub wrote: post #18
frereubu wrote: post #15

Earlier 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 feel like this discussion devolved into "what is art?", while completely missing my original thesis. Of course every image this app produces is art. But that's the point... art is infinitely broad, and the art that this app produces is trivially narrow. So this isn't an argument about art, but instead well-designed surveys. The only possible conclusion one can draw from this app isn't "what are people's art preferences?", but instead "what are people's drawn-in-ten-seconds-in-mspaint preferences?"

The app would just as accurately gague people's art preferences if it presented only photos of shoes.

Re: Art Vote

#49

Post by halgir »

frereubu wrote: post #43
halgir wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course art is much more than randomly generated aesthetics, but I still think this project can be insightful, if not useful. Sure, it's not telling us what objectively makes great art, but I don't believe anything can. But if statistically significant, it might tell us something more fundamental about the pure aesthetics assigned by people to patterns. It's more like the bouba/kiki experiment.

As I said elsewhere in this thread, I think this probably just approximates a description of the neurobiology of vision, from the retina to the occipital cortex. For example, newborns prefer high contrast images, but I presume no-one would consider them to have any understanding of art. The same for things like red / green preferences, which are likely to have their roots in the red / green cones in the retina. I'd a…

I agree it's not particularly useful as far as art goes, but I think it can be insightful as far as visual aesthetics go.

The mistake to me is in implicating art, instead of just aesthetics. But Art Vote is a lot more catchy than Neurobiology Of Visual Aesthetics From Retina To Occipital Cortex Vote.

Accurate or not, it's a fun project.

Post reply on HN