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

Pikazo

pikazoapp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 99 posts

Re: Pikazo

#71

Post by jkaunisv1 »

romaniv wrote: post #61
ramblerman wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If a computer generates 100000000 unfunny jokes and one that seems funny, does that count?

It's not very different from how I learned to tell jokes. My brothers heard a lot of terrible jokes before I figured out timing and other aspects of humour.

If it makes you laugh, it's a good joke. What does the origin matter?

Re: Pikazo

#72

Post by delluminatus »

karlb wrote: post #60
alexandrerond wrote: post #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, wh…

In his book, “Playing to the Gallery,” the artist Grayson Perry attempts to answer this question. I'll summarize his definition because I found it interesting and challenging: He begins by stating that it's now widely accepted that anything can be viewed as art. Seeing as that's an infinitely broad definition, he goes on to describe the following “scorecard” for what counts as art. A “yes” means it's more likely to b…

I don't think there can really be a distinction between what art "should be" versus what art "is". You could maybe argue that a particular piece or style of art should be different, but does it really make sense to say that art should be something else?

More to the point, I think that definition is a little dissatisfying. By that metric, I have probably never created any art in my life -- because I'm not an artist with limited-edition work in a gallery. To me, that is unacceptable for a definition of art. Artistry is something more intrinsic to human nature than just being a thing made by an "artist" and put in an artistic context to be admired by hipsters and to confuse people.

Re: Pikazo

#73

Post by theseatoms »

fiatjaf wrote: post #54
alexandrerond wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 not because in the past (I mean 500 years ago) art was produced by doing something different from what existed that you should conclude that "art is about being original", even less that "art is revolt against what was previously done". These facts, if always true, are just consequences of another, much higher, goal of the artist. It's because modern artists started thinking that _the goal_ of art was to be orig…

Avant-garde is likely a better term for what GP is describing.

Re: Pikazo

#74

Post by [deleted] »

fiatjaf wrote: post #54
alexandrerond wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 not because in the past (I mean 500 years ago) art was produced by doing something different from what existed that you should conclude that "art is about being original", even less that "art is revolt against what was previously done". These facts, if always true, are just consequences of another, much higher, goal of the artist. It's because modern artists started thinking that _the goal_ of art was to be orig…

[deleted]

Re: Pikazo

#75

Post by riquito »

alexandrerond wrote: post #52
ramblerman wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, it wouldn't count. Because then we would have some thousands of bohemian rhapsodies. An art expression would perhaps be the whole bunch of works together (if you managed to give them a sense of being), and the artist would be whoever devised the program that created them. But individually, it would be have the same art value as those pictures sold in IKEA. Beautiful yes, but not art by themselves. Edit: art is no…

> No, it wouldn't count. Because then we would have some thousands of bohemian rhapsodies.

The computer broke after completing the work: now does it count? I don't understand your idea of art, isn't there beauty in the result? You give different value if the same result has been reached by a computer, chaos or a human?

Do you have to know how the piece has been produced to decide if it's art or not?

Re: Pikazo

#77

Post by antirez »

franze wrote: post #16

Two examples: https://goo.gl/photos/9Ujw2Ssb5EtQyvH59 https://goo.gl/photos/oHN4PqV6CRMgvssVA

That's great! What is your "template" image here? I tried with a few similar without good results.

Re: Pikazo

#78

Post by ramblerman »

alexandrerond wrote: post #52
ramblerman wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, it wouldn't count. Because then we would have some thousands of bohemian rhapsodies. An art expression would perhaps be the whole bunch of works together (if you managed to give them a sense of being), and the artist would be whoever devised the program that created them. But individually, it would be have the same art value as those pictures sold in IKEA. Beautiful yes, but not art by themselves. Edit: art is no…

Hmm, I always find it weird that specifically the visual arts suffer from this. It's a lot easier to agree on music and dance (not liking it per se, but what constitutes an artist).

Yet, go to a modern art gallery and someone will try to convince you the potato he stuck on a coathanger is 'art'. usually with the same fluffy explanations you are offering here.

Re: Pikazo

#79

Post by pegasus »

riquito wrote: post #75
alexandrerond wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it wouldn't count. Because then we would have some thousands of bohemian rhapsodies. An art expression would perhaps be the whole bunch of works together (if you managed to give them a sense of being), and the artist would be whoever devised the program that created them. But individually, it would be have the same art value as those pictures sold in IKEA. Beautiful yes, but not art by themselves. Edit: art is no…

> No, it wouldn't count. Because then we would have some thousands of bohemian rhapsodies. The computer broke after completing the work: now does it count? I don't understand your idea of art, isn't there beauty in the result? You give different value if the same result has been reached by a computer, chaos or a human? Do you have to know how the piece has been produced to decide if it's art or not?

Yes. A rock that's been pleasingly shaped by desert winds is not considered art. But if we'd later find out that it was actually a man-made artifact, it would become a candidate for this label.

Re: Pikazo

#80

Post by pegasus »

cdubzzz wrote: post #62
alexandrerond wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yes you can see it that way. But then absolutely everything is art, which is not a very useful definition for it.

Per my comment, this would only be true if you feel that absolutely everything is art. That sounds kind of nice, actually (: And how would you decide if a definition (of anything) qualifies as "useful"?

Concepts are useful because they help us discriminate - between that which falls under the umbrella of the concept and which doesn't. An attribute that applies to every possible thing equally is redundant, and can be ignored without loss of information.
Post reply on HN