81–90 of 112 posts
This gives me an idea. What it game textures for 3D models were entirely made up of shaders/generative algorithms. The entire game could be rendered with an equation and never have to load assets.
Joshua Davis [0] has been doing generative art (mostly Flash/actionscript) since late 90’s. Took a class of his once and it was amazing (as is his art). If OP subject is prodigy, Davis is the grandfather. https://joshuadavis.com
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Lots of paintings are not beautiful, but are very meaningful and artistic. Like the GP, you're using a definition of beauty which is not at all standard in the field of aesthetics. If the work is visually meaningful and artistic, while producing a feeling that is in some way sublime, transcendental, revelatory, etc., then that's beauty you're seeing. > you think that a song like 'Hurt' (NIN or Cash) is diminished b…
No, of course I'm not using the definition of beauty from a specific branch of philosophy. In common language, that's simply not what's understood by the word beauty.
Aesthetics is the sum total of all branches that relate to the thing we're all discussing here.
To flippantly suggest that your misguided lay definition of beauty is preferable in aesthetics than the one hashed out for the last 3000 years by those in the field, is silly.
That's like when laymen remind one that: "Evolution is just a theory", and ask why "monkeys didn't evolve as much as people did".
Any one with a science education will explain that they don't know what the technical terms theory and evolve mean.
And then they'll respond as you did: "I'm using the terms theory and evolve in the normal lay sense, like Conspiracy Theory and Pokemon Evolution. Evolution is just like your philosophy, man."
Don't be that guy.
If you're uninterested in a central field of the humanities, with a rich history going back to Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus in the west, and further in the east, you don't have to go about arguing it on the internet like it's something you're in any way invested in, while spreading blanket falsehoods about the field.
If you think your having looked at Art makes you technically savvy enough to argue aesthetics, ask yourself if Facebook users are thus made qualified to argue software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, of course I'm not using the definition of beauty from a specific branch of philosophy. In common language, that's simply not what's understood by the word beauty.
"Aesthetics" isn't a branch of philosophy, unless you consider Formal Logic, Physics and Psychology branches of philosophy as well, it's separate a field of study. Aesthetics is the sum total of all branches that relate to the thing we're all discussing here. To flippantly suggest that your misguided lay definition of beauty is preferable in aesthetics than the one hashed out for the last 3000 years by those in the f…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Branches_of_philosoph...
I'm not suggesting my definition of beauty is better, but it's definitely more appropriate given the context. Language is meant to communicate, which is why it's context sensitive. If someone tells me they have a theory about why the sink is blocked, I don't expect it to be a scientific theory - given the context.
And since I make a living from art and design, yeah I feel that I am qualified to have a few opinions on art. But maybe I should just leave that to the philosophers eh?
It seems that recently there's been interest in procedurally-generated imagery among artists, but almost all completely unaware that the demoscene has been doing the same (and much advanced its techniques) for many years: http://iquilezles.org/www/articles/raymarchingdf/raymarching... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoscene
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've experienced what you're talking about as maybe the fundamental challenge in making computer-based art. Computers love to follow rules. Come up with some interesting rules, and they will spit out interesting pictures/music. It's much much harder to figure out how to tell the computer "okay, but break the rule just a little bit, at the appropriate time". Codifying breaking the rules as its own rule is...well, so f…
Maybe there's an opportunity to combine computers and hand-made choices. Art using a mixture of several generative tools and manual tweaks by the artist on the final result could achieve that goal of "breaking the rules just a little bit", especially if the generative tools are parametrical and easy to customize, maybe with direct manipulation on the generated canvas.
You're in for a pleasant surprise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've experienced what you're talking about as maybe the fundamental challenge in making computer-based art. Computers love to follow rules. Come up with some interesting rules, and they will spit out interesting pictures/music. It's much much harder to figure out how to tell the computer "okay, but break the rule just a little bit, at the appropriate time". Codifying breaking the rules as its own rule is...well, so f…
Check out "glitch art" and also this: https://giphy.com/explore/tverd It is debatable if any rules are really broken, but using glitches is at least an attempt.
I like Manolo Naon's art, and I am quite fond of creative coding, but something that strikes me when seeing this article comparing his works to Kandinsky, Ernst et. al is that his works are always harmonious, a single idea in action, whereas all these classic artists have conflicts and discord in their works. They deliberately avoided doing things that were simply decorative or pleasant. (Probably they were avoiding…
I think you can seperate these two aspects of Kandinsky or Ernst's works. On one side the skill and aesthetics of the artwork, and on the other side the reflection of their times and circumstances. We've established that Naon, Kandinsky and Ernst make beautiful artworks. So it makes sense to compare them on their aesthetics if they have similarities. When it comes to the 'depth' you are speaking of, the modernists ar…
One unpopular litmus test for whether a practice might be appropriately categorized as "fine art" or "contemporary art" is to look at the economic relationships and institutions involved. "Art" with a capital A tends to be supported exclusively by wealthy patrons, with some help from governments, foundations, and non-profits. Artists sell their work through galleries, or directly to their patrons, and as they age they either succeed or fail to enter a "mid-career artist" phase, where their work becomes canonized through reviews in particular publications, inclusion in group shows, and solo shows at "important" institutions.
Anything outside of this very specific system is difficult to call "Art" with a capital A.
It's worth noting that this mode of production is overwhelmingly minor in comparison with modes of production post-Internet. Memes, 4chan, YouTube, DeviantArt, art produced in conjunction with the advertising industry, etc. completely eclipse "Art" today, and it's difficult to speak authoritatively of any kind of canon of "art" in general.
However, it's clear that when we compare the "art" of today to the "Art" of the past that we see in the great museums of the past, we are comparing fundamentally different things.