Really funny idea. Are you using http://zinc.io to ship the stuff from Amazon?
Bot written to buy random things each month from Amazon
81–90 of 102 posts
Re: Bot written to buy random things each month from Amazon
#82If you look at what he's doing from an art perspective, he's engaging in Generative art, art that is created by process outside the control of the artist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_art I usually think of John Cage when I think of generative art, and the way he let the environment or random events become part of his music. One of the coolest things I've learned about recently in this realm is Joseph Nech…
"If you look at what he's doing from an art perspective" What exactly is an art perspective? I buy stuff every month from Amazon to serve different purposes, so that they are pseudo-random if looked from outside without context. That doesn't make me an artist, at least not in my book. I don't want to start a modern art flame fest, but where do we draw the line? I mean, it seems like nowadays anything is or can be art…
The answer is very simple, and I wish I could tell everyone this:
When most people argue over what is "art", they actually intend to be arguing over what is good art. "Art" is just a descriptor that can be given to any noun at the discretion of any observer. The state of being "art" is not an elevation of status, it's not something that necessarily needs to be honored or revered, and it does not necessarily mean that something is particularly valuable, impressive, or creative. It's just a category that means that some observer (not necessarily the creator) has intended that said piece of art is to be experienced with a point of view that is focused on some particular concepts intended by the observer. These concepts can be (but does not have to be) aesthetics, craftsmanship, creative expression, communication of ideas, etc.
Art can be bad. It's time we stop arguing if something is art or not, and instead discussing if the subject in question successfully achieves the creative goals intended by either the creator or observer (whoever decided to look at it as art).
TLDR: Art is anything anyone wants something to be. What we actually care about is if the art is good or bad.
Re: Bot written to buy random things each month from Amazon
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If you look at what he's doing from an art perspective" What exactly is an art perspective? I buy stuff every month from Amazon to serve different purposes, so that they are pseudo-random if looked from outside without context. That doesn't make me an artist, at least not in my book. I don't want to start a modern art flame fest, but where do we draw the line? I mean, it seems like nowadays anything is or can be art…
The answer is very simple, and I wish I could tell everyone this: When most people argue over what is "art", they actually intend to be arguing over what is good art. "Art" is just a descriptor that can be given to any noun at the discretion of any observer. The state of being "art" is not an elevation of status, it's not something that necessarily needs to be honored or revered, and it does not necessarily mean that…
> When most people argue over what is "art", they actually intend to be arguing over what is good art.
No. When I argue over what "art" means, I intend to argue about what "art" means.
> "Art" is just a descriptor that can be given to any noun at the discretion of any observer.
According to you.
My definition is much closer to the dictionary definition:
the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
I'm not a hater; I like lots of modern art, conceptual stuff, etc.
...but that doesn't mean that there are just two positions here: hidebound classicists and utterly-loosey-goosey "the manner in which I took a shower this morning was ART" hippies.
I can be open-minded about art and still think that " "Art" is just a descriptor that can be given to any noun at the discretion of any observer. " is nonsense.
Re: Bot written to buy random things each month from Amazon
#84Re: Bot written to buy random things each month from Amazon
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's what it does: http://randomshopper.tumblr.com/post/35454415921/randomized-... It also bought him a Chomsky book on Linguistics and a electronic music CD. And if the bot did that on it's own that'd be a little too spooky.
No, the article says right there it uses search results (presumably by scraping). ECS used to be WSDL - real easy to drive from eg. PHP back in the day. I wouldn't want to be the poor sod parsing the retail website HTML (although perhaps the last redesign improved it).
I'm actually not parsing the HTML at all. Not really. I'm using PhantomJS, which is a headless web browser. Each time I load a page, I inject jQuery and just do a simple JS command like
$('#whatevertheIDisfortheform').submit();
It's the equivalent of opening up your console on each page and interacting with it via jQuery rather than a mouse and keyboard.
Re: Bot written to buy random things each month from Amazon
#86Really funny idea. Are you using http://zinc.io to ship the stuff from Amazon?
Nope, I'm using PhantomJS, a headless web browser that's mostly used for test automation. I programmed it to log in to the Amazon account, fill out the various forms, and buy/ship the stuff.
Re: Bot written to buy random things each month from Amazon
#87If you look at what he's doing from an art perspective, he's engaging in Generative art, art that is created by process outside the control of the artist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_art I usually think of John Cage when I think of generative art, and the way he let the environment or random events become part of his music. One of the coolest things I've learned about recently in this realm is Joseph Nech…
"If you look at what he's doing from an art perspective" What exactly is an art perspective? I buy stuff every month from Amazon to serve different purposes, so that they are pseudo-random if looked from outside without context. That doesn't make me an artist, at least not in my book. I don't want to start a modern art flame fest, but where do we draw the line? I mean, it seems like nowadays anything is or can be art…
My criterion (which is no more valid than anyone's) is that it's art if it elicits emotion. This clearly does. I'm fairly confident that this has already intellectually/emotionally stimulated the human race more than, say, some stodgy Renaissance portrait of some figure of minor royalty.
As for the people complaining about this being a waste of money, please, give it a rest. I assume you don't have cable TV, or a car, and live like Gandhi, if you feel you have the right to complain about how this guy spends his money.
Re: Bot written to buy random things each month from Amazon
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answer is very simple, and I wish I could tell everyone this: When most people argue over what is "art", they actually intend to be arguing over what is good art. "Art" is just a descriptor that can be given to any noun at the discretion of any observer. The state of being "art" is not an elevation of status, it's not something that necessarily needs to be honored or revered, and it does not necessarily mean that…
> When most people argue over what is "art", they actually intend to be arguing over what is good art. No. When I argue over what "art" means, I intend to argue about what "art" means. > "Art" is just a descriptor that can be given to any noun at the discretion of any observer. According to you. My definition is much closer to the dictionary definition: the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aest…
I think most people do actually intend to argue about what is "good" art. When a layperson says, "Look at that plain white canvas in this museum, how can that be art?", they're not claiming that they think this particular artifact is a different medium of creative expression than the other paintings. What they are saying is: "I don't feel this work effectively embodies the principles of what I consider to be good art." Whether that thought is justified or not is another story.
An amateur filmmaker with poor taste can create a horrible movie with no sense of design or understanding of the medium. But it's still an artistic work - it's just a poor one. Asking, "How is this movie art?" is like saying, "How is this movie a movie?" If the creator intended it to be art, then it's art, good or bad. Of course, a creator can intend something not to be art, and it's not, until it's intentionally presented or experienced as art by another observer.
Is a toilet art? What if an artist put one in a museum? Is an advertisement art? What if it was placed in a museum? These things have happened, and it's all been accepted as art. It's really about context and how an artists intends it to be. If someone has artistic intention, then they can create art, regardless of the medium or artifact.
It sounds like perhaps you may be arguing that for something to be art, it needs to meet a minimum threshold of quality. I guess that's fair, but at that point it seems futile to argue over those bounds. My definition of art is that those bounds are very low, and yours is that they should be high. Past that threshold, we're still left with bad art and good art.
I personally don't see the need to distinguish between things that are below that threshold ("art" so bad it's not even art), and things that are just above it (art so bad it's barely art). That's why I think it's best to keep that quality threshold at zero, because what we actually care about is determining that value of quality, not whether or not it's above some subjective threshold.
Re: Bot written to buy random things each month from Amazon
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If you look at what he's doing from an art perspective" What exactly is an art perspective? I buy stuff every month from Amazon to serve different purposes, so that they are pseudo-random if looked from outside without context. That doesn't make me an artist, at least not in my book. I don't want to start a modern art flame fest, but where do we draw the line? I mean, it seems like nowadays anything is or can be art…
My criterion (which is no more valid than anyone's) is that it's art if it elicits emotion. This clearly does. I'm fairly confident that this has already intellectually/emotionally stimulated the human race more than, say, some stodgy Renaissance portrait of some figure of minor royalty. As for the people complaining about this being a waste of money, please, give it a rest. I assume you don't have cable TV, or a car…
My criterion (which is no more valid than anyone's)
Isn't that sort of begging the question?
It's also wildly presumptuous to declare that no one else could have a more valid understanding of what makes something art.
As for complaining about people complaining ...
Re: Bot written to buy random things each month from Amazon
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If you look at what he's doing from an art perspective" What exactly is an art perspective? I buy stuff every month from Amazon to serve different purposes, so that they are pseudo-random if looked from outside without context. That doesn't make me an artist, at least not in my book. I don't want to start a modern art flame fest, but where do we draw the line? I mean, it seems like nowadays anything is or can be art…
The answer is very simple, and I wish I could tell everyone this: When most people argue over what is "art", they actually intend to be arguing over what is good art. "Art" is just a descriptor that can be given to any noun at the discretion of any observer. The state of being "art" is not an elevation of status, it's not something that necessarily needs to be honored or revered, and it does not necessarily mean that…
People are trying to make normative statements regarding art. Being sick of the semantic dispute, I favor your positivist description. Let's drop the A-word completely.