The performative quality of computer-generated art

https://hyperallergic.com/710156/appreciating-the-performative-quality-of-computer-generated-art/

by url • 4 years ago

65 23 4 years ago

itronitron• 4 years ago

> "What if we are too focused on results, rather than the process?"

Well, that is kind of the problem with generative art, it is all process with no point. As Helen Pierce in Ozark would say, "It has no intention."

BasilPH• 4 years ago

Well, that is kind of the problem with generative art, it is all process with no point.

I don't see how this should be specific to computer-generated art. You can make drawings by hand that have no point. In my opinion computers are just another tool for artists.

nefitty• 4 years ago

When I was young I thought photographers just took like one photo and by sheer willpower and skill, they sometimes captured beautiful scenes. I then found out that they actually sit there and click the shutter thousands of times, then they go somewhere else to sit and scour through the "generated art" to find the gems. Then they polish the gems. Then they publish those.

My novice AI-art workflow involved a similar pattern. I come up with some topic or thing I want to see, then I iterate on the wording of the prompt and all the little variables the tool takes. I end up with dozens of crap pictures, but sometimes cool stuff comes out. If I keep working on this, alongside increased generation speed, I could see myself "creating" really good art.

To me it is about the process. It's the human input that makes art valuable. I mean, if AI becomes sentient then those judgements would be a valuable input in themselves too.

attemptone• 4 years ago

From: "Letters to a young poet" by Rainer Maria Rilke

If, as a result of this turning inward, of this sinking into your own world, poetry should emerge, you will not think to ask someone whether it is good poetry. And you will not try to interest publishers of magazines in these works. For you will hear in them your own voice; you will see in them a piece of your life, a natural possession of yours. A piece of art is good if it is born of necessity. This, its source, is its criterion; there is no other.

hypertele-Xii• 4 years ago

Generative art can have intent. Look at these [1]. I had clear intent generating townscapes specifically combining mountains and islands with cities to generate this set.

[1] https://hypertele.fi/32c6f4c835b5e790

astroalex• 4 years ago

What art does have intention, in your view? And by what criteria do you evaluate whether art has intention?

probably_wrong2• 4 years ago

I think you will have a hard time finding a definition of art that allows for art without intention.

One of the few rules I learned is that "nature isn't art", precisely because nature, while pretty, has no reason for being, it just is.

I've never seen a book without intention, for instance, because almost no one sits down to write nonsense. And I say "almost" because the dadaists did precisely that, but they did it with the clear intention of subverting expectations.

soco3• 4 years ago

This is just another step towards ruining art. Trivializing it, if you want. Why should I care for a piece of drawing generated by a computer? I care for something into which a person put their thoughts and imagination, yes. Even if it's of a lesser quality. But here, why should I be ecstatic? Nice lines, meh, I've seen nice lines thousand times already.

krisoft3• 4 years ago

Why should I care for a piece of drawing generated by a computer? I care for something into which a person put their thoughts and imagination, yes.

Well then you are in good luck. The computers didn’t just spontaneously started creating these images. There is a person who programmed them, debuged (or bugged!) and tweeked the code until it was to their liking and then selected the best results. That’s right, here a computer holds the pen (sometimes literally, sometimes figuratively) but it is absolutely a fellow human being who put their thoughts and imagination into the process.

But here, why should I be ecstatic?

You don’t have to be. But maybe don’t trivialize other people’s work either.

soco3• 4 years ago

I don't trivialize the for sure complex programming work. I just refuse to call the output of the program "art". It's not the same thing at all.

acjacobson• 4 years ago

The debate over what qualifies as 'real' art is a long and ever-evolving. When photography first emerged people said it could never be real art because it was just a snapshot of the world. Why should I care for an image captured by a machine?

soco3• 4 years ago

We might be confusing here "beauty" with "art".

iszomer• 4 years ago

Do you also treat an artist's work in creating game assets as something that shouldn't be considered art?

t8y• 4 years ago

I don't think that people only value the output. Take "Selfie Girl"[0] by Inigo Quilez people appreciate that it's a shader, even people that are not into programming (though they'd need to see the making of video[1]).

[0]https://www.shadertoy.com/view/WsSBzh [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8--5LwHRhjk

copperwater69• 4 years ago

Currently enjoying 'powdertoy' after randomly coming across it in the software manager.

Seems to include both the process of computation and the output into one package some might call art. Here's a neat example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REMQJESm1C8

https://powdertoy.co.uk/Browse/View.html?ID=1761441

The performative quality of computer-generated art

Related Stories