[HN Gopher] There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]
___________________________________________________________________
There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]
Author : computerlab
Score : 47 points
Date : 2021-03-13 19:31 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbk.ac.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbk.ac.uk)
| jeffreyrogers wrote:
| His argument is very time/context dependent. Our understanding of
| computer art is quite different now, in 2021, than it was in 1971
| since the capabilities and ease of use of computers are very
| different. His point about art dealers is still interesting
| though.
| nimih wrote:
| I find the article quite compelling, honestly. If anything,
| reframing conversations about computer-generated products from
| "what were the methods of production" to "whom does the
| production serve" is even more relevant today than it was in
| 1971.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Yes - exactly. It's interesting that even though the argument
| is still at least as relevant today as it was in 1971, it's
| so far outside the usual narratives that it seems harder to
| follow it today than it was back then.
|
| It's much safer to frame it as a question about tools - which
| it isn't - than about politics and power structures.
| machinelabo wrote:
| Computer art is not ok as much as paintbrush art is not ok.
| [deleted]
| chaboud wrote:
| I only support finger painting with natural pigments and
| sculpture from unprocessed materials with no tools...
|
| Basically, someone needs to smear fruit on a rock or punch a
| tree if they want to reach me. Otherwise, it's not art, just
| graphic design...
| dang wrote:
| I changed the url from https://compart.uni-
| bremen.de/download/publications/there-sh..., which does a forced
| download. If there's a better page to link to, we can change it
| again.
| tpetricek wrote:
| For those who want to compare this 1971 article with a 2018 talk
| by the very same person (and see that his arguments remain
| relevant): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-qAPvYdXgM
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| A lot of people seem to be missing the relevance of this critique
| to NFTs.
|
| It's actually uncannily prescient, politically and economically.
| megameter wrote:
| The medium that is changing with NFT is one of credit and
| incentives, not aesthetics. NFT art isn't differently made art,
| it's differently positioned art. It's like jumping from movies
| to television. And it's similar in a nominal sense with respect
| to current platforms, but there's a definite sense of "we have
| not really done everything this medium can offer yet". The
| phase where it's a gimmick will pass.
| dehrmann wrote:
| > it's differently positioned art
|
| Is it even that? Art is to baseball as NTF is to baseball
| cards. It's something loosely associated with the art.
|
| My real gripe with NFT is that collectibles--art, baseball
| cards, whatever--can be put on display. There's something to
| be said for tangible things.
| klik99 wrote:
| From the article: "Questions like 'is a computer creative' or 'is
| a computer an artist' or the like should not be considered
| serious questions, period."
|
| Interesting that the concept that the computer is somehow doing
| the art itself, missing the point that a computer is a tool just
| like a paintbrush, was even around in '71.
|
| One wonders when the paintbrush was invented if people argued
| people should still finger paint, and that the paintbrush
| alienated artists from their work. There's a tendency to see all
| technology from before you were born as natural, and anything
| newer as unnatural.
| nimih wrote:
| The same argument also played out over the course of the 20th
| century around the status of photography as an art form and how
| it changes the relationship between the artist and their
| subject--Sontag's _On Photography_ is probably the best known
| collection of writing on the topic, but you could probably find
| a decent overview in any modern art history text.
| NotPavlovsDog wrote:
| Professional art is whatever you can sell as such.
|
| What i find boring with western art is that it is completely
| dependent on the critic and the discourse statement, in text,
| that must accompany any "serious" work of art.
|
| Zen and objects created under that philosophy makes no
| distinction between "high" and "low" art. There are multiple
| other approaches outside of the western paradigm.
|
| The writer of the article is selling a monetary-driven agenda,
| as they are dependent on getting paid for their strong-worded
| texts, while refusing to address that particular elephant in
| the room, connecting western art and discourse. How tedious.
| andrepd wrote:
| There is much art being done outside of "erudite" circles.
| But still, all art is dependant on the appreciation of
| others.
| heavenlyblue wrote:
| By that definition seeking snake oil is also anything snake
| oil is because you are selling it as "not snake oil".
| andrewflnr wrote:
| I've read this a couple times and can't really figure out what
| the argument is. Something about alienating artists from their
| art? And also the bourgeoisie is involved? I did notice that they
| narrowed their claim a couple times as the article went on.
| kens wrote:
| I had the same reaction, that I couldn't figure out the
| argument. (For people who didn't read the article, it's not
| what you'd expect about why computer art isn't art.) It seems
| to be from the perspective of rejecting art entirely: "There is
| no need for the production of more works of art, particularly
| no need for 'computer art'."
|
| After re-reading the article, I think it's best understood by
| considering each paragraph a completely unconnected topic. (I'm
| not being snarky here.)
| nimih wrote:
| The argument appears to be that using a computer to generate a
| piece of art is not a meaningful distinction from using e.g. a
| camera or a paintbrush, and so "computer art" is not a useful
| category. This appears to be couched in a more general
| political (and normative) theory of aesthetics which argues
| that art is (in the current political context) important
| insofar as it serves goals /beyond/ the production of
| "beautiful objects," e.g. highlighting inequity in the
| distribution of wealth, or other projects which serve the
| "needs of the people" contra "the rich and ruling."
| TheRealNGenius wrote:
| My tangentially related thoughts on the matter
| https://wndr.xyz/posts/9fjM1tOJO7MWX4fYw3AU2Q==/what-s-art-a...
| FpUser wrote:
| Semantics I think. I do not see much difference for example
| between Pollock's artwork and some of computer generated stuff.
| tgv wrote:
| Which of Pollock's works? Until I saw a drip paining in a
| museum, I always thought it was a dull, lifeless, messy
| Kindergarten style, but the actual work was quite impressive in
| its sheer physical presence. It was rather different from the
| usual pictures in books and magazines. Seeing Mondriaan (or:
| Mondrian, as he's known in the English speaking part of the
| world) was different: his paintings look great in books, but
| are small and quite imperfect in reality.
| FpUser wrote:
| Here is the example: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1e/b2/b9/
| 1eb2b9a2d656762f8bed... I agree that when printed on very
| large canvas and under proper lighting it can evoke some
| impression but the same would go for some computer generated
| art under similar conditions.
| ljw1001 wrote:
| I had the same experience until I saw a Pollock retrospective
| at MoMA. Not only is his best work gorgeous, it's vastly
| superior to his own early experiments. The whole "anyone
| could do this" thing I had going in was wiped away completely
| by the time I left.
| atum47 wrote:
| There was a time I was deeply involved in procedural generated
| art. Everything has changed since I started working. But hey, I
| got come pretty cool experiments from that fase. Like this one:
|
| https://victorribeiro.com/showFractal/
| logikblok wrote:
| Your website is impressive! Couldn't follow how to interact
| with Qubes, any tips?
| atum47 wrote:
| There's a virtual keypad below the game area, and you could
| use the arrow keys.
|
| https://victorqribeiro.itch.io/qubes
|
| https://www.outpan.com/app/99694412f2/qubes
|
| https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.victorribe.
| ..
|
| you can also play it in any of these links
| dsign wrote:
| If it weren't for computers, my hobby artistic endeavors would
| still be about acquiring a steady pulse so that the lines just
| look right...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-13 23:00 UTC)