[HN Gopher] The performative quality of computer-generated art
___________________________________________________________________
The performative quality of computer-generated art
Author : url
Score : 27 points
Date : 2022-02-09 20:39 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (hyperallergic.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (hyperallergic.com)
| itronitron wrote:
| >> "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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-09 23:00 UTC)