[HN Gopher] Generative art using C++ printer commands and a rece...
___________________________________________________________________
Generative art using C++ printer commands and a receipt printer
Author : DanBC
Score : 134 points
Date : 2022-05-18 17:30 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| pengaru wrote:
| For when you weren't satisfied only wasting electricity with your
| graphics hacks...
| TheDesolate0 wrote:
| Tao332 wrote:
| He'd better stop that thing, it's almost as big as a CVS receipt.
| b3morales wrote:
| Looks nice, but is there more to this than the one shaky video of
| the printer?
| ericbarrett wrote:
| I'd recommend gloves to anybody who's going to handle thermal
| paper receipts more than casually:
| https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/health/turning-heat-therma...
| curiousgal wrote:
| OP seems to have used phenol-free paper.
|
| https://twitter.com/flockaroo/status/1527603279907127296
| [deleted]
| DeathArrow wrote:
| Generative something. Not sure about the art part.
|
| Art is beautiful, timeless and has something to say.
| creativenolo wrote:
| Duchamp's Urinal pops to mind. It had something to say, at
| least about your point of view.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| That tells a lot about your mind.
| seabird wrote:
| I think art like Urinal is dumb, but I wouldn't say it's
| not art. Trying to define "real art" is a fools' errand.
| It's "I know it when I see it" that doesn't achieve
| anything. There's plenty of art that isn't beautiful or
| timeless that pretty much nobody other than a contrarian
| would claim isn't art. Having nothing to say is saying
| something. The only thing that even comes close to defining
| art is somebody presenting the artwork as such, and you can
| probably find plenty of counterexamples to that. Avoiding
| saying that some piece of art lacks value/impact by
| claiming it's not art is a lazy way people try to avoid
| others pointing out that their assessment of that art's
| value/impact may be wrong, and that their gripes with the
| work are pretty much purely subjective.
| uoaei wrote:
| That comment says volumes about yours.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| I'd argue all 3 criteria have been met (though, to be clear, I
| also don't agree with your definition either):
|
| - beauty is in the eye of the beholder
|
| - this has been enshrined both in paper and digitally on the
| internet. That's far more resilient than most peoples personal
| backups.
|
| - and it's generated discourse. From you in fact.
| junon wrote:
| ... according to your own subjective tastes...
| beanders wrote:
| Hmm, I'm pretty sure the most general definition of art is
| exactly the opposite: subjective, immediate, and representing a
| private communication between the artist and their
| context/environment.
|
| If anyone external to that communication gets some value from
| it as well, that's a nice side benefit!
| Agingcoder wrote:
| I don't know about the immediate part. Some works of art I
| saw didn't trigger anything, until I realized the next day
| that I kept thinking about them (films or contemporary art
| usually). It also seems like these specific works tend to
| have had a more profound effect on me than the immediate
| ones.
|
| In the end, they maybe triggered some kind of immediate
| subconscious reaction, but the actual communication was
| delayed.
|
| Still, I like your definition very much.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Fine art, commercial art, pop art ... the concept of art can
| take on many guises.
|
| I suppose the history of art has been nothing if not people
| asking what can be called art -- your comment contributes to
| that ongoing dialog.
|
| To you I would suggest maybe there is "hard" art and "soft" art
| (the latter allowing for architecture, design, etc.).
|
| This one is on the softer side.
| mdh wrote:
| IMO, art may have those characteristics - good art will often
| obviously have >1 of those.
|
| Art in its most basic form is anything that engages you beyond
| a strictly functional level.
| scyclow wrote:
| That's a needlessly rigid, and depressingly simple definition.
| Art is just the thing that people refer to when they use the
| word "art".
| can16358p wrote:
| For me it is beautiful.
|
| For you it might not be. That's why art is subjective.
| sva_ wrote:
| Reminds me of Jackson Pollock.
| bowsamic wrote:
| This is gonna get a hell of a lot of pushback from the HN crowd
| astroalex wrote:
| I'm a huge fan of this. There's something magical about receipt
| printers. I love the idea that there is a long, infinite canvas
| which can flow from the printer. And part of the allure is the
| clunky slowness of the printer and the rough analog quality of
| the print. That rendering of the mountains works very well for
| the medium!
|
| Sorry for the self promo, this is just too relevant not to share:
| I created a generative art piece using receipt printers in which
| the printers "print themselves to death" over a tub of water.
| Video here: https://vimeo.com/336939272
| thih9 wrote:
| > Video is not rated. Log in to watch.
|
| I don't have a vimeo account; is there a mirror on a site that
| doesn't require an account?
| astroalex wrote:
| Strange. I'm able to view the video in an incognito window.
| bombcar wrote:
| Maybe it's my adblockers but I was able to see it directly.
|
| Nice idea, reminds me of the aliens from Half Life somehow.
| jerpint wrote:
| "existence is pain!" That printer, probably
| dementik wrote:
| > the clunky slowness of the printer
|
| I understand what you mean, but e.g. Toshiba TCx thermal
| receipt printer (6145-1TN) prints 406mm/sec (125 lps at 8lpi).
| I think that is very very fast.
| astroalex wrote:
| Wow, good point! I suppose the thermal printers that I've
| hacked around with are probably very dated in comparison.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-20 23:01 UTC)