[HN Gopher] There should be no Computer Art (1971)
___________________________________________________________________
There should be no Computer Art (1971)
Author : glimshe
Score : 66 points
Date : 2025-06-03 10:05 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (dam.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (dam.org)
| whynotmaybe wrote:
| > I find it easy to admit that computer art did not contribute to
| the advancement of art.
|
| But a banana sticked to a wall with some tape did!
|
| I'll stick to the best definition of art that I've heard : "if it
| gives you an emotion, it is art".
| auggierose wrote:
| I guess shitty code is art then.
| groestl wrote:
| "p" == 0;
|
| (shitty type systems as well?)
| SirHumphrey wrote:
| Esoteric programming languages could be considered art -
| perhaps the only difference is intentionality.
| onthedystopia wrote:
| One is made by a human for other humans. The other is a
| randomly recognized pattern built from the stolen art of
| millions, and has no intended audience (because it itself is
| incapable of consuming art).
|
| I also want to emphasize the "banana sticked to a wall"
| complaint is an often right wing stance to devalue art.
|
| Art can be emotional, but not everything that creates emotion
| is art. In time I think we will work out a better definition of
| what constitutes art. One that excludes generated images and
| videos and emphasizes the human connection of artwork.
| ivape wrote:
| First, I'm going to upvote you because I'm tired of this
| grayed out censorship bullshit that goes on in this site. I
| really wish there was a way to set a setting that makes it
| clear _idgaf about downvotes, don't gray shit out_.
|
| Second:
|
| _One is made by a human for other humans. The other is a
| randomly recognized pattern built from the stolen art of
| millions, and has no intended audience (because it itself is
| incapable of consuming art)._
|
| There is something that fits that definition, which is
| nature. Some actually believe it's a divine expression and
| does indeed have an intended audience (us). That's a weird
| belief, but your argument is actually quite sound if you
| believe in God. If you don't, then your argument falls apart
| because so much of nature is art, so much so that art is
| often based on it.
|
| If the Grand Canyon is randomness, yet it appears clearly
| beautiful to us, and is the source of inspiration for Art,
| then we can say that this new form of random pattern
| generator is also another source, one we can take inspiration
| from.
|
| There will be sticklers that will create a delineation
| between nature and art, which ultimately is quite arrogant
| because it will apply one specific characteristic to art,
| that being art is a specifically human creation.
| strken wrote:
| Download the Stylish extension, open your browser's
| console, check out the classes in the HTML, and change the
| CSS. You can make your own setting in about five minutes
| unless you're using a locked down platform like iOS that
| doesn't let you run your own code easily.
| zzzeek wrote:
| > I'm tired of this grayed out censorship bullshit that
| goes on in this site. I really wish there was a way to set
| a setting that makes it clear idgaf about downvotes, don't
| gray shit out.
|
| but that would interrupt my tech bro flow with
| uncomfortable things I've decided nobody should read. that
| simply wont do, sorry
| mossTechnician wrote:
| One need not apply a "human" characteristic to define
| something as art, only the characteristic of _intent_.
| Perhaps that 's better suited for GP's definition, which I
| otherwise find agreeable.
| ivape wrote:
| So what's the intent behind a flower looking beautiful?
| You see you will have to make the argument that a flower
| isn't art or ... that other explanation (something
| intended it be beautiful).
| ralfd wrote:
| Pornhub is art?
| SirFatty wrote:
| No, pornhub is a website.
| andybak wrote:
| The banana stuck to the wall isn't as dumb as it sounds. Look
| up the story behind it. I read an argument that it's a clever
| bit of satire on NFTs and the idea of "owning a piece of art".
|
| Does that make it art? Dunno. Don't care. It makes it
| _interesting_ which is a more useful category.
| wongarsu wrote:
| It is a physical version of the insanity that are NFT
| pictures. It is a piece of art that is perfectly fungible.
| Anyone can stick a banana on the wall. And in fact the
| exhibits of this piece of art _are_ a banana taped to the
| wall by some random employee. The only thing making it unique
| is a certificate by the artist that assures you that a banana
| taped to the wall in that specific exhibition is an art piece
| by the artist. Just like NFTs are fungible jpegs presumably
| made non-fungible by a blockchain entry.
|
| I think it's brilliant commentary. And even if you have never
| heard of NFTs it poses questions about what qualifies a piece
| of art as unique or an original
| dingnuts wrote:
| an NFT is a record of ownership. if you have no enforcement
| mechanism it's meaningless, but nobody makes jokes about
| fungible data files when we're talking about copyright. if
| you tied an NFT hash to a legal contract then you could
| actually enforce ownership of those fungible jpegs and the
| right click copy people would be just as in violation of
| the law as someone who walks out with your employer's
| software sources
|
| and jpegs don't actually have anything to do with NFTs
| other than being used as representations of them by
| grifters, ruining a useful technology by poisoning the
| representation of it in minds like yours because a
| distributed record of software ownership would threaten the
| app store monopolies.
|
| ok that's conspiratorial but it would explain it..
| Retr0id wrote:
| If NFTs only become useful when tied to a regular legal
| contract, why not just use a regular legal contract?
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Because despite some popular opinions to the contrary,
| the blockchain/crypto part isn't replacing the legal
| layer; it's just implementing a way of tracking things
| that's less reliant on trust than the usual way of doing
| it.
| immibis wrote:
| Apparently it's not uncommon that when a debt collector
| buys a spreadsheet of unpaid debt, they can't actually
| prove in court that the debtor actually owes them the
| debt. You'd think some form of cryptocurrency technology
| would improve this - the legal contract would say you'd
| pay to a certain smart contract address until the smart
| contract says you paid enough (the legal contract would
| also have to specify how this is calculated as it would
| take precedence over the smart contract in case of a
| dispute); the smart contract would implement an NFT where
| the holder of the NFT receives the debt payments.
| Alternatively, it implements an NFT and holds a payee
| address (physical address, business name) and whoever has
| the NFT can update the payee address and whoever that's
| set to is the current creditor.
|
| Of course, we probably _don 't want_ the dystopic parts
| of society to get more reliable, but the fact is the tech
| would probably make them so.
| DanHulton wrote:
| > and the right click copy people would be just as in
| violation of the law
|
| What are you EVEN talking about.
|
| If you transmit an image to my computer when I browse
| your website, that image is now saved on my computer in
| my browser's cache. It is too late for your supposed
| legal contact at this point, I have already copied your
| image, at your explicit instruction. Now try to run that
| through court.
|
| "Your honor, I instructed the defendant's machine to save
| a copy of my image on his computer, which it did, causing
| the defendant to have copied my image, thus violating
| this here legal contract written on a slice of American
| cheese."
|
| You can already make legal contracts about the use and
| re-use of art. NFTS, as a method for trying to prevent
| people from performing actions the internet explicitly
| requires for them to even be seen in the first place,
| were, are, and will remain nonsense.
| rcxdude wrote:
| It's interesting but it's not super original. Dadaism already
| basically ran through most of the variations on this kind of
| concept many years ago.
| andybak wrote:
| Yes and that argument can be made for a lot of conceptual
| art since.
|
| But that's not the argument the "hurr... it's a banana.
| stuck to a wall" crowd are really making.
| rcxdude wrote:
| I know, and in that sense maybe it's still valuable, or
| maybe it's just not really interesting ("Average person
| thinks niche concept kinda dumb, news at 11").
| frereubu wrote:
| Perhaps. But there's also an enormous amount of dirty money
| sloshing around the art world that I would argue has more to
| do with the price than the interest of the work itself.
| tialaramex wrote:
| I prefer: The unnecessary, done on purpose
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| i've held a personal definitional aspect of art to include
| "many, but not all, forms of expression by humans that are
| unnecessary for mere survival" but this is a lot more
| succinct :)
| brookst wrote:
| The duct taped banana has caused far more emotion than the last
| decade of Marvel movies.
| cainxinth wrote:
| "Art is anything you can get away with."
| bookofjoe wrote:
| >Who's Laughing Now? Banana-as-Art Sells for $6.2 Million at
| Sotheby's [November 20, 2024]
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/20/arts/design/cattelan-bana...
|
| https://archive.ph/vs3g3
| hydrogen7800 wrote:
| If not for a PBS documentary on surrealism, I wouldn't have
| considered the existence of meta-art; art as commentary on art.
| The example I remember was _Ceci n 'est pas une pipe._[0] That
| sounds a bit like the banana taped to the wall.
|
| [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images
| zzzeek wrote:
| that's not a good definition. if I go hiking and look at the
| mountains. that gives me an emotion. But is it art? it's just
| the actual planet. No human created that.
|
| Art requires human intention to be art.
| falcor84 wrote:
| You're just disagreeing without offering an explanation - why
| was the original not a good definition?
|
| As I see it, art is in the eye of the beholder. Splotches of
| color made by Jackson Pollock and those made by my 3 year old
| don't differ in their intent (I assume both equally want to
| express themselves), but in the way that we view the work. I
| for one don't see any issue with treating a beautiful
| mountain vista as "a work of art", regardless to whether I
| believe it was intentionally created by a personified god, or
| by an RNG in the simulator that's rendering this corner of
| the universe, or anything in between. I see art.
| zzzeek wrote:
| > You're just disagreeing without offering an explanation -
| why was the original not a good definition?
|
| because a pretty mountain is not art? sorry that's not
| obvious?
| jstanley wrote:
| That's not obvious.
|
| It's obvious _to you_ , because your definition of "art"
| requires it to be man-made. But you can't use the fact
| that non-man-made things can't be art to argue that non-
| man-made things can't be art. It only works on people who
| already agree.
| totallykvothe wrote:
| A table is not a chair because a table is not a chair. A
| mountain is not art because a mountain is not art. You're
| free to use words wrong if you want, but that doesn't
| make them not wrong.
| falcor84 wrote:
| Words aren't that simple; semantics is a real field.
|
| In particular, if art was so easy to define, we probably
| wouldn't have philosophical studies such as "Definitions
| of Art" - https://books.google.ie/books?id=6peJnXr4L5gC
|
| And even the chair&table example isn't that
| straightforward - https://www.coolthings.com/little-
| oyster-coffee-table/
| zzzeek wrote:
| did you read that book? can you show the passages where
| it explains that natural beauty existing without human
| involvement or intention is in any way considered to be
| "art" ? otherwise this feels like pretty rank
| contrarianism
| zzzeek wrote:
| it's obvious to google's AI also, type "is nature art"
|
| > While nature itself is not art, it is a source of
| artistic inspiration and can be used as a medium or
| subject in art. Art is typically considered a human
| creation with intentional aesthetic or expressive
| purposes, whereas nature exists independently of human
| creation. [1, 2]
|
| > because your definition of "art" requires it to be man-
| made.
|
| it's not "my" definition, it's _the_ definition. In the
| dictionary.
|
| https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art
|
| 1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation
| "the art of making friends" 2a: a branch of learning:
| (1): one of the humanities (2)arts plural : liberal arts
| b archaic : learning, scholarship 3: an occupation
| requiring knowledge or skill "the art of organ building"
| 4a: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination
| especially in the production of aesthetic objects "the
| art of painting landscapes" also : works so produced "a
| gallery for modern art" b(1): fine arts (2): one of the
| fine arts (3) : one of the graphic arts 5aarchaic : a
| skillful plan b: the quality or state of being artful
| (see artful sense 2a) 6: decorative or illustrative
| elements in printed matter
| banannaise wrote:
| The banana would be interesting art if the concept hadn't been
| done a million times before. This iteration is just a cash grab
| (and/or publicity play). Which does, to an extent, make it
| interesting again, so what if it's a commentary on the cash-
| grab nature of contemporary ar--okay I'm logging off.
| frereubu wrote:
| Reminds me of the Damien Hirst piece that I love and hate
| equally. A platinum cast of an 18th-century human skull
| encrusted with diamonds that had an asking price of PS50
| million, which was bought by a consortium of people that
| include... Damien Hirst. He's always been great at titling
| his work - the fact that it's called For The Love of God, a
| phrase that I use regularly when I'm exasperated by
| something, is the icing on the cake. Just unbelievable self-
| referential, self-dealing chutzpah.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _I 'll stick to the best definition of art that I've heard :
| "if it gives you an emotion, it is art"._
|
| I think it's necessary, but not sufficient. So I kinda like my
| better:
|
| It's art if (and to the extent of) people generally agree it's
| art.
|
| Sounds tautological, but it isn't[0].
|
| Of course, not _everything_ is art. There are some aspects
| typically - but not always - present. Whether something gives
| you an emotion is one. Whether it has a deeper story behind it
| is another. Whether it 's something that you can bond over with
| other people, or a shared experience, yet another. But none of
| those are _required_ to be present. Art is ultimately a
| consensus opinion.
|
| --
|
| [0] - In fact, most of our civilization is built on ideas that
| exist only as long as most people expect most other people to
| believe them. Examples include: money, laws, countries,
| corporations, even the concept of society itself.
| hex4def6 wrote:
| That feels unnecessarily restrictive.
|
| Does Jiro and his sushi constitute an artist and his art?
| Let's say yes, and let's say most people today agree with
| this. They're cosmopolitan enough to recognize the
| sophistication and craft. This definition therefore defines
| it as "art".
|
| I would say if you told the average Brit living in the UK in
| the 1950s that there's a guy that's really good at slicing up
| raw fish, you might get a different average answer.
|
| So I don't think art is dependent on the conclusion viewer,
| but on the intention of the author. If they arrange rocks
| just-so, because they enjoy the shadows they make at noon, I
| think that's art.
| gspencley wrote:
| > I'll stick to the best definition of art that I've heard :
| "if it gives you an emotion, it is art".
|
| Stubbing my little toe gives me an emotion, is that "art"? lol
|
| I would suggest that art is a method is communication. One
| philosophical definition that I've often used is that "it is a
| selective recreation of reality in accordance with what the
| artist considers to be essential."
|
| When viewed through the lens of how art might be a useful tool
| for human survival, it allows us, as rational animals, to
| communicate highly complex topics in a condensed, straight-to-
| the-point manner. Morality tales and other stories, paintings,
| statues, theatrical plays ... all serve to communicate
| something.
|
| To circle back to computer-generated "art", I would say that if
| the computer-generated artwork has a human programmer who was
| trying to communicate something through the software and its
| output, then I could consider it to be "art." It is not the
| computer producing the art, it is the human being who is
| programming or otherwise directing the computer through an
| intent to communicate something. If you leave a computer alone,
| and using some kind of random entropy it just so happens to
| produce an image of something because that's what the random
| generator landed on, then it's not art. There was no intent to
| communicate.
|
| And in the example of computers visualizing some natural
| phenomenon (the article mentioned an oscilloscope as an
| example), then it is no more "art" than the image projected
| into the eye from a microscope since there is no recreation. It
| is, in that context, a tool for observing reality as it exists,
| rather than a medium of communication intended to express an
| idea.
| zeroCalories wrote:
| The art of the deal is when I feel good about being scammed.
| exe34 wrote:
| > "if it gives you an emotion, it is art".
|
| Even if it's made by chatgpt? A lot of carbon-chauvinists
| believe only meatbags can make art.
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| what a weird false dichotomy. i don't think many definitions
| of art include non-human animals.
| immibis wrote:
| Don't forget "Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue" too - a
| huge rectangle of mostly red, which angered someone enough to
| try to destroy it, proving that someone was, in fact, afraid of
| red, yellow and blue.
| kendalf89 wrote:
| Art is the product of someone expressing themselves. It
| requires personhood and it requires intent to express one's
| self.
|
| Therefore, unless you grant an autonomous AI personhood it
| can't create art.
|
| However, one could use AI as a tool to express themselves and
| that would be art. But that's where I admit the line gets
| blurred.
| FraterSKM wrote:
| > Art is the product of someone expressing themselves.
|
| While I agree, unfortunately to the majority of people, "Art"
| simply means "something that makes me feel something".
| Whether that thing was generated by a human or a machine
| makes no difference. In my experience most people, when
| consuming art, hardly think about where it came from/who made
| it/why they made it, simply on the feelings it evokes with
| themselves. And as we have seen through outrage algorithms,
| computers are quite good at figuring out how to create
| emotional states in humans.
| perching_aix wrote:
| I feel that on the other side of the spectrum is where
| things like idolization and parasocial fandom lies, so in
| my view, this is not unfortunate at all.
|
| There are many flavors of this I can recall. One is voice
| acting in anime. I'd read episode discussion threads, and
| people would keep namedropping and discussing the voices
| behind the characters. Striked me and continues to strike
| me as just an extremely odd thing to do. As if these folks
| would go out of their way to ruin the immersion for
| themselves.
|
| Or recently I had a discussion with a coworker on being a
| fan of musicians and bands. He brought up an example that
| really surprised me: "so called fans will stare at you like
| a deer at headlights when you ask them: oh you're a fan of
| Linkin Park? what's their drummer called?". Or how there
| were so and so "cool" stories about some rock n roll
| musicians. These are beyond weird to me: I like (some of)
| their music, not them as individuals. I know nothing about
| them, nor do I really wish to or think I would be able to.
|
| But maybe this is a generational difference. In any case,
| I'd be really hesitant to characterize this as just
| straight "unfortunate".
|
| There's also a swath of cases where the expression is
| little more than just a demonstration of someone's
| aesthetic or ideological preferences. I'm not sure how much
| art is in there - if someone were to call those expressions
| shallow, I'd likely agree. In which case, I'm not sure
| there's much to find unfortunate on them; it's only as
| unfortunate as much interest you (can) have in that person.
| perching_aix wrote:
| I've recently been presented the idea that art goes beyond
| its creator and involves its consumer(s) too. So basically,
| the expression goes beyond the one expressing, and includes
| those appreciating that expression.
|
| But if we accept that, there's no need for the creator to be
| a person - since if you yourself are a person observing the
| art, the idea will still hold.
|
| While I'd find this notion agreeable, I really don't
| subscribe to personhood being a requirement on either side of
| art to begin with. But maybe it's something worthwhile for
| your consideration.
| throw93849494 wrote:
| There should be no tax incentives and deductions to trade art.
| brookst wrote:
| What incentives are there that don't apply to any other asset
| like real estate or jewelry?
| schmidtleonard wrote:
| Why should real estate and jewelry be tax incentivized?
| IAmBroom wrote:
| Name one that exists.
| richardwhiuk wrote:
| Capital gains tax loss is the usual mechanism I think.
| detourdog wrote:
| My cousin went to RISD in 1972 after graduation she started
| hanging around MIT eventually studying under Negroponte before
| the formation of the media lab. After graduation she worked as a
| computer animator.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Starfighter
|
| She is in the photo at the terminal working on the last
| starfighter.
|
| She has been creating computer art ever since. She has often
| expressed confusion and disillusionment with the field. She is
| often unsure if she or the computer is the artist.
| api wrote:
| Photographers have always had similar sentiments, but if you
| look at artistic photography versus random or amateur
| photography the former is definitely an art form.
|
| Nearly all art except singing and dance is made with tools. In
| many cases tools define the art form.
| brookst wrote:
| Even signing and dance use tools, they're just biological and
| under sophisticated neural control. It takes at least as much
| work to train vocal cords and breathing as it does to train
| muscles to use a paintbrush.
| glimshe wrote:
| Dance generally uses tools too, but they are more subtle and
| better integrated. Clothes, props, lights and even the stage
| can be seen as tools to achieve dance's aims.
|
| Singing can certainly use tools too. Auto tune and special
| microphones.
|
| Perhaps you mean to say that neither _require_ tools.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Singing can certainly use tools too. Auto tune and
| special microphones.
|
| Not just _electronic_ tools: archictectural acoustics are
| often a tool in vocal performance.
| jrm4 wrote:
| Tools define those too, I've seen a few GREAT articles on the
| subject, but the example was given: There's a dance everyone
| knows called "the robot."
|
| It, of course, didn't exist until after robots were invented
| because no one would recognize it as that. Even more
| interesting, when e.g. a dancer makes it look like s/he's
| "moving backwards." We as humanity couldn't really concieve
| of that until we saw e.g. film actually run backwards.
|
| Recently I was watching some beatbox battles, similar deal. I
| kind of like them less these days because I prefer when they
| imitate/get inspiration from acoustic or other "older"
| instruments, but now the majority of them are imitating, e.g.
| bass synths and EDM type stuff.
| dahart wrote:
| > She is often unsure if she or the computer is the artist.
|
| Did she really say that? As a moonlighting digital artist, I
| feel like this is the same thing as a painter saying they're
| not sure if the paintbrush is the artist. Maybe if I wanted a
| full time art career I should have leaned into it and fostered
| the dramatic narrative of the computer having intent. God knows
| there are a bunch of artists who actually know better say lots
| of stupid untrue stuff that anthropomorphizes computers, and
| they enjoy a lot of attention for it. I think this hyperbolic
| ghost in the machine crap is very short sighted and has
| influenced public opinion much for the worse.
|
| Artists are undermining their own efforts and talents and
| spreading misinformation about what computers actually do when
| they tell the story this way. More importantly, they are
| undermining the efforts and talents of all artists,
| specifically of digital artists who don't want to take part in
| the computer-as-artist narrative. I've stood next to my art at
| a gallery show and had people walk by and say out loud
| something like "ugh why is this here? this crap is just made by
| a computer". I don't expect people to understand how I use the
| computer, but the bias and lack of curiosity is pretty sad, and
| my computer was neither artist nor collaborator. It was a tool
| that I used to achieve a vision I had, the same way I use a
| paintbrush to make pictures.
|
| We could talk about who made the tools, whether it's a
| paintbrush, a camera, or computer hardware and software.
| There's a Grand Canyon of space for credit that various other
| people might deserve, in between the artist and the art made
| using a computer. Jumping to the conclusion that the computer
| did anything on it's own and deserves attribution is to be
| unintentionally (or sometimes intentionally) ignorant about
| what a computer is and what it does.
| detourdog wrote:
| I have no idea what your point is. Why else would I quote
| her?
|
| It may have been in the 90's if that makes it more credible
| for you.
| 4ndrewl wrote:
| > As a moonlighting digital artist, I feel like this is the
| same thing as a painter saying they're not sure if the
| paintbrush is the artist.
|
| This is non-sensical. You hold the paintbrush and move it
| across the medium with your own hand. It is entirely within
| the artists control. With a computer, you tell it what to do
| and within it's own constraints, be that p5.js or an llm
| whatever algorithm will produce some result.
| btouellette wrote:
| No it really isn't. Is Jackson Pollock entirely directing
| each drop of paint or is there some inherent randomness
| that is being guided and directed at a higher level?
| There's a clear analogy to digital art where there exists
| along a continuum things like traditional digital art tools
| -> algorithmic generative art -> LLM generated art at
| varying levels of direct control.
| 4ndrewl wrote:
| Sim to the other reply, Pollock flicks the paint, he
| doesn't instruct something to generate flicked paint...
| recursive wrote:
| When Bob Ross scrapes his knife across a canvas to create a
| jagged rock field, he doesn't have a detailed plan for
| exactly which rocks will appear and where. But he knows
| that that it will create a a rough patchy area alternating
| between two colors that will look like shadows in the
| context where he's doing it.
|
| When you use the pencil tool across the screen in
| photoshop, it works just as a pencil on paper.
|
| The difference is not so clear as you imply.
| 4ndrewl wrote:
| The difference surely is that Bob scrapes the knife, not
| Bob instructs the knife to scrape paint?
| recursive wrote:
| I'm not sure there's a clear difference.
|
| When using a wacom tablet, using the pencil tool in
| photoshop is very similar to using a pencil. You're
| "instructing" the pencil tool to move by moving the
| pencil controller with respect to the tablet.
|
| I know AI slop art when I see it, and I have no interest
| it making or "consuming" it. But I don't think I could
| construct a robust definition that would stand up to
| adversarial scrutiny.
| HenryBemis wrote:
| > I find it easy to admit that computer art did not contribute to
| the advancement of art.
|
| (We = humans) We made the tweets. We made the paintings. We wrote
| stupid things on Reddit (or the smarter things). We photographed
| nature. We built LLMs. In a way, what LLMs are doing is
| derivative/product of 'our' (and nature's) work. It's like adding
| 4 ingredients to the blender, blend it for only a few seconds,
| and you get variation. If you put 4 similar ingredients and you
| blend again for the exactly same amount of seconds you will get
| something similar but not the same.
|
| LLM is a blender :)
| brookst wrote:
| LLMs are probably better compared to a fully equipped chef's
| kitchen: a suite of powerful tools that can be used to make
| sublime fare, or just to burn a nice steak to a crisp.
| mcv wrote:
| > There is no need for the production of more works of art
|
| Really? Was art finished in 1971?
|
| These sort of very dated articles by people misunderstanding
| history can be funny, but this particular claim stands out as
| unusually weird.
| dcminter wrote:
| Oh, you think _that 's_ a weird view...?
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_L...
|
| Not that I think anyone much bought the thesis at the time
| either.
| mcv wrote:
| Yeah, I didn't either. I also recall reading somewhere that
| at the end on the 19th or start of the 20th century, a lot of
| scientists thought that physics was nearly "done".
|
| It seems to be a recurring idea that the current state must
| surely be the final culmination of something. Like us being
| the end product of evolution.
| skrebbel wrote:
| > There is no need for the production of more works of art,
| particularly no need for "computer art"
|
| I mean, if you're against new art in the first place then the
| rest kinda follows from that right? This article is like titling
| an essay "Against Chelsea" and then halfway subtly dropping that,
| well, actually, you hate football in general and people should
| stop playing it.
| coldcode wrote:
| People have said similar things about artists throughout history.
| Oil Paint? Non-religious/mythical subjects? Impressionism?
| Fauvism? Cubism? Modern Art? Etc.
|
| Throughout art history people have often not valued the new, but
| only the existing. Beaux-Arts de Paris in the late 1800's was the
| premiere art school in Europe training traditional artists; yet
| many eventually turned to impressionism, etc. and abandoned the
| old styles. I do "computer art" today and go in directions that
| are new. If all you do is what came before, everything including
| art will stagnate. Evolve or die is not just for biology.
| mc32 wrote:
| Depends. Ancient Egyptian art didn't evolve that much and it
| remained for millennia as current without the feeling that it
| 'stagnated'. There is nothing that says things need to
| eternally evolve. There is some advantage in some systems in
| evolution, but not all systems and not for every species and
| not even for man.
| whism wrote:
| I'm not sure your assertion regarding ancient Egyptians'
| feelings on art trends of their time can be tested :P
|
| People create with what is at hand -- this includes ideas,
| not just physical media. In my opinion, suggesting there is
| society-wide progress (or lack of it) in art is silly, like
| suggesting the same for fashion or cooking. Exploration,
| technical evolution, yes. And progress in ideas, in society?
| Of course!
| detourdog wrote:
| You are correct good art never goes out of style.
|
| The question about Egyptian art is more difficult than it
| seems. Almost all the artifacts are the ones that could
| survive 1,000s of years and is quite sophisticated. What we
| don't get a good sample of is woodworking which is much
| easier to manipulate. The difficulty of stone work has a
| built-in limiting factor.
|
| The Egyptians also had Ptah the god of creation.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptah
| 4gotunameagain wrote:
| The argument that new things have always been criticised
| therefore this new thing is truly good and revolutionary is
| completely flawed.
|
| Examples of new things that were criticised and rightfully not
| adopted include the "metaverse" or even chemical warfare.
| dataviz1000 wrote:
| Throughout art history the good stuff always floats to the top
| as it will always.
|
| > This leads to Eliot's so-called "Impersonal Theory" of
| poetry. Since the poet engages in a "continual surrender of
| himself" to the vast order of tradition, artistic creation is a
| process of depersonalisation. The mature poet is viewed as a
| medium, through which tradition is channelled and elaborated.
| He compares the poet to a catalyst in a chemical reaction, in
| which the reactants are feelings and emotions that are
| synthesised to create an artistic image that captures and
| relays these same feelings and emotions. While the mind of the
| poet is necessary for the production, it emerges unaffected by
| the process. The artist stores feelings and emotions and
| properly unites them into a specific combination, which is the
| artistic product. What lends greatness to a work of art are not
| the feelings and emotions themselves, but the nature of the
| artistic process by which they are synthesised. The artist is
| responsible for creating "the pressure, so to speak, under
| which the fusion takes place." And, it is the intensity of
| fusion that renders art great. In this view, Eliot rejects the
| theory that art expresses metaphysical unity in the soul of the
| poet. The poet is a depersonalised vessel, a mere medium.
|
| > Great works do not express the personal emotion of the poet.
| The poet does not reveal their own unique and novel emotions,
| but rather, by drawing on ordinary ones and channelling them
| through the intensity of poetry, they express feelings that
| surpass, altogether, experienced emotion. This is what Eliot
| intends when he discusses poetry as an "escape from emotion."
| Since successful poetry is impersonal and, therefore, exists
| independent of its poet, it outlives the poet and can
| incorporate into the timeless "ideal order" of the "living"
| literary tradition. [0]
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition_and_the_Individual_T...
| Hoasi wrote:
| > Throughout art history the good stuff always floats to the
| top as it will always.
|
| No really. For example, you have political art, conceptual
| art, and topical performances that, while interesting, soon
| become irrelevant and likely won't float on top for very
| long. Likewise, many past excellent artists disappeared from
| the museum chart, so to say, and periodically resurfaced.
| fjfaase wrote:
| There are but a few classical traint artist that started to use
| computer programs to produce art. One of them is the Dutch artist
| Peter Struycken. See pstruycken.nl for his art works. In his last
| works, that focus on colour, he used software to find
| arrangements of squares with no recognizable patterns as not to
| distract the viewer from the subject of his works, the
| interaction of carefully selected coloursm
| gjm11 wrote:
| My impression is that the author's underlying position, which
| _happens among other things_ to lead him to the conclusion that
| "there should be no computer art", is that art should be
| subordinate to politics.
|
| "There is no need for the production of more works of art [...]
| Aesthetic information as such is interesting only for the rich
| and the ruling. [...] Thus, the interest in computers and art
| should be the investigation of aesthetic information as part of
| the investigation of communication. This investigation should be
| directed by the needs of the people. [...] We should be
| interested in producing a film on, say, the distribution of
| wealth. Such a film is interesting because of its content; the
| interest in the content is enhanced by an aesthetically
| satisfying presentation."
|
| That is: to the author, the purpose of art is simply to enhance
| the presentation of something whose primary purpose is political.
|
| It may be that the author's position isn't specifically about
| politics as such: he might say, rather, that art should be
| subordinate to _morals_ , that making art is only valuable in so
| far as it furthers some other goal that has value in itself,
| which might or might not be political. But the specific examples
| in this article are political.
|
| The author does evidently have some other more specific reasons
| for being skeptical about "computer art". He says that "the
| repertoire of results of aesthetic behaviour has not been changed
| by the use of computers" (which might be true, or might be false
| now but have been true in 1971, but he offers no evidence or
| arguments for it). He says that "outsiders from technology" are
| invading the art world without understanding its political
| situation and "surrendering to the given 'laws of the market'"
| rather than rebelling against commercialism as real artists
| should. He says that technology in general, and computers in
| particular, worsen "the alienation of the artist from his
| product". Two of these reasons are _also_ political but do engage
| with the specifics of "computer art" as such. But I think his
| main reason is the overarching super-general political one: there
| should be no computer art, because there should be no art as
| such, because there should only be anti-capitalist political
| activism which will sometimes use art as a tool.
|
| So far as I can tell, the guts of this argument -- art, in
| practice, is driven by the rich and powerful, artists should
| reject this and focus on serving the greater need to overthrow
| the system with those rich and powerful people at the top and
| replace it with something fairer, therefore such-and-such an idea
| in art-as-such is a distraction -- could be transplanted without
| loss to any moment in the history of art and any particular
| artistic idea or technique or movement.
|
| Maybe that or something like it is right, but my bet is that in
| practice the human race is enriched by having some people in it
| who create art because they love creating art, for whom other
| concerns are secondary.
|
| (Having said all of which, so far as I can tell the author is
| basically correct about "computer art" not having contributed
| much aesthetically, and if he'd written more about that it could
| have been very interesting. And he might be correct about
| technology increasing the separation between artists and what
| they produce, and about that being a bad thing, and if he'd
| written more about _that_ it could also have been interesting.)
| narag wrote:
| _It may be that the author 's position isn't specifically about
| politics as such: he might say, rather, that art should be
| subordinate to morals..._
|
| That has been the default option for large historic periods,
| when organized religions were the main source of funds. I don't
| believe the author would appreciate being in that company.
|
| This other guy was the author of the text book when I had to
| study that subject:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillo_Dorfles
| zackmorris wrote:
| That paragraph caught my eye too, although my take was that art
| should say something beyond its style or composition, otherwise
| it's little more than a pretty picture.
|
| Artists tend to go through stages where maybe they start out
| interested in it, or find that they have a unique talent, or
| like the community. Often they get stuck at the "look what I
| can do" stage, or sell out.
|
| I think of the late Thomas Kinkade in that way, because even
| though his art is captivating, it doesn't seem to challenge the
| viewer. It just takes us to his vision at that time. Which
| feels like the minimum we can ask of art. Then merchandizing
| took over, and although he ended up successful while enjoying
| the life he had built, I wonder if some part of him dreamed of
| starting over free from all that so that he could truly express
| himself. Scandal and managing a vast network of franchises
| seemed to overshadow the real work of pushing boundaries, as if
| he abandoned art for some other purpose that I don't fathom.
|
| Whereas at the opposite end of the spectrum, I think of Van
| Gogh as the epitome of the starving artist, where talent is
| irrelevant because no matter how well one performs, tomorrow
| never comes. There's only humble gratitude for now in the
| struggle. His paintings of broken figures making due in the
| squalor haunt me, reminiscent of everyone I know having to work
| hard every day to survive at a time when we're all growing
| poorer to feed the insatiable hunger of the ultra rich who feed
| on the last profits of commodification. Just like it's always
| been.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedroom_in_Arles
|
| I keep that image as my desktop background to remind me that
| everything I've ever done is little more than memory and that
| the history of my life basically fits in a box. I'll die in
| obscurity after accomplishing little of any importance,
| witnessing all of my most heartfelt dreams manifest through the
| actions of others. Because I spent my life working instead of
| self-actualizing. Although in the end, maybe they're the same
| thing.
|
| It doesn't matter to me if art is made in a computer if it says
| something. But in the vast majority of it, I see mostly
| derivative work, little more than Flash animation plastered
| over corporate graphic design. Even video games look
| exceptional but are just a veneer over mediocre gameplay. For
| the longest time I couldn't look at them as they approached the
| uncanny valley of pseudorealism, with their million dollar
| budgets draining funds away from the countless better games
| that might have been made.
|
| Now AI is finally negating talent absolutely. The most human
| contribution will be to write "handmade" somewhere on something
| that wasn't made by a computer. It's astonishing to think that
| no matter how powerful AI becomes, it still won't have solved
| the most basic forms of human suffering on any timescale. Tech
| will just continue crushing down on all of us with its
| misaligned incentives. Until art is thought of as a Banksy
| mural scribbled on the side of a tenement beneath a skyscraper,
| narrating our spiritual and moral decline.
|
| At least with talent out of the picture, we may see a renewal
| of the humanities for the sake of love. Perhaps the decline of
| meritocracy before it devolves into fascism. If we're lucky, a
| mocking of ego for its hoarding of wealth. When I think of the
| most inspiring art, I think of all of us, each divine, finding
| hope in tragedy, poignantly lighting the way out of the
| darkness of history that's been cast over our eyes by the
| insufferable winners.
| tempaway43563 wrote:
| The same author was on twitter until recently giving his take on
| AI
|
| https://x.com/CarlCanary/status/1479567776272498693
|
| _There are people around who successfully predict new modes of
| creativity when humans and AI will be working together.
| Seriously: "working together". Not: "humans using software". One
| such software is called "Botto". An artist is its inventor._
|
| https://x.com/CarlCanary/status/1480107734087479296
|
| _I read, there are machines that take an input text to generate
| images from it. That's meant to be surprising. Haven't programs
| always been texts? You mean, natural language texts are
| different? So what? Isn't there Natural Language Programming?_
|
| I've got to say though, I dont think his takes were very good
| keiferski wrote:
| Commenting about recent events, because that's why probably why
| the link was posted:
|
| I think AI art is actually going to make gallery-based individual
| contemporary art objects _more_ valuable, because they are unique
| things that cannot be replicated. There are only so many
| paintings by Picasso, or Kiefer, or Hockney, and even if you
| could copy them down to the atom, the chain of provenance would
| still basically make the copies worthless and the originals
| invaluable. This extends even to smaller contemporary artists
| that aren 't world-famous names. And it also means that digital /
| computer art is probably never going to sell for much money, at
| least directly as an art object.
|
| At the end of the day, it's essentially simple supply and demand.
| AI is commoditizing digital images, but it can't commoditize
| physical ones (yet, or ever.)
| _m_p wrote:
| https://christojeanneclaude.net/artworks/surrounded-islands/
| killerstorm wrote:
| It seems it was originally written to be provocative and might
| not reflect author's views, as author have himself produced a lot
| of computer art:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frieder_Nake#Art_career
|
| I think something missing in the article is role of art as a way
| to communicate meaning. Perhaps it's deliberate, i.e. author
| wanted to provoke people into talking about that aspect.
|
| Obviously, art is part of the broader culture and it is one of
| the ways people update the collective unconscious. With computers
| entering human life, and thus culture, people need to make sense
| of computers. And "computer art" is a part of it, and it's part
| of the discussion about originality and individuality, so it
| definitely should be (if anything should be at all).
| falcor84 wrote:
| > In the light of the problems we are facing at the end of the
| 20th century, those are irrelevant questions.
|
| I'm just surprised that someone writing in 1971 thought that
| they're sufficiently close to the end of the century to comment
| on it.
| Aardwolf wrote:
| So in 50 years our current articles worrying about AI and artists
| will look as dated and silly?
| makapuf wrote:
| I hope that our current articles will look dated and silly. The
| issue is that we don't know which part will, and which part
| will, as this article is, reflect still-current in another
| context thoughts which will engage us to think of a deeper
| question underneath.
| calebm wrote:
| I am an artist who uses a computer to make art
| (https://gods.art). The reason I starting doing art with code was
| due to the difficulty of drawing wave interference pattens and
| phyllotaxis spirals by hand. Why should I spend hours doing it by
| hand when I can write an algorithm to perfectly draw the
| mathematical patterns I have in mind? It feels more elegant to me
| to understand the math, and express it in code, rather than just
| copying it manually (which can be done without understanding the
| mathematical dynamics).
|
| That said, doing a simple prompt into an LLM and calling it "my
| art" seems disingenuous.
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| yeah, i think what you're getting at is something i think about
| a lot re: art, which is the delineation and interplay between
| "art" and "craft".
|
| i value and appreciate craft on its own merit. something
| intentionally well-done by someone who is informed by practice
| is valuable in at least some capacity. but not all craft is art
| (obviously, harder to define), or at least, i don't hold all
| craft-as-art as equal or as personally valuable.
|
| to me the biggest thing that separates art from craft is the
| intention behind creating or materializing an idea through
| craft vs simply creating or materializing an object (digital or
| physical). i can really appreciate your "artist's statement"
| behind the mastery of craft (mathematics in this case) as a
| means to an end to convey a greater concept, if that's what
| you're getting at.
|
| this is entirely personal, but it's why i value certain forms
| of craft-centric art less than art that places a higher value
| on concept. i guess it's a value difference between media and
| message. it's why i kinda can't stand listening to prog rock
| like Rush or Dream Theater (technically very impressive! and
| valuable craft as someone who strives to become better at
| "Music"), but instead tend to prefer things that don't place
| the craft so prominently compared to other aspects.
|
| again - that's not me knocking Rush or Dream Theater anything
| like that. extremely talented people doing extremely impressive
| things. but on my personal barometer (personal! not forced on
| anyone else), i guess i just tend to find it harder to enjoy
| than some other types of music.
| jplusequalt wrote:
| First things first--art is innately human. If a human didn't
| create it, it's not art. That means nature is not "art" (though
| that doesn't mean you can't notice the beauty in nature).
|
| The artistic process is complicated, and which role a person
| plays in relation to the creation of a piece of artwork varies.
| Some people are the actual workers who go about creating the
| thing. Some are collaborators who help out the worker with small
| pieces of the artwork. Others are simple curators who bring
| people together.
|
| Then you have those who commission an art piece, and it's what
| their role in this process is that I find myself conflicted on--
| are they deserving the title of artist because they funded it's
| creation, or had the initial idea for the piece? If your answer
| is yes--that they are considered an artist for commissioning a
| piece, then I think you can argue that a person who uses an AI
| model to generate art is actually creating art.
|
| But if your answer is no--that simply having an idea and the
| means to bring it about (through money, or an AI model that was
| trained off the works of millions of artists without their
| consent), then I think you have a basis to argue that simply
| prompting these models to generate art, is not enough to
| constitute art. The piece wasn't generated by a human, and the
| prompt given to the model wasn't from someone who actually
| contributes to the creation of the art piece, therefor the result
| is not art.
|
| Now what if someone first prompts a model to generate an image,
| and then spends a lot of time tweaking said image in Photoshop--
| are they still only a commissioner at that point? Well I suppose
| they aren't. But what about repeatedly prompting an AI until it
| gives you a close enough replica of what you imagined? Is this
| process practically the same touching up the piece yourself? I'd
| argue no, and I'd say this is simply the role of a commissioner
| telling the worker they're off the mark, and that the worker
| needs to start over.
|
| Anyways that is a lot of text, but I think my point is this--
| analyzing the role a person plays while prompting an LLM can help
| inform if the output of the model is actually art.
| cmrx64 wrote:
| > That is, the role of the computer in the production and
| presentation of semantic information which is accompanied by
| enough aesthetic information is meaningful; the role of the
| computer in the production of aesthetic information per se and
| for the making of profit is dangerous and senseless.
|
| I think this was prescient and still worthy of contemplation.
| antithesizer wrote:
| ah yes "aesthetic information"
|
| definitely a real concern in art
| antithesizer wrote:
| There should be no art at all. And indeed there is no art. So
| everything is fine.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-03 23:00 UTC)