The performative quality of computer-generated art
hyperallergic.com
hyperallergic.com
[0]https://www.shadertoy.com/view/WsSBzh [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8--5LwHRhjk
Seems to include both the process of computation and the output into one package some might call art. Here's a neat example.
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.
Just as a clarifying question: When you say that you refuse to call it "art" are you talking about the specific 3 pieces used to illustrate the article or the whole concept of an artist using a computer as a tool to create art?
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."
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.
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.
The trick isn't to be brilliant and pop out a masterpiece. The actual trick is to be able to generate enough variations that you can sort through them, cull the promising from the unpromising, rearrange them in various ways, stitch together the seams, and then sit back and lean on your personal aesthetic to decide whether what you've cobbled together makes you want to share it with others, keep chipping away at it, or abandon it altogether and start over (or not).
> 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.
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.
What is the intent behind abstract art? What is the intent behind the tilings found in Islamic art, or in the spirals on Myan pyramids, or any of the countless splattering of paint on canvas with no discernible figures in them?
What does it mean to have intent? Does it relate to having an objective function? Lots of algorithms have those.
What if I started up some instances of a program in the cloud and gave them the same objective function as us: make enough money to pay their own rent. If the program took some art jobs on fivver, would it not be making art with the intent of paying the bills? When we say a human makes art with intent, and you follow the chain of reasons for why they made what they made and did what they did, do you not eventually reach the evolutionary prime directive of furthering their genetics? What do we have that this hypothetical "self employed algorithm" doesn't?
Classical music is highly limited? Is this a joke?
Yeah? It is music for one, not sculpture, not painted glass, not artistic arrangement of galaxies or grass skirts weaved by self replicating robots. And then the category is further limited by the fact that not all music is classical music. Rythmic thumping of girrafe legs can be music, but is not classical music. Rap is music but not classical music, and so on. Obviously it is limited.
> Is this a joke?
Perhaps you feel that way because while classical music is a sliver of a sliver of a sliver of all possible art forms it also contains a wast space of possible expressions. Something can be limited while also amazingly rich in itself, there is nothing wrong with that.
Depends on which one. Vivaldi's "The four seasons" intends to capture the "spirit" of each season. Beethoven's "Eroica" was (at first) intended as a tribute to Napoleon.
> What is the intent behind abstract art?
Depends on the piece. Some are intended to evoke feelings. Others are comments on art itself - Kelly's "Blue panel" is supposedly there to challenge our ideas of what art is, while Jackson Pollock's art is intended as a rebellion against the art ideas of his time.
> What is the intent behind the tilings found in Islamic art
If my copy of "Habibi" is to be believed, to praise God while looking pretty. More generally, "looking pretty" is a common intent in art.
> What does it mean to have intent? Does it relate to having an objective function? (...) What do we have that this hypothetical "self employed algorithm" doesn't?"
It is superficially about objective functions, but I would argue that the issue is intrinsically related to what free will is. Does your fivver algorithm have the choice not to make art? Can it say "screw this, I'll become a lawyer"?
> When we say a human makes art with intent, (...) do you not eventually reach the evolutionary prime directive of furthering their genetics?
Artists without children would disagree.