Hacker News Reader

Comment by 23B1 | Hacker News Reader

I remember early days building some of this stuff with Flash. Good times. Back then, you had to do quite a bit of work to make it yours, and it felt fresh and risky.

Now, digitally-generated images (including photography) is totally ubiquitous.

Generative art is awesome! But it isn't Art art.

My thinking has come around to the idea that Art art is an exclusively human-to-human transaction, and must be imbued with the soul of its creator; the intangibles of style and taste, the ineffable of lived experiences, the errors and happy accidents and imperfections.

Both are art. But Art art can never be replaced by machines, and that's a good thing.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-revenge-liberal-arts-gold...

View on HN

But the creator does have influence on the art, they created it, they are just combining it with an extra hit of randomness. I've done some of this stuff in the past, and errors, happy accidents and imperfections absolutely come into it. They're not just sending computer input directly to output, they are having their own influence and control over it

Respectfully, that reply shows you have not read the article, not seen any of Amy Goodchild's artwork, and not understood what the topic is.

I respectfully disagree. At the end of the day, generative art is the same thing as googling an image to search for the end user, in as your aren't creating anything, but rather, you are asking for something to be produced for you based on typed or entered criteria. You are a patron waiting for the engine to produce something for you.

If you want to say there is an art to prompting, that's fine.

The doubling down is epic

Again, read the article, this ain't about AI

Nowadays, it's easy for people to see the term "generative art" and immediately assume "AI art".

It's kinda annoying, so I wrote this post https://leanrada.com/notes/ai-art-not-generative-art/

It's the same thing: you're entering input into a system and expecting output. I just summed up your post.

On one hand, this is reductive.

But on the other, I often argue that there's literally no hard difference between using a computer and programming one; using this exact idea.

It's the same thing: you're entering input into a system and expecting output.

I respectfully disagree. let's think from a first principle point of view, what is the definition of art in the first place? But whatever the answer is, art is just a way of structuring/representing a mix of multiple arts into one single art, and it's not limited to painting arts. historically people have been taking inspiration from nature, other people, the environment, and more. That's what an AI does as well, but with much more creativity than a human.

Yet another person who didn't even click on the article. This has nothing to do with the current generation of AI-created art.

I did. It's trying to play off randomness as art, hence the generative part, and trying to subtly relate that to AI through use of abstract artists like Pollock.

It's also not new. If you've taken any modern art history class before, this is article/website is the same content. Every generation of art/artist tries to justify their existence to the last.

This isn't about prompting, but using a computer and code as a tool to make art. It's the "OG" generative art being discussed here.

To add a bit more precision to my previous reply: You're interpreting "generative" in the way that AI companies have tried to hog the term, which happened only in the last 2-3 years. It's the hyped definition, not the historically rich definition.

Generative art as a general concept has a long, long history, that we can date back at least to performance events like Musikalisches Würfelspiel in the 1700s.

There's no such thing as Art art, it's just an useless elitism.

Following your logic, even photography, cinema, sculpture that is aided by machines and not just scalpels, etc. is not Art art.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com