3 ms·

> The problem with generative art is There are no problems. It's just another art form. > I’ve met a lot of people who hate all things digital, as well as a l

> The problem with generative art is There are no problems. It's just another art form. > I’ve met a lot of people who hate all things digital, as well as a lot of people who get what I do and love it So just ignore them. There is always an audience who will appreciate your work. > I explored what it might take to make a living from generative art I'm doing that currently as well, but I think it always will be my side project. If it pays the rent, I'll be more than happy :)

dahart 8y ago
> There are no problems. It's just another art form. :) You are right, of course. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The "problems" I list are based on unspoken assumptions about what the goal is. > So just ignore them. There is always an audience who will appreciate your work. Totally agree, and ignoring them is an option. I'm personally interested in hearing out the haters and learning what valuable lessons are there. Partly this comes from finding out that my story just isn't compelling to people who don't know any programming or math, and wanting to learn how to craft a story that is compelling to more people.
- kowdermeister 8y ago
  I feel it's the same with music. You can't really 'tune' a Katy Perry song more to appeal a classic music lover and vice versa. > my story just isn't compelling to people who... Your work should tell a story, and the method of creation is secondary. I totally appreciate if you used equations I can't even grasp, but my mother shouldn't know about that at all and she can still consider it nice. There was a guy who posted here on HN, he used machine learning to create art and his mistake was that he revealed his method, the magic was gone, since it was not obvious how it was made. I'm not a great artist or anything, I just see a pattern that art that grabs people's attention has some kind of message or relevance to the current age.
  - artgen 8y ago
    > Your work should tell a story No, that's nonsense. Tons of art throughout history told no story and was still compelling. Pollock, Balanchine, Schoenberg, etc. did abstract works that tell no story. (In fact, Balanchine specifically made it a point to not have a story.)
    - tripzilch 8y ago
      Pollock's art definitely has a story, it's the story of the creation of his works and he even made videos about that. And this, that story of creation, is the story that all generative art--as far as I've always understood the term--must share. The art in generative art is for a large part the story of its creation, crystallised in the form of an algorithm. Without that, you ultimately get computer-generated art or something. Which is often nice to look at, but has about the emotional impact of a fancy photoshop filter. Compare to this artist, I forget her name (I think it's a she), wrote algorithms/instructions on paper, to be executed by a group of people (I think explicitly without her presence, IIRC). There's no computer involved and it's still generative art. It's entirely about the process. Now of course most generative art is a mixture of the two, which is good because we like pretty things.

dahart 8y ago

> There are no problems. It's just another art form. :) You are right, of course. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The "problems" I list are based on unspoken assumptions about what the goal is. > So just ignore them. There is always an audience who will appreciate your work. Totally agree, and ignoring them is an option. I'm personally interested in hearing out the haters and learning what valuable lessons are there. Partly this comes from finding out that my story just isn't compelling to people who don't know any programming or math, and wanting to learn how to craft a story that is compelling to more people.

kowdermeister 8y ago
I feel it's the same with music. You can't really 'tune' a Katy Perry song more to appeal a classic music lover and vice versa. > my story just isn't compelling to people who... Your work should tell a story, and the method of creation is secondary. I totally appreciate if you used equations I can't even grasp, but my mother shouldn't know about that at all and she can still consider it nice. There was a guy who posted here on HN, he used machine learning to create art and his mistake was that he revealed his method, the magic was gone, since it was not obvious how it was made. I'm not a great artist or anything, I just see a pattern that art that grabs people's attention has some kind of message or relevance to the current age.
- artgen 8y ago
  > Your work should tell a story No, that's nonsense. Tons of art throughout history told no story and was still compelling. Pollock, Balanchine, Schoenberg, etc. did abstract works that tell no story. (In fact, Balanchine specifically made it a point to not have a story.)
  - tripzilch 8y ago
    Pollock's art definitely has a story, it's the story of the creation of his works and he even made videos about that. And this, that story of creation, is the story that all generative art--as far as I've always understood the term--must share. The art in generative art is for a large part the story of its creation, crystallised in the form of an algorithm. Without that, you ultimately get computer-generated art or something. Which is often nice to look at, but has about the emotional impact of a fancy photoshop filter. Compare to this artist, I forget her name (I think it's a she), wrote algorithms/instructions on paper, to be executed by a group of people (I think explicitly without her presence, IIRC). There's no computer involved and it's still generative art. It's entirely about the process. Now of course most generative art is a mixture of the two, which is good because we like pretty things.