3 ms·

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 compellin

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.

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.