4 ms·

I like Manolo Naon's art, and I am quite fond of creative coding, but something that strikes me when seeing this article comparing his works to Kandinsky, Ernst

I like Manolo Naon's art, and I am quite fond of creative coding, but something that strikes me when seeing this article comparing his works to Kandinsky, Ernst et. al is that his works are always harmonious, a single idea in action, whereas all these classic artists have conflicts and discord in their works. They deliberately avoided doing things that were simply decorative or pleasant. (Probably they were avoiding accusations of just making couch and wallpaper patterns) There is more to experience then just one decorative process at work. You can feel the artist's presence and discord in the images. Look at the Max Ernst works and ask yourself why he left it imperfect, fading away like dreams or unconscious processes. Look at the Kandinskys. There is far more information (different design processes juxtaposed), and even after looking at it for a while you still have to wonder how it is balanced and yet there's barely any repetition. Manolo is always explicit and readable. There is a lack of mystery. Once you've examined the image then you like it, but nothing stirs in the depths. But he's young, I like the direction, and he will definitely keep developing.

tinco 8y ago
I think you can seperate these two aspects of Kandinsky or Ernst's works. On one side the skill and aesthetics of the artwork, and on the other side the reflection of their times and circumstances. We've established that Naon, Kandinsky and Ernst make beautiful artworks. So it makes sense to compare them on their aesthetics if they have similarities. When it comes to the 'depth' you are speaking of, the modernists are pushing back against their environments and their history, struggling and competing with their contemporaries. This makes the art 'live' and gives it uniqueness. Never again can someone have the exact same circumstances and history of Kandinsky, those times are simply over. Naon has his own history and his own circumstances. Maybe now they may seem shallow, but time will tell if his time and experience was unique, and his artwork a reflection of it. As you say he is young, maybe there is still more inside of him to grow and come out. But I have to say I have not seen generative art that good before. If nothing else, it might be the best we've got to challenge the next generation of generative AI art with.
- tern 8y ago
  We can already suggest a simple interpretation: generative art is more of a craft tradition akin to illustration and what is traditionally called the "decorative" or "applied" arts. One unpopular litmus test for whether a practice might be appropriately categorized as "fine art" or "contemporary art" is to look at the economic relationships and institutions involved. "Art" with a capital A tends to be supported exclusively by wealthy patrons, with some help from governments, foundations, and non-profits. Artists sell their work through galleries, or directly to their patrons, and as they age they either succeed or fail to enter a "mid-career artist" phase, where their work becomes canonized through reviews in particular publications, inclusion in group shows, and solo shows at "important" institutions. Anything outside of this very specific system is difficult to call "Art" with a capital A. It's worth noting that this mode of production is overwhelmingly minor in comparison with modes of production post-Internet. Memes, 4chan, YouTube, DeviantArt, art produced in conjunction with the advertising industry, etc. completely eclipse "Art" today, and it's difficult to speak authoritatively of any kind of canon of "art" in general. However, it's clear that when we compare the "art" of today to the "Art" of the past that we see in the great museums of the past, we are comparing fundamentally different things.
wool_gather 8y ago
I've experienced what you're talking about as maybe the fundamental challenge in making computer-based art. Computers love to follow rules. Come up with some interesting rules, and they will spit out interesting pictures/music. It's much much harder to figure out how to tell the computer "okay, but break the rule just a little bit, at the appropriate time". Codifying breaking the rules as its own rule is...well, so far it's mostly eluded me.
- TuringTest 8y ago
  Maybe there's an opportunity to combine computers and hand-made choices. Art using a mixture of several generative tools and manual tweaks by the artist on the final result could achieve that goal of "breaking the rules just a little bit", especially if the generative tools are parametrical and easy to customize, maybe with direct manipulation on the generated canvas.
  - egfx 8y ago
    If you're interested in this. Combining generated art with manual tweaks. Look into http://gif.com.ai http://gif.com.ai You're in for a pleasant surprise.
  - Jupe 8y ago
    Like this? https://www.flickr.com/photos/abstractusinterruptus/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/abstractusinterruptus/
- crucialfelix 8y ago
  Definitely check this artist out: https://twitter.com/quasimondo/status/1035626920090718209 https://twitter.com/quasimondo/status/1035626920090718209 "If I let the machine decide which images to keep, I must admit that I am probably not ready yet for its sense of aesthetics and originality and my heart bleeds seeing which ones it discarded."
- samfriedman 8y ago
  I feel like that's an interesting balance in generative art: I want to make something that is aesthetically pleasing or at least interesting to look at, but I also want to be surprised. If the process is really heavily stochastic, then you'll have to do a lot of manual curation to produce the final work. If it's heavily rules-based, then you might not find anything novel after the first few images.
dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
My thoughts exactly. These "imperfections" are marks of individuality. My prediction is that the next step would be introducing these algorithmically in a way that we find acceptable. For now, Manolo's art seems nice, but very far from the works of famous futurists, surrealists of Bauhaus painters.
ArtWomb 8y ago
"If works of art were judged democratically--that is, according to how many people like them--kitsch would easily defeat all its competitors" -Thomas Kulka http://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/kitsch.htm http://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/kitsch.htm

tinco 8y ago

I think you can seperate these two aspects of Kandinsky or Ernst's works. On one side the skill and aesthetics of the artwork, and on the other side the reflection of their times and circumstances. We've established that Naon, Kandinsky and Ernst make beautiful artworks. So it makes sense to compare them on their aesthetics if they have similarities. When it comes to the 'depth' you are speaking of, the modernists are pushing back against their environments and their history, struggling and competing with their contemporaries. This makes the art 'live' and gives it uniqueness. Never again can someone have the exact same circumstances and history of Kandinsky, those times are simply over. Naon has his own history and his own circumstances. Maybe now they may seem shallow, but time will tell if his time and experience was unique, and his artwork a reflection of it. As you say he is young, maybe there is still more inside of him to grow and come out. But I have to say I have not seen generative art that good before. If nothing else, it might be the best we've got to challenge the next generation of generative AI art with.

tern 8y ago
We can already suggest a simple interpretation: generative art is more of a craft tradition akin to illustration and what is traditionally called the "decorative" or "applied" arts. One unpopular litmus test for whether a practice might be appropriately categorized as "fine art" or "contemporary art" is to look at the economic relationships and institutions involved. "Art" with a capital A tends to be supported exclusively by wealthy patrons, with some help from governments, foundations, and non-profits. Artists sell their work through galleries, or directly to their patrons, and as they age they either succeed or fail to enter a "mid-career artist" phase, where their work becomes canonized through reviews in particular publications, inclusion in group shows, and solo shows at "important" institutions. Anything outside of this very specific system is difficult to call "Art" with a capital A. It's worth noting that this mode of production is overwhelmingly minor in comparison with modes of production post-Internet. Memes, 4chan, YouTube, DeviantArt, art produced in conjunction with the advertising industry, etc. completely eclipse "Art" today, and it's difficult to speak authoritatively of any kind of canon of "art" in general. However, it's clear that when we compare the "art" of today to the "Art" of the past that we see in the great museums of the past, we are comparing fundamentally different things.

wool_gather 8y ago

I've experienced what you're talking about as maybe the fundamental challenge in making computer-based art. Computers love to follow rules. Come up with some interesting rules, and they will spit out interesting pictures/music. It's much much harder to figure out how to tell the computer "okay, but break the rule just a little bit, at the appropriate time". Codifying breaking the rules as its own rule is...well, so far it's mostly eluded me.

TuringTest 8y ago
Maybe there's an opportunity to combine computers and hand-made choices. Art using a mixture of several generative tools and manual tweaks by the artist on the final result could achieve that goal of "breaking the rules just a little bit", especially if the generative tools are parametrical and easy to customize, maybe with direct manipulation on the generated canvas.
- egfx 8y ago
  If you're interested in this. Combining generated art with manual tweaks. Look into http://gif.com.ai http://gif.com.ai You're in for a pleasant surprise.
- Jupe 8y ago
  Like this? https://www.flickr.com/photos/abstractusinterruptus/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/abstractusinterruptus/
crucialfelix 8y ago
Definitely check this artist out: https://twitter.com/quasimondo/status/1035626920090718209 https://twitter.com/quasimondo/status/1035626920090718209 "If I let the machine decide which images to keep, I must admit that I am probably not ready yet for its sense of aesthetics and originality and my heart bleeds seeing which ones it discarded."
samfriedman 8y ago
I feel like that's an interesting balance in generative art: I want to make something that is aesthetically pleasing or at least interesting to look at, but I also want to be surprised. If the process is really heavily stochastic, then you'll have to do a lot of manual curation to produce the final work. If it's heavily rules-based, then you might not find anything novel after the first few images.

dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago

My thoughts exactly. These "imperfections" are marks of individuality. My prediction is that the next step would be introducing these algorithmically in a way that we find acceptable. For now, Manolo's art seems nice, but very far from the works of famous futurists, surrealists of Bauhaus painters.

ArtWomb 8y ago

"If works of art were judged democratically--that is, according to how many people like them--kitsch would easily defeat all its competitors" -Thomas Kulka http://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/kitsch.htm http://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/kitsch.htm