4 ms·

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 reflect

by 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.

by tinco 8y ago

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.