3 ms·

Sure... to those counter examples, I could add more: Gwen John's muted pallet, Joseph Albers' same-hue combinations, It is a trivial task to find exceptions t

by Daub 5y ago

Sure... to those counter examples, I could add more: Gwen John's muted pallet, Joseph Albers' same-hue combinations, It is a trivial task to find exceptions to any principle in art. However, as a general rule, it is true that artists exaggerate. My own work examined 100 American paintings all painted at approximately the same time, of similar subject matter. These were compared to the same number of snap-shot style photographs of similar subject matter. The results showed us that artists exaggerate the strong color differences of nature, yet bring weak differences closer together. Hence an artwork is (in general) an exaggeration in two dimensions: contrast and affinity. This is done differently in the hue, saturation and lightness channels, with (as you might expect) lightness featuring the strongest. However, there were interesting exception in the hue treatment of particular subject matter. > I suppose if you don't consider anything after the 18th century you might be right. You have a point, if you only consider fine art, and your examples show that you know your businesses in this domain. But I would say it is even more true of such applied arts as game level design, high vfx fantasy movies, Deviant art style fan art and such like.

hparadiz 5y ago
I used to run a DA like website in 2005 and at one point had to categorize all uploadable art. The truth is art is in the eye of the beholder. There is no way to actually say something isn't art if someone sees anything as such.
- beardyw 5y ago
  100% agree. I think "the beholder" is what is often overlooked. Marcel Duchamp submitted a urinal as a piece of art (an act of provocation). > When explaining the purpose of his Readymade sculpture, Duchamp stated they are "everyday objects raised to the dignity of a work of art by the artist's act of choice." The important point is the involvement of a person. Computer generated art can't be art unless someone thinks it is.
  - hparadiz 5y ago
    I actually think that if the intention of the original programmer is to say "anything created from this code is art no matter what it is" then it's basically impossible to say otherwise.
    - cush 5y ago
      I feel like this discussion devolved into "what is art?", while completely missing my original thesis. Of course every image this app produces is art. But that's the point... art is infinitely broad, and the art that this app produces is trivially narrow. So this isn't an argument about art, but instead well-designed surveys. The only possible conclusion one can draw from this app isn't "what are people's art preferences?", but instead "what are people's drawn-in-ten-seconds-in-mspaint preferences?" The app would just as accurately gague people's art preferences if it presented only photos of shoes.
frereubu 5y ago
I also have a degree in experimental psychology and a masters in neuroscience, and to be honest, I think you're just describing the neurobiology of vision. Newborns prefer high-contrast images, but I presume you wouldn't consider them to have an understanding of art. And the "red/green" axis just makes me think of the red/green cones in the retina. It sounds like a very naive view of "art". The comment "if you only consider fine art" also feels like you're moving the goalposts, where you're saying "within these works of visual art people prefer high-contrast images", but the categorisation of those images is that they're a subset of visual art within which people prefer high-contrast images.
- Daub 5y ago
  I am also sure that I am describing the neurobiology of vision, though I would love to know more about it. Such preferences need to come from somewhere. For example, I have always thought that the popularity of the vignette derives from the fact that our visual field is oval not square. As for the fine art issue…. As the previous poster implied, art pretty much changed form around 150 years ago. It went from being pretty much rule-based to pretty much rule-breaking. It would be a waste of time to apply My own research on art to (for example) Tracy Emins tent or Joseph Beuy’s dead hare. I always thought that art would be much easier to talk about if we came up with different names for the stuff that was made since Picasso’s gurnicca and the the stuff made before. They are different things, with different functions and it is only confusing that they are both called art.
cush 5y ago
I feel like this discussion devolved into "what is art?", while completely missing my original thesis. Of course every image this app produces is art. But that's the point... art is infinitely broad, and the art that this app produces is trivially narrow. So this isn't an argument about art, but instead well-designed surveys. The only possible conclusion one can draw from this app isn't "what are people's art preferences?", but instead "what are people's drawn-in-ten-seconds-in-mspaint preferences?" The app would just as accurately gague people's art preferences if it presented only photos of shoes.

by Daub 5y ago

hparadiz 5y ago

I used to run a DA like website in 2005 and at one point had to categorize all uploadable art. The truth is art is in the eye of the beholder. There is no way to actually say something isn't art if someone sees anything as such.

beardyw 5y ago
100% agree. I think "the beholder" is what is often overlooked. Marcel Duchamp submitted a urinal as a piece of art (an act of provocation). > When explaining the purpose of his Readymade sculpture, Duchamp stated they are "everyday objects raised to the dignity of a work of art by the artist's act of choice." The important point is the involvement of a person. Computer generated art can't be art unless someone thinks it is.
- hparadiz 5y ago
  I actually think that if the intention of the original programmer is to say "anything created from this code is art no matter what it is" then it's basically impossible to say otherwise.
  - cush 5y ago
    I feel like this discussion devolved into "what is art?", while completely missing my original thesis. Of course every image this app produces is art. But that's the point... art is infinitely broad, and the art that this app produces is trivially narrow. So this isn't an argument about art, but instead well-designed surveys. The only possible conclusion one can draw from this app isn't "what are people's art preferences?", but instead "what are people's drawn-in-ten-seconds-in-mspaint preferences?" The app would just as accurately gague people's art preferences if it presented only photos of shoes.

frereubu 5y ago

I also have a degree in experimental psychology and a masters in neuroscience, and to be honest, I think you're just describing the neurobiology of vision. Newborns prefer high-contrast images, but I presume you wouldn't consider them to have an understanding of art. And the "red/green" axis just makes me think of the red/green cones in the retina. It sounds like a very naive view of "art". The comment "if you only consider fine art" also feels like you're moving the goalposts, where you're saying "within these works of visual art people prefer high-contrast images", but the categorisation of those images is that they're a subset of visual art within which people prefer high-contrast images.

Daub 5y ago
I am also sure that I am describing the neurobiology of vision, though I would love to know more about it. Such preferences need to come from somewhere. For example, I have always thought that the popularity of the vignette derives from the fact that our visual field is oval not square. As for the fine art issue…. As the previous poster implied, art pretty much changed form around 150 years ago. It went from being pretty much rule-based to pretty much rule-breaking. It would be a waste of time to apply My own research on art to (for example) Tracy Emins tent or Joseph Beuy’s dead hare. I always thought that art would be much easier to talk about if we came up with different names for the stuff that was made since Picasso’s gurnicca and the the stuff made before. They are different things, with different functions and it is only confusing that they are both called art.

cush 5y ago

I feel like this discussion devolved into "what is art?", while completely missing my original thesis. Of course every image this app produces is art. But that's the point... art is infinitely broad, and the art that this app produces is trivially narrow. So this isn't an argument about art, but instead well-designed surveys. The only possible conclusion one can draw from this app isn't "what are people's art preferences?", but instead "what are people's drawn-in-ten-seconds-in-mspaint preferences?" The app would just as accurately gague people's art preferences if it presented only photos of shoes.