5 ms·

There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]

46 points by pmoriarty 4y ago

jakenotjacob 4y ago
The author seems more interested in the emotions provoked from art and attempting to measure them rather than critique art itself or computer generation of it. I think he fails to understand that our emotional experiences differ based on the art, and cannot be easily measured. (Three people separating taking in artwork will come out with different feelings upon viewing it.)
msla 4y ago
In short: "Purely aesthetic objects are only for the rich! Poor people will content themselves with useful works of nonfiction on socially-relevant themes! I HAVE SPOKEN!"
- Daub 4y ago
  That seems a fair summary of the content. This pdf illustrates beautifully how a new medium is misunderstood before it is understood. It happened when oil paint was 'invented', it happened when the camera was invented, it is happening now with the introduction of AI. It takes quite a while for artists to 'grok' a new medium and this process of change cannot be rushed. For a 1977 example of the creative nature of a computer being effectively understood, check out 'Personal Dynamic Media.' (Kay, A. and Goldberg, A., 1977. Computer, 10(3), pp.31-41.). http://augmentingcognition.com/assets/Kay1977.pdf http://augmentingcognition.com/assets/Kay1977.pdf In it they describe a computer as a 'metamedium': an layer that 'impersonates' non-digital media. Things have changed since then, but that understanding still holds true for 90% of how a digital artist uses a computer.
  - grenoire 4y ago
    >It happened when oil paint was 'invented' Where can I read more about this, sounds like juicy historic drama!
    - Daub 4y ago
      Not sure that there is a single source, but the potted history is like this: Most paints are pigment (providing the color), extender (bulking it out) and glue. So... to invent oil paint all you had to do was to add oil to your pigment instead of gum Arabic, wax, wet plaster or whatever else you were using. Hardly rocket science. For this reason, oil paint was invented many times in many places. However, for the most part, it was used in the same way as its antecedents was used. Business as usual. Several things came together to give us the oil painting tradition we know and love. Most importantly, the Dutch and Belgians invented the middle-class. These merchants were rich enough to want to buy paintings, but not rich enough to hire a painter for a few years to do a mural. Mural paintings was paint on wet plaster and in effect it was installation art: designed for a particular room. So... there was a market for small, cheapish, portable paintings. These small paintings were on metal (copper) and wood (usually oak). But canvas eventually won out because the canvas linen, primer and oil paint were all derived from the same plant (flax) which made it super durable. To cater to this market, the art gallery (basically a shop for paintings). Like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallery_of_Archduke_Leopold_Wilhelm_in_Brussels_%28Petworth%29#/media/File:Gallery_of_Archduke_Leopold_Wilhelm_in_Brussels_-_Petworth_House.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallery_of_Archduke_Leopold_Wi... An advantage of oil paint was that it dried slowly, which meant that it could be blended easily. It could also be corrected relatively easily (just paint over and start again) unlike paint of plaster (one reason the last supper is such a mess is that Leonardo corrected it too many times). Blended paint made realism much easier. I would also say that the lighting conditions of Northern Europe also made realism (and illusion) easier. High dynamic range (black to white or chiaroscuro) tends to support realism. And perhaps the protestant faith supported realism. North European paintings had none of the florid excess of their Souther European catholic counterparts, which were more concerned with re-telling classic narratives than in illusion. At the same time there was an increased interest in perspective and optics and also optical devices, especially in that part of the world. Certainly this impacted on how artists made their paintings, though exactly how is a bit of a smudge. Though all these ingredients were hanging around for years, it was Jan van Eyck was one of the first to really take advantage of them. Zoom in on his Arnolfini Wedding and weep: https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/jan-van-eyck-the-arnolfini-portrait https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/jan-van-eyck-th...
  - disqard 4y ago
    That's a seminal paper, and when contrasted with the iPad of today, really drives home the point that most of this metamedium's potential is still not harnessed. The average tablet today (closest to the "dynabook" idea) is packaged in dumbed-down ways to maximize profits -- it's been turned into a finely-tuned machine for consuming entertainment, instead of its promise of a "dynamic medium for creative thought".
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
system2 4y ago
Is the author alive? If so, let's show him stable diffusion.
- Borrible 4y ago
  Show him. Shouldn't be to hard to contact him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frieder_Nake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frieder_Nake
  - DocTomoe 4y ago
    Please note that this guy is considered one of the original "computer artists", and teaches at a art school, which is useful context when trying to understand the article.
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  But is the output of stable diffusion actually art, or is it just a mimicry of artsy information? Does it have compositional value, or an original idea? Couldn't you make an argument that stable-diffusion-imagery is in the most original of senses derivative (while not explicitly trying to be derivative, like e.g. Warhol)? Sure, there will be people pinning prizes on particularly pretty output of stable diffusion results, and some people may even hang it on their walls - but that is not really indicative of artistical achievement (just consider how many "live, laugh, love"-variations are plastered over walls everywhere).
  - senectus1 4y ago
    Art is in the eye of the beholder... Don't go falling into the No True Scotsman fallacy.
    - DocTomoe 4y ago
      No, it really is not. This line of thinking makes it too easy to put things individuals may not like into the "not art" category. No good things come from that.
  - 4y ago
camoufleur 4y ago
Some of the ideas/predictions I thought were relevant: - Technologists will mistake a novel method for novel results - The art world will see it as a fad on which to capitalize - The masses will use it as a new way to communicate, and art will spring forth naturally
- lordfrito 4y ago
  > The masses will use it as a new way to communicate, and art will spring forth naturally This is already happening [1]. I was on the fence but have recently been won over. It's art. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33752684 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33752684
codeulike 4y ago
Frieder is on Twitter, was active until early this year https://twitter.com/carlcanary?lang=en https://twitter.com/carlcanary?lang=en

46 points by pmoriarty 4y ago

The author seems more interested in the emotions provoked from art and attempting to measure them rather than critique art itself or computer generation of it. I think he fails to understand that our emotional experiences differ based on the art, and cannot be easily measured. (Three people separating taking in artwork will come out with different feelings upon viewing it.)

msla 4y ago

In short: "Purely aesthetic objects are only for the rich! Poor people will content themselves with useful works of nonfiction on socially-relevant themes! I HAVE SPOKEN!"

Daub 4y ago
That seems a fair summary of the content. This pdf illustrates beautifully how a new medium is misunderstood before it is understood. It happened when oil paint was 'invented', it happened when the camera was invented, it is happening now with the introduction of AI. It takes quite a while for artists to 'grok' a new medium and this process of change cannot be rushed. For a 1977 example of the creative nature of a computer being effectively understood, check out 'Personal Dynamic Media.' (Kay, A. and Goldberg, A., 1977. Computer, 10(3), pp.31-41.). http://augmentingcognition.com/assets/Kay1977.pdf http://augmentingcognition.com/assets/Kay1977.pdf In it they describe a computer as a 'metamedium': an layer that 'impersonates' non-digital media. Things have changed since then, but that understanding still holds true for 90% of how a digital artist uses a computer.
- grenoire 4y ago
  >It happened when oil paint was 'invented' Where can I read more about this, sounds like juicy historic drama!
  - Daub 4y ago
    Not sure that there is a single source, but the potted history is like this: Most paints are pigment (providing the color), extender (bulking it out) and glue. So... to invent oil paint all you had to do was to add oil to your pigment instead of gum Arabic, wax, wet plaster or whatever else you were using. Hardly rocket science. For this reason, oil paint was invented many times in many places. However, for the most part, it was used in the same way as its antecedents was used. Business as usual. Several things came together to give us the oil painting tradition we know and love. Most importantly, the Dutch and Belgians invented the middle-class. These merchants were rich enough to want to buy paintings, but not rich enough to hire a painter for a few years to do a mural. Mural paintings was paint on wet plaster and in effect it was installation art: designed for a particular room. So... there was a market for small, cheapish, portable paintings. These small paintings were on metal (copper) and wood (usually oak). But canvas eventually won out because the canvas linen, primer and oil paint were all derived from the same plant (flax) which made it super durable. To cater to this market, the art gallery (basically a shop for paintings). Like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallery_of_Archduke_Leopold_Wilhelm_in_Brussels_%28Petworth%29#/media/File:Gallery_of_Archduke_Leopold_Wilhelm_in_Brussels_-_Petworth_House.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallery_of_Archduke_Leopold_Wi... An advantage of oil paint was that it dried slowly, which meant that it could be blended easily. It could also be corrected relatively easily (just paint over and start again) unlike paint of plaster (one reason the last supper is such a mess is that Leonardo corrected it too many times). Blended paint made realism much easier. I would also say that the lighting conditions of Northern Europe also made realism (and illusion) easier. High dynamic range (black to white or chiaroscuro) tends to support realism. And perhaps the protestant faith supported realism. North European paintings had none of the florid excess of their Souther European catholic counterparts, which were more concerned with re-telling classic narratives than in illusion. At the same time there was an increased interest in perspective and optics and also optical devices, especially in that part of the world. Certainly this impacted on how artists made their paintings, though exactly how is a bit of a smudge. Though all these ingredients were hanging around for years, it was Jan van Eyck was one of the first to really take advantage of them. Zoom in on his Arnolfini Wedding and weep: https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/jan-van-eyck-the-arnolfini-portrait https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/jan-van-eyck-th...
- disqard 4y ago
  That's a seminal paper, and when contrasted with the iPad of today, really drives home the point that most of this metamedium's potential is still not harnessed. The average tablet today (closest to the "dynabook" idea) is packaged in dumbed-down ways to maximize profits -- it's been turned into a finely-tuned machine for consuming entertainment, instead of its promise of a "dynamic medium for creative thought".

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

system2 4y ago

Is the author alive? If so, let's show him stable diffusion.

Borrible 4y ago
Show him. Shouldn't be to hard to contact him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frieder_Nake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frieder_Nake
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  Please note that this guy is considered one of the original "computer artists", and teaches at a art school, which is useful context when trying to understand the article.
DocTomoe 4y ago
But is the output of stable diffusion actually art, or is it just a mimicry of artsy information? Does it have compositional value, or an original idea? Couldn't you make an argument that stable-diffusion-imagery is in the most original of senses derivative (while not explicitly trying to be derivative, like e.g. Warhol)? Sure, there will be people pinning prizes on particularly pretty output of stable diffusion results, and some people may even hang it on their walls - but that is not really indicative of artistical achievement (just consider how many "live, laugh, love"-variations are plastered over walls everywhere).
- senectus1 4y ago
  Art is in the eye of the beholder... Don't go falling into the No True Scotsman fallacy.
  - DocTomoe 4y ago
    No, it really is not. This line of thinking makes it too easy to put things individuals may not like into the "not art" category. No good things come from that.
- 4y ago

camoufleur 4y ago

Some of the ideas/predictions I thought were relevant: - Technologists will mistake a novel method for novel results - The art world will see it as a fad on which to capitalize - The masses will use it as a new way to communicate, and art will spring forth naturally

lordfrito 4y ago
> The masses will use it as a new way to communicate, and art will spring forth naturally This is already happening [1]. I was on the fence but have recently been won over. It's art. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33752684 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33752684

codeulike 4y ago

Frieder is on Twitter, was active until early this year https://twitter.com/carlcanary?lang=en https://twitter.com/carlcanary?lang=en