4 ms·

As a software developer I find artists' obsession with random() a bit baffling. As an artist (a photographer creating visual/fine art photography) I am missing

As a software developer I find artists' obsession with random() a bit baffling. As an artist (a photographer creating visual/fine art photography) I am missing a story and a movement in generative art. There is no human connection, no story, no (however wacky) artistic manifesto that would drive efforts of a group of artists. I am frankly embarrassed when artists talk about coding or the results of feeding the output of random() into an image generator.

gilleain 2y ago
Why? Some art is purely representative, some is abstract, some is narrative driven, some is not. There is 'chaotic' abstract art - like Pollock - and regular examples - like Escher or Vasarely - and many points in between. Why should using a rand function and a line/point shape be fundamentally different?
barfbagginus 2y ago
Have you read Foley and Van Dam's "Computer Graphics, Principles and Practice"? I think the narrative you're missing could be the history and theory of computer graphics research, and the recognition of the incredible ongoing contributions of artist-scientists in this field. Photography has a deep and storied history and terminology and humanity emerging from experiments with a medium... That's what gives it life, and gives us things to discuss as photographers. But computer graphics has that same kind of story - thousands of research papers, experiments, and the work of millions of artists using and advancing the tools. Generative art is a subset of computer graphics and is intertwined in its history. It is far more than artists playing with random numbers, the same way that photography is far more than pointing a sensor and pressing a button. There is an endless history of past attempts to build on, and huge amounts of mathematical and artistic theories to build, in both cases. If you need help to see this as an art, consider reading Foley and Van Dam, and work to see the development of computer graphics techniques - and their application - as a form of art in itself, where we develop and explore experimental media and subject, without the constraints of physical reality. I believe that by working with graphics algorithms, as an artist and coder, you will see how the artistic and technical beauty of these algorithms combine to create a beautiful and compelling form of art. I hope that after this, you will get endless joy from contemplating computer graphics, the way you get joy from photography. And I hope it will give you enjoyment of the more abstract and experimental side of things, and even the work in image AI, which challenges our identities and livelihoods as artists. Imo it's a very amazing time to be alive as an artist!
- surfingdino 2y ago
  That was one of the first books on computer graphics. I loved it. I will admit that as a software dev and a former 3d modeller and animator I may be too close to how the digital paint and canvas are made to get excited. Another reason is the infinite number of works that can be produced by machines running the same algorithms, which has an unfortunate effect of turning artworks from an event to mass-produced objects (or renderings on LCD screens). That mass-production aspect removed barriers to entry to become an artist, see the deluge of "abstract art" on Etsy and hundreds of tutorials on how to produce it on YouTube. There just isn't anything special about it. I understand that this is not new, painters are still salty about photography and photographers are not happy about digital distribution of their works on a mass scale without compensation. And I know that mass production of artworks is not new; in the past, master painters or engravers ran workshops that produced works "in the style of" too. Still, there was some effort required to produce such works. I think the perception of generative art suffers from the same thing that makes it possible: ease of access to a lot of compute power for next to nothing. I spent over 10 years of my life working with 3d graphics and finally went back to photography and recently to film photography. I feel more involved in the process of creation and there is a physical artifact at the end of the process. Once it is produced it needs no power to enjoy it unlike generative art that needs a screen to be seen (some of it can be printed in 2d or 3d). As for AI, I see it as a threat to all who invested their time and effort into creating business models that support them in the digital domain. That value is being taken away from them now. Technology applied to the creative space has always been about improving efficiency of the creative process and offering new tools, but this time round there is an assumption that all that we create is fair game for the AI companies and that we should accept it while they monetize it. There is no model for the creator to make a living from his creations in the AI space and I think that's dishonest.
  - barfbagginus 2y ago
    The model for creators to make a living after AI hoovers everything up is simple: it's called revolution. You pull up on the wealthy person, and you take ownership of their AI, and make it free and open source for all. Then the AI production system can provide for any quality of life needs, and you no longer have to do any art for any reason other than you enjoy it. Remember, art is fundamentally worthless bullshit that we do because life is miserable and terrifying, and we're obsessive miserable bastards. There's no reason to make it a living, except to enslave artists to the whims of the wealthy. We can just take from the wealthy, instead. Seize the means of production from capitalists, and you'll be free to be make art without the added misery of having to please bastards with too much money and no real love of the process of art. But continue defining art as having to produce revenue and support the living of artists, and you're just fighting for continued slavery at the hands of the wealthy. I say seize the means instead, using extreme measures if necessary.
voidUpdate 2y ago
I mean, the person using random() would have to define how the output from it actually goes on to generate an image, thats their choice and their influence on the art
nox101 2y ago
I understand the feeling. i don't know how to feel about some contemporary art either. I'm sure there' some story behind this but it also looks like randomly generated art to me, even though I like it https://www.google.com/search?&sca_upv=1&q=yayoi+kusama&udm=2 https://www.google.com/search?&sca_upv=1&q=yayoi+kusama&udm=...
- surfingdino 2y ago
  I treat abstract art as a source of inspiration (colour palette, pattern design, composition, technique). I prefer when it is made by a human working with a physical medium, because that's how you achieve mastery. Yet another Processing app able to churn out an infinite number of random images does nothing for me.
fenomas 2y ago
I find this view completely mystifying. The image generator that somebody piped random() into didn't fall off a tree - a human made it. They took pure thought-stuff, as Fred Brooks put it, and instead of shaping it into an image they made an image generator. Do you imagine that person had no human connection/story/manifesto/whatever? Or their human x/y/z disappeared because they used code instead of a paintbrush, or what? (Aside: this view seems doubly odd coming from a fine-art photographer. If you've been doing it long you'll surely have met folks who scoff that "it's just clicking a shutter button". Are you not doing something similar here?)
iamacyborg 2y ago
> I am missing a story and a movement in generative art. Maybe you're just not looking at the right stuff? https://inconvergent.net/2018/impossible-architecture/ https://inconvergent.net/2018/impossible-architecture/
- surfingdino 2y ago
  It's definitely one of the best examples of well-executed generative art that stands well above the spray hose of crap produced on a daily basis. Thank you for sharing.
  - iamacyborg 2y ago
    There’s plenty of good stuff out there, it’s just hard to find as you have to wade through the shit.

gilleain 2y ago

Why? Some art is purely representative, some is abstract, some is narrative driven, some is not. There is 'chaotic' abstract art - like Pollock - and regular examples - like Escher or Vasarely - and many points in between. Why should using a rand function and a line/point shape be fundamentally different?

barfbagginus 2y ago

Have you read Foley and Van Dam's "Computer Graphics, Principles and Practice"? I think the narrative you're missing could be the history and theory of computer graphics research, and the recognition of the incredible ongoing contributions of artist-scientists in this field. Photography has a deep and storied history and terminology and humanity emerging from experiments with a medium... That's what gives it life, and gives us things to discuss as photographers. But computer graphics has that same kind of story - thousands of research papers, experiments, and the work of millions of artists using and advancing the tools. Generative art is a subset of computer graphics and is intertwined in its history. It is far more than artists playing with random numbers, the same way that photography is far more than pointing a sensor and pressing a button. There is an endless history of past attempts to build on, and huge amounts of mathematical and artistic theories to build, in both cases. If you need help to see this as an art, consider reading Foley and Van Dam, and work to see the development of computer graphics techniques - and their application - as a form of art in itself, where we develop and explore experimental media and subject, without the constraints of physical reality. I believe that by working with graphics algorithms, as an artist and coder, you will see how the artistic and technical beauty of these algorithms combine to create a beautiful and compelling form of art. I hope that after this, you will get endless joy from contemplating computer graphics, the way you get joy from photography. And I hope it will give you enjoyment of the more abstract and experimental side of things, and even the work in image AI, which challenges our identities and livelihoods as artists. Imo it's a very amazing time to be alive as an artist!

surfingdino 2y ago
That was one of the first books on computer graphics. I loved it. I will admit that as a software dev and a former 3d modeller and animator I may be too close to how the digital paint and canvas are made to get excited. Another reason is the infinite number of works that can be produced by machines running the same algorithms, which has an unfortunate effect of turning artworks from an event to mass-produced objects (or renderings on LCD screens). That mass-production aspect removed barriers to entry to become an artist, see the deluge of "abstract art" on Etsy and hundreds of tutorials on how to produce it on YouTube. There just isn't anything special about it. I understand that this is not new, painters are still salty about photography and photographers are not happy about digital distribution of their works on a mass scale without compensation. And I know that mass production of artworks is not new; in the past, master painters or engravers ran workshops that produced works "in the style of" too. Still, there was some effort required to produce such works. I think the perception of generative art suffers from the same thing that makes it possible: ease of access to a lot of compute power for next to nothing. I spent over 10 years of my life working with 3d graphics and finally went back to photography and recently to film photography. I feel more involved in the process of creation and there is a physical artifact at the end of the process. Once it is produced it needs no power to enjoy it unlike generative art that needs a screen to be seen (some of it can be printed in 2d or 3d). As for AI, I see it as a threat to all who invested their time and effort into creating business models that support them in the digital domain. That value is being taken away from them now. Technology applied to the creative space has always been about improving efficiency of the creative process and offering new tools, but this time round there is an assumption that all that we create is fair game for the AI companies and that we should accept it while they monetize it. There is no model for the creator to make a living from his creations in the AI space and I think that's dishonest.
- barfbagginus 2y ago
  The model for creators to make a living after AI hoovers everything up is simple: it's called revolution. You pull up on the wealthy person, and you take ownership of their AI, and make it free and open source for all. Then the AI production system can provide for any quality of life needs, and you no longer have to do any art for any reason other than you enjoy it. Remember, art is fundamentally worthless bullshit that we do because life is miserable and terrifying, and we're obsessive miserable bastards. There's no reason to make it a living, except to enslave artists to the whims of the wealthy. We can just take from the wealthy, instead. Seize the means of production from capitalists, and you'll be free to be make art without the added misery of having to please bastards with too much money and no real love of the process of art. But continue defining art as having to produce revenue and support the living of artists, and you're just fighting for continued slavery at the hands of the wealthy. I say seize the means instead, using extreme measures if necessary.

voidUpdate 2y ago

I mean, the person using random() would have to define how the output from it actually goes on to generate an image, thats their choice and their influence on the art

nox101 2y ago

I understand the feeling. i don't know how to feel about some contemporary art either. I'm sure there' some story behind this but it also looks like randomly generated art to me, even though I like it https://www.google.com/search?&sca_upv=1&q=yayoi+kusama&udm=2 https://www.google.com/search?&sca_upv=1&q=yayoi+kusama&udm=...

surfingdino 2y ago
I treat abstract art as a source of inspiration (colour palette, pattern design, composition, technique). I prefer when it is made by a human working with a physical medium, because that's how you achieve mastery. Yet another Processing app able to churn out an infinite number of random images does nothing for me.

fenomas 2y ago

I find this view completely mystifying. The image generator that somebody piped random() into didn't fall off a tree - a human made it. They took pure thought-stuff, as Fred Brooks put it, and instead of shaping it into an image they made an image generator. Do you imagine that person had no human connection/story/manifesto/whatever? Or their human x/y/z disappeared because they used code instead of a paintbrush, or what? (Aside: this view seems doubly odd coming from a fine-art photographer. If you've been doing it long you'll surely have met folks who scoff that "it's just clicking a shutter button". Are you not doing something similar here?)

iamacyborg 2y ago

> I am missing a story and a movement in generative art. Maybe you're just not looking at the right stuff? https://inconvergent.net/2018/impossible-architecture/ https://inconvergent.net/2018/impossible-architecture/

surfingdino 2y ago
It's definitely one of the best examples of well-executed generative art that stands well above the spray hose of crap produced on a daily basis. Thank you for sharing.
- iamacyborg 2y ago
  There’s plenty of good stuff out there, it’s just hard to find as you have to wade through the shit.