4 ms·

Generative Art will take off when it doesn't require expressing the code through conventional programming language syntax. A visual, interactive programming env

Generative Art will take off when it doesn't require expressing the code through conventional programming language syntax. A visual, interactive programming environment like those advocated by Bret Victor [1] would be ideal for artists without a technical background. NodeBox, mentioned below, have some characteristics of this, although it doesn't seem to allow the artist to create new abstractions without resorting back to Python. [1] in Stop Drawing Dead Fish. http://vimeo.com/64895205 http://vimeo.com/64895205

delinka 12y ago
Watching Mr. Victor, he tells us about how we're doing old media with new tools (painting, film.) Then he moves on to ... a puppet show using his new tools. I feel like he started with what was going to be an intriguing thesis ("make something new, not just old media with new tools") and changed to building those new tools. That criticism aside, he's absolutely correct about needing new tools to prevent the creator from needing to learn a programming language. I'd suggest that this is the case in many fields. I'd go so far as to suggest that some day most of us software creators might be able to create software with little to no code, just dragging together concepts. (I'm aware that such tools have existed and do exist. One could argue that they haven't quite nailed it and thus are not very widespread in use.)
- TuringTest 12y ago
  (I'm aware that such tools have existed and do exist. One could argue that they haven't quite nailed it and thus are not very widespread in use.) I believe that day may be closer than you expect. I've seen all, and I mean all the components required to build such a practical programming system. They just were scattered around systems for widely different purposes, or buried in decades-old research projects that were too experimental and heavyweight for the machines available back then. (Victor's is certainly the closer to that vision, although it still misses several key components to make it practical and widespread; a close second is the Wolfram Language). I have in mind a pet project to combine those partial tools in a way that I think would make a practical mostly-general-purpose programming language. Having some background in human-computer interaction, I think I'd be able to identify the most obvious roadblocks. Unfortunately, I'm afraid my limited skills and time wouldn't allow my to expand the system beyond a simple proof of concept. If you're interested, I think I could compile a small recollection of my ruminations and put it in a presentable form, if only to inspire others and get some feedback on my approach. I don't know though if that would make for a good Hacker News submission, does this site accept links to personal blogs discussing pet projects?
  - mej10 12y ago
    I am interested in your article. And yes, HN absolutely accepts links to personal blogs discussing pet projects.
    - TuringTest 12y ago
      Ok, I'll try to put something in writing. Yesterday's link to the Leo editor has inspired me to organize an idea-dump of all my dispersed notes. :-)
tomek_zemla 12y ago
I don't think that generative art needs to stop requiring programming skills to be successful. The huge community of www.processing.org artists who code suggests this requirement is not a problem. The whole point of generative are is to use programming language as the tool of visual expression as opposed for example to using UI based tools like Photoshop or Illustrator. Any art (visual or not) requires creators to use various tools and learning these tools takes a lot of time and afford. And mastering them often takes insane amounts of study and practice. Think of work required to learn to sketch human figure well or chisel it out of wood. Think of years of training required to play a violin concerto. Or to dance a ballet piece. Programming is just a new/differnt tool required for creating generative art. I would even go as far as stating the opposite. Attempting creation of generative art via interfaces other then conventional programming languages is what would limit it! This is for the same reason that professional programmers haven't adopted (not yet at least) visual programming languages - they are too limited in their expressiveness. The whole interest in generative art and design is driven by the fact that you can create things that you cannot using Adobe (etc...) tools. All the Photoshop and other image creation and editing applications are very powerful, but still limited by the imagination of the people who made them. Creating images using code lets you escape these limitations. This is what makes it an interesting new visual arts discipline. And if you study lives of many artists you realize that they can be pretty obsessed and determined to work hard to learn tools and techniques in the process of their practice, so I am not worried - there will be many who will become excellent programmers! What stops fast adoption of this type of art is the educational institutions insistence on separating artists from engineers. If computer science departments offered and occasional art course and fine art departments intro to programming, the generative arts would possibly become one of the most popular art forms in the new century. It would also help more of multidisciplinary creative thinking on both sides. I certainly agree with the article that the possibilities are immense...
- jmclean 12y ago
  Respectfully disagree. I think it's easy for people who have by now built an intuitive grasp of code to appreciate how challenging tools like Processing can be for a beginner. I have a design background and learned front end code (and eventually ruby on rails) by getting progressively more interested in how the things I was designing were built. I feel like I achieved a pretty respectable level of knowledge in what I had been exposed to. And yet, many aspects of Processing were a huge leap for me. I spent days looking at code examples just to try and grok how 3D works in processing. I get it now (mostly), but it still feels unintuitive. I can certainly imagine a language that would describe 3D behavior, and a whole host of other things, in a way that a visual artist would describe them. I definitely believe that there is value in artists learning to think with the rigor that code encourages. It's a fascinating cross-pollination. Creativity often springs from encountering the limits of a medium (and one's mastery of the medium). But look at the excitement this week among people like me about Swift. It's not about whether it was possible before for me to learn Objective C and build a game. It was. But goddamnit, it's such a pain, and I would certainly understand that someone who is starting from zero in terms of CS knowledge would find it impossibly intimidating. Design is remarkably accessible. If you can pick up a pen and paper, you can do it. Code is getting way closer to that, but let's not have collective Stockholm syndrome. Our tools are a long way away from where they could be. Honestly, I wish I had the skills to write a language or build the tools like the ones I can imagine myself. But I have confidence that someone will. It's going to be an exciting time for art, and I think it's coming very soon.

delinka 12y ago

Watching Mr. Victor, he tells us about how we're doing old media with new tools (painting, film.) Then he moves on to ... a puppet show using his new tools. I feel like he started with what was going to be an intriguing thesis ("make something new, not just old media with new tools") and changed to building those new tools. That criticism aside, he's absolutely correct about needing new tools to prevent the creator from needing to learn a programming language. I'd suggest that this is the case in many fields. I'd go so far as to suggest that some day most of us software creators might be able to create software with little to no code, just dragging together concepts. (I'm aware that such tools have existed and do exist. One could argue that they haven't quite nailed it and thus are not very widespread in use.)

TuringTest 12y ago
(I'm aware that such tools have existed and do exist. One could argue that they haven't quite nailed it and thus are not very widespread in use.) I believe that day may be closer than you expect. I've seen all, and I mean all the components required to build such a practical programming system. They just were scattered around systems for widely different purposes, or buried in decades-old research projects that were too experimental and heavyweight for the machines available back then. (Victor's is certainly the closer to that vision, although it still misses several key components to make it practical and widespread; a close second is the Wolfram Language). I have in mind a pet project to combine those partial tools in a way that I think would make a practical mostly-general-purpose programming language. Having some background in human-computer interaction, I think I'd be able to identify the most obvious roadblocks. Unfortunately, I'm afraid my limited skills and time wouldn't allow my to expand the system beyond a simple proof of concept. If you're interested, I think I could compile a small recollection of my ruminations and put it in a presentable form, if only to inspire others and get some feedback on my approach. I don't know though if that would make for a good Hacker News submission, does this site accept links to personal blogs discussing pet projects?
- mej10 12y ago
  I am interested in your article. And yes, HN absolutely accepts links to personal blogs discussing pet projects.
  - TuringTest 12y ago
    Ok, I'll try to put something in writing. Yesterday's link to the Leo editor has inspired me to organize an idea-dump of all my dispersed notes. :-)

tomek_zemla 12y ago

I don't think that generative art needs to stop requiring programming skills to be successful. The huge community of www.processing.org artists who code suggests this requirement is not a problem. The whole point of generative are is to use programming language as the tool of visual expression as opposed for example to using UI based tools like Photoshop or Illustrator. Any art (visual or not) requires creators to use various tools and learning these tools takes a lot of time and afford. And mastering them often takes insane amounts of study and practice. Think of work required to learn to sketch human figure well or chisel it out of wood. Think of years of training required to play a violin concerto. Or to dance a ballet piece. Programming is just a new/differnt tool required for creating generative art. I would even go as far as stating the opposite. Attempting creation of generative art via interfaces other then conventional programming languages is what would limit it! This is for the same reason that professional programmers haven't adopted (not yet at least) visual programming languages - they are too limited in their expressiveness. The whole interest in generative art and design is driven by the fact that you can create things that you cannot using Adobe (etc...) tools. All the Photoshop and other image creation and editing applications are very powerful, but still limited by the imagination of the people who made them. Creating images using code lets you escape these limitations. This is what makes it an interesting new visual arts discipline. And if you study lives of many artists you realize that they can be pretty obsessed and determined to work hard to learn tools and techniques in the process of their practice, so I am not worried - there will be many who will become excellent programmers! What stops fast adoption of this type of art is the educational institutions insistence on separating artists from engineers. If computer science departments offered and occasional art course and fine art departments intro to programming, the generative arts would possibly become one of the most popular art forms in the new century. It would also help more of multidisciplinary creative thinking on both sides. I certainly agree with the article that the possibilities are immense...

jmclean 12y ago
Respectfully disagree. I think it's easy for people who have by now built an intuitive grasp of code to appreciate how challenging tools like Processing can be for a beginner. I have a design background and learned front end code (and eventually ruby on rails) by getting progressively more interested in how the things I was designing were built. I feel like I achieved a pretty respectable level of knowledge in what I had been exposed to. And yet, many aspects of Processing were a huge leap for me. I spent days looking at code examples just to try and grok how 3D works in processing. I get it now (mostly), but it still feels unintuitive. I can certainly imagine a language that would describe 3D behavior, and a whole host of other things, in a way that a visual artist would describe them. I definitely believe that there is value in artists learning to think with the rigor that code encourages. It's a fascinating cross-pollination. Creativity often springs from encountering the limits of a medium (and one's mastery of the medium). But look at the excitement this week among people like me about Swift. It's not about whether it was possible before for me to learn Objective C and build a game. It was. But goddamnit, it's such a pain, and I would certainly understand that someone who is starting from zero in terms of CS knowledge would find it impossibly intimidating. Design is remarkably accessible. If you can pick up a pen and paper, you can do it. Code is getting way closer to that, but let's not have collective Stockholm syndrome. Our tools are a long way away from where they could be. Honestly, I wish I had the skills to write a language or build the tools like the ones I can imagine myself. But I have confidence that someone will. It's going to be an exciting time for art, and I think it's coming very soon.