4 ms·
The painting analogy isn't really warranted, and this article is a metaphor at best. You could replace painting with poetry, music, or building furniture. There
by wrongc0ntinent 12y ago
The painting analogy isn't really warranted, and this article is a metaphor at best. You could replace painting with poetry, music, or building furniture. There are a few definitions of painting, and there's lots of art being made that plays at pushing those definitions, so I can't claim to have the definitive one. However, essential things, such as the interface (which is in no small part responsible for the content of a painting), and the actual final product as object, are very, very different. A medium is also defined by its constraints, and from code to screen or printout the constraints of image-making are unlike anything you have in painting.
Generative art is beautiful, but not because it has anything to do with painting.
Edit: If this seems harsh, it's because I care about code just as much as I do about painting. Using any one of them as a catch-all for stereotypes is intellectually lazy (and often irritating).
- hsitz 12y agoThis seems unnecessarily harsh. That this generative art and painting are both visual arts in (mostly) two dimensions seems a pretty strong similarity. Why would you compare it to genres of art less similar? Also, some paintings strongly resemble this kind of generative art. E.g, I assume code could be used to generate something quite similar to "drip painting" in general, and Jasper Johns work in particular. You can make a comparison without trying to equate the two.