3 ms·
I think people devalue art in many cases where the outcome is merely something beautiful. Beauty and art are different things. There are more beautiful things
by platz 12y ago
I think people devalue art in many cases where the outcome is merely something beautiful.
Beauty and art are different things.
There are more beautiful things in the world than artful things.
I think people devalue art in many cases when they say, 'oh this code is so artful, it is full of art'
Could it make you cry?
That being said, although I think that "Art as communication" has some truth in that some kind of communication should happen, obviously there will be instances where that is not the case, but they are definitely something further away from the norm (and I argue the primary value) of art.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y agoI've certainly seen code that made me cry. :) I don't think computer art is a complicated problem. Firstly "hand+brain+physical media" has infinitely more degrees of expressive freedom than "pixel robot." Most pixel robots are really, really dumb. At worst they draw simple filled shapes. At best they run some minimal - probably recursive, but still trivial - algo thing that makes nice pictures. But art is not about making pretty pictures. It's about abstracting and intensifying human experience - which is a completely different problem. Canvas and pigment can be a convenient way to do that, sometimes. Code is never a convenient way to do it, because it's a very rigid and primitive medium explicitly designed to eliminate the subjectivity and intensity art specialises in. So even the most interesting computer art is usually just shapes arranged in some semi-random way. If it has texture at all - often it doesn't - there's absolutely nothing happening under the surface. You can maybe say the same thing about some more abstract work. But you certainly can't say it about art as a whole.