Generative Art Finds Its Prodigy

Re:Generative Art Finds Its Prodigy by wgx on Monday September 10, 2018 @06:29AM (#17950733)

I don't think we're being radical enough. I think this kind of art is fantastic, but it copies human-designed art. Let's do things that aren't possible with paint or crayons - let's do multi-dimensional time-shifting video art.

I guess we need to do stuff that looks like 'normal' art first, to get people used to it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Generative Art Finds Its Prodigy by pharrington on Monday September 10, 2018 @07:09AM (#17950875)

In my town we call that stuff "video games."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Generative Art Finds Its Prodigy by tern on Monday September 10, 2018 @08:18PM (#17956206)

I think of most generative art as video games larping as "fine art."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Generative Art Finds Its Prodigy by cpdt on Monday September 10, 2018 @07:26AM (#17950949)

Have you heard of the demoscene? The modern scene is, to a large degree, art as a computer-based audiovisual experience rendered in real time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Generative Art Finds Its Prodigy by michaelscott on Monday September 10, 2018 @06:37AM (#17950768)

Doing something that is only possible with machines in art is indeed what I think this "genre"/period needs in order to be seen as something truly unique and new.

As you point out this is merely creating the same kind of art with a new tool. The use of Processing to create familiar works is the same as picking up a piece of charcoal for the first time in human history and using only one of its worn-down edges to create hand print images on a rock wall. It's interesting and fresh, but it's not taking advantage of the medium.

[ Parent | on HN ]