So you understand the essence of art, and you're saying experimenting with machine learning as an artistic tool should play no part -- it's out of scope?

Have you read the book Hackers & Painters [1]? http://www.paulgraham.com/hp.html

Do any of these other Arts & Culture Experiments speak to you? https://experiments.withgoogle.com/collection/arts-culture

[1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0596006624

I’m being misunderstood. I do think that machine learning can be an artistic tool. I do think that experimental art is important.

The crux of my argument isn’t about the experiment itself. It is how Google chooses to present it that gets in the way of contemplating, understanding and enjoying the experiment.

About the books: I shall check them out, appreciate the insight.

> I can understand if this is a UX/UI art experiment. But it’s not.

https:// ____ARTSEXPERIMENTS____ .withgoogle.com/nasasvisualuniverse

I understand but I think I wasn’t clear. Let me make an analogy to be clear.

We are here to see the painting. Not the frame design and not the museum. If the frame has a cloudy glass with fancy ways to open it, with flower patterns stained on it, it takes considerable strength to unveil it, and it makes you mad when opening it - it gets in the way of enjoying the painting.

UX/UI presents the content. In this case : Google’s art experiment is about using ML to discover new insights about NASA’s programs. That’s the content part. That’s the painting.

Your separation of content/form is reductive. In art, the framing (here the UX/UI) can most definitely be a part of the content.

There's nothing sexual at all about this