Generative art is an art style that existed for decades (some people even mark up the XVIII century as the birth of this style). In this art style the artist create an algorithm, and that algorithm will later produce diverse results (music or plastic arts) based on randomness so the final result is unknown and volatile.
This art is not made with traditional techniques, as an algorithm is used to produce the final piece. Nowadays this art is obviously computer generated.
And no, this kind of generative art does no uses or have anything to do with AI generative art. Completely different techniques.
Generative art exist since the XVIII century, much earlier than you have even been alive. And boomed with computer era in the 60s. And have never been specially controversial (not more controversial that any other contemporary art style at least).
And not, it’s not AI art. It is a different art style that people that like to fill their mouths “”“defending”" art don’t even know.
That’s what you get for following the dogma without using your brain. Radical ignorance. People that “don’t know and don’t want to know” no wonder that political situation is how it is with so many people rejecting knowledge and just following religion or religion-like dogmas.
When I see these pieces in museums I’ve seen the piece not the algorithm. I should call the artists and museum curators and tell them they are doing it wrong.
I suppose with digital art the art is the brushes and the log of movements, not the final .png
The intent for the artists is to create the final images, the thing that the viewer enjoys is the final images. I think it’s easy to asume than the final images are art. Even if you also want to consider the code itself a piece of art, that’s totally ok.
I’ve really painted myself in the corner with my semantics, pun intended.
Before we delve too deeply into these definitions, and because I have to pick up a family member from the airport in a few minutes, i’ll just leave a few links that illustrate (pun intended, again) my point a bit better.
The arts or creative arts are a vast range of human practices of creative expression, storytelling, and cultural participation. The arts encompass diverse and plural modes of thinking, doing, and being in an extensive range of media.
So generative art is not art?
Generative art is an art style that existed for decades (some people even mark up the XVIII century as the birth of this style). In this art style the artist create an algorithm, and that algorithm will later produce diverse results (music or plastic arts) based on randomness so the final result is unknown and volatile.
This art is not made with traditional techniques, as an algorithm is used to produce the final piece. Nowadays this art is obviously computer generated.
And no, this kind of generative art does no uses or have anything to do with AI generative art. Completely different techniques.
The public has largely decided that it’s not. That’s why it’s controversial to use. Don’t waste my time.
Typical, talking all that much about art and don’t know shit about art.
Here, for your knowledge.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_art
Generative art exist since the XVIII century, much earlier than you have even been alive. And boomed with computer era in the 60s. And have never been specially controversial (not more controversial that any other contemporary art style at least).
And not, it’s not AI art. It is a different art style that people that like to fill their mouths “”“defending”" art don’t even know.
That’s what you get for following the dogma without using your brain. Radical ignorance. People that “don’t know and don’t want to know” no wonder that political situation is how it is with so many people rejecting knowledge and just following religion or religion-like dogmas.
Well, it’s a shame that chatgpt through sheer corporate momentum has completely erased whatever branch of artistic expression this is.
You should be pissed at Sam Altman for appropriating your culture.
I’m not into identity politics, sorry. Can’t say I’am surprised anti-AI people having an overlap with indentity-politics.
You “can’t say you’re surprised” that anti-AI people are left of the overton window? Amazing.
This is true, however, i covered that in my previous response. The algorithm hand-made by a human is the art.
That seems a convoluted disticntion.
When I see these pieces in museums I’ve seen the piece not the algorithm. I should call the artists and museum curators and tell them they are doing it wrong.
I suppose with digital art the art is the brushes and the log of movements, not the final .png
The intent for the artists is to create the final images, the thing that the viewer enjoys is the final images. I think it’s easy to asume than the final images are art. Even if you also want to consider the code itself a piece of art, that’s totally ok.
I’ve really painted myself in the corner with my semantics, pun intended.
Before we delve too deeply into these definitions, and because I have to pick up a family member from the airport in a few minutes, i’ll just leave a few links that illustrate (pun intended, again) my point a bit better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics