Slashdot Mirror


Is Computer-Created Art, Art?

eobanb writes "While playing with an interesting site called TypoGenerator I became compelled to write an article about how much of TypoGenerator's intriguing and seemingly original creations were actually art. Inevitably, it comes down to humans really being the origin of what TypoGenerator makes. Is such a unwitting collaboration between myself, Google (which TypoGenerator uses to create the images), and the programmers of TypoGenerator, art? Is true computer-created material possible, and if it is, is IT art? Does anyone know of other candidates for computer-created art?"

6 of 441 comments (clear)

  1. AARON by eliasen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There's AARON, which paints interesting pictures.

    --
    Make your computer ten thousand times larger--try Frink
  2. Congratulations by onyxruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Congratulations, you just took a question (what is art) that has been debated and unresolved for millenium and thrust it on slashdot. I predict this to be more pointless than another triplicate article. Let's just leave it as art is subjective, ok?

  3. The XXth century showed us .... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... that art is in the eye of the observer.

    If you think it is art, then it is art.

    Do not expect me to share your deviant artistic tastes though.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  4. Someone still has to program the computer by iainl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the music created by the likes of Brian Eno using procedural techniques counts as art (and I'd certainly suggest it does), I fail to see why other programmers generating visual art by procedural techniques wouldn't.

    This also reminds me of the early days of computer animation, before the likes of Pixar made it abundantly clear that computers are just Tools to be used by artists like any other, and not somehow magically creating the art themselves.

    You might as well argue that Shakespeare wasn't an artist, because he just wrote the instructions to control the actors, and didn't perform the plays himself.

    --
    "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
  5. STOP!!! by tcdk · · Score: 5, Funny

    The question of whether something is art or not is probably one of the most, uninteresting questions ever.

    1. Even if somebody will agree with you on the answer, it'll probably be for different reasons.
    2. Nobody cares. Really. It's just an excuse to say things that *sound* clever.

    --
    TC - My Photos..
  6. Oh, for heaven's sake by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What a crass thing to do. Take something creative and interesting, point the seething hordes of Slashdot at it so it breaks horribly and causes the creator lots of stress as her system administrators and bandwidth providers come down on her like a ton of bricks. Probable outcome? Yet another genuinely interesting project will disappear from the net for ever, trampled under the hooves of a flash mob with no real interest in the project.

    Of course computers can produce interesting and stimulating images. Consider the Mandelbrot set, for example, or a whole host of other functions which are highly sensitive to their inputs. Did Benoit Mandelbrot 'draw' or 'create' the Mandelbrot set image? Of course not. It is intrinsic in the concept of number, even though it required powerful computers to render it in any detail. Is it art? Human beings respond to it as if it was art.

    If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck it's a duck. The Mandelbrot set is art (and so are pictures automatically taken by the Hubble Telescope) because we respond to them as art. So is the output of Katharina Nussbaumer's program which you have been so thoughtless as to destroy.

    --
    I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.