this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2025
577 points (91.5% liked)
196
17532 readers
796 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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