Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Show HN: I made a generator of art – Suprematism (tool.graphics)
47 points by andronov04 on June 13, 2021 | hide | past | favorite | 27 comments



If you're impressed by this I recommend browsing https://shadertoy.com - some amazing generative art there.

Shane is one of the masters: https://www.shadertoy.com/user/Shane

And of course Inigo Quilez, the site's creator: https://www.shadertoy.com/user/iq


Wow, I didn't know this website and it looks great. I've been browsing Shane's creations and they are mind-blowing. May I ask a stupid question?

Leaving aside copyrights/licenses/etc, are her creations "exportable" to be used in videogames, films CGI, VFX, etc? For example, this Abstract Corridor (https://www.shadertoy.com/view/MlXSWX), could be used in a videogame just with that piece of code (I think it's C or a variant of it).

It's incredible for me that such piece of art is done only by code - if asked, I would have said that it uses assets and more.


Its GLSL, and yes, you can pretty much copy paste it.



Looks like a bunch of shapes randomly scattered on canvas. Nothing "generative" about that. Procedural content uses rules to produce patterns; This doesn't.


Perhaps you just aren't thinking hard enough about the rules and patterns of this system. It's absolutely generative. There are pieces, and there are rules. Which shapes show up? How many? How fast do they rotate? How long? What size is the canvas? What color? This is just off the top of my head.


I don't get a 'why' in any of that, though. It's generative, but there seems to be no purpose anywhere in it.


Art does not require purpose


Art requires intent.


You put so much hard work into getting this done for me Hack unknow on telegram and it really paid off. Thanks to your focus and determination in going extra mile and managing all of the complexities of this project


I'm not sure that is true. Maybe you desire intent in your art.


A common definition (he says, being married to an artist) is that you intend what you do to be taken as art. If the artist says it’s art, then it’s art.


Can you intend it after the fact?

If made a toaster, and it didn't work, can I call it art now?

It probably depends on how much art I have already sold..


Ask Marcel Duchamp :)

My original remark about not feeling intent or structure wasn't to say that the work couldn't be art. You could produce an art-creator that chose a random number, produced that number of graphics in random fashion as we see in the generator, and then destroyed itself: that would ABSOLUTELY be an artistic work in its own right.

My concern is that this is seizing upon some of the trappings of suprematism but without the artistic feeling, which means you could take it up a notch. According to Malevich, Suprematism isn't random: check out the Wikipedia article, look at his white-square and black-circle paintings. He has clear preferences for positioning and size of a single shape, and has executed 'em twice, very similarly. In 'Suprematism' there's a pale circle in pretty much the same position and size yet again, and three narrow shapes positioned to suggest a vanishing point outside the canvas top right. There's occlusion of smaller shapes by larger, occlusion of the largest by the frame (which could be done through drawing shapes in rough order of size of their largest dimension) and a color story that involves mostly warmer colors with a strategically placed, foreground, desaturated blue shape (two, in fact, it's got a tiny echo precisely in the same relationship with the centerline of the yellow shape)

Aleatoric generation is a different sort of art. Suprandomatism? :)


According to Wikipedia the main organizing principle in suprematism is feeling, not rules. I don't know how much feeling you can get from rand(), though.


I don't see any patterns or rules either.

Is there any metric here by which you could judge one of the results as better than the others?


Some of them by chance vaguely resemble something, which could be mildly interesting. If an artist explored these permutations and selected some, they could be construed as art through intent.


Im missing something, i get 3,4 random shapes.


If you search for those images on Yandex it's very interesting how many similar images there are [0]. It's as if a lot of people find triangles, squares, line, ... in different colors with high artistic worth. These also remind me of a type of art which name I cannot recall that I saw in a museum once.

[0] https://yandex.com/images/search?rpt=imageview&url=https%3A%...


I love generative art and suprematism. That's why I've created this generator. You can export designs to Figma or Sketch, and also save as jpeg or HD video. Yahooo/Yoohoo


Is there a difference between the SVGs that are exported for Figma and for Sketch? I am on mobile rn or I’d inspect them myself and see


Congrats on the launch! Is the code open source?


Thanks! Soon I'm going public code to github, yeah it'll be open source


This looks great! I was in Hamburg and saw a show of Robert Longo, Goya and Eisenstein drawings. I was really fascinated to learn that Eisenstein drew a lot like Malevich. But you can see that sort of diagramatic thinking in both his movies and in the Suprematists around him.

This is a really interesting project, thanks for showing it to us!


Reminded me of Deko[1]. Used it a lot when I had an iPhone.

[1] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/deko-beautiful-wallpapers/id58...


They appear to stop when one intersects the center of another or they all pass the point of being able the intersect the center of another. Neat idea.


Now just somehow generate an NFT for each one of them. Endless money from the crypto fan boys...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: