Will you elaborate? I don’t understand your comment.
> 95% of generative art is fridge art
Sounds right in line with the rest of art. 95% of all art is fridge art. Do you have any sub-genres in mind that somehow have naturally higher quality ratios, can you share some examples?
More importantly, is the art posted in this article fridge art? Personally, I’m less interested in generic blanket statements not specific to the article at hand, and more interested in what people might have to say about the article that was posted, about Mike Bostock’s work, for example.
> So no - it’s not interesting art
What makes art “interesting”? What requirement is there to be interesting, who said it was supposed to be interesting in this thread or elsewhere? Who determines whether it’s interesting? Are you saying that if something is uninteresting, then it’s not art?
> It’s an excuse to play with algorithms
What’s wrong with having an excuse to draw if I like playing with pencil & paper? Why is having an excuse to play with algorithms bad?
> not a form of insightful psychological or perceptual abstraction and/or original self-expression.
Could you provide some examples of what you’re talking about? What’s “original” about painting or sculpting or dancing? What’s psychological or perceptually abstract about Rembrandt or Vermeer? Isn’t generative art natually more abstract than realist paintings?
In your world where art must be interesting, and not done for the sake of technique, and insightful, and abstract, and original, what is the role of art education?
I do not understand why you and others are getting so defensive here? The parent comment is 100% correct without even saying that art education cannot be democratised. At the level required for becoming interesting for the public, though, art is more social than technical: there are history, etiquette, education, steps for accreditation until canonisation. No nerd can disrupt that by style transferring Munch on Van Gogh through a neural net. It is just silly... or private, if you want, just a game, which is ok but does not justify the venom under this comment.
I don’t feel like my comment was anywhere near as strong as your characterization, but okay, I guess I did allow my feelings to show a little. Mostly I was honestly asking for the parent comment to back itself up with some actual evidence or examples. Do you feel any of my questions were unreasonable, and can you point to which ones?
The parent comment is only 100% correct in the sense that it’s someone’s opinion, so there’s nothing much to argue. Whether it’s correct is less important than whether it’s moving the conversation in a constructive direction. The irony of saying that most generative art is unoriginal is that comment has been made a million times before, it’s a fairly un-original thing to say.
Nobody said this art needed to be interesting to the public, that “requirement“ in the context of this conversation is a straw man. It had enough HN interest to hit the front page of HN, so it is by definition interesting enough to be posted here.
Furthermore, when people show work on HN, it sucks to have unsubstantive blanket comments that the genre is not worth considering because it’s full of junk. I don’t know Mike Bostock personally, but he’s written the widely used D3.js library and has done professional info art for the New York Times. It seems quite uninformed to reply to a posting of a gallery of his work with insults about “fridge art” and “doesn’t require any obvious imagination”.
> No nerd can disrupt that style by transferring Munich on Van Gogh through a neural net.
Did you look at the gallery posted at the top? There are no neural nets here. You’re arguing about something unrelated to this post.
> It is just silly... or private, if you want, just a game
Says who? You’re complaining about my comment while dismissing the efforts and interests of the people posted in the article here. Maybe you don’t realize how much of an attack yours and @TheOtherHobbes’ comments might seem to the people who’s work is in the gallery linked here, or to the people who study & practice art.
> 95% of generative art is fridge art
Sounds right in line with the rest of art. 95% of all art is fridge art. Do you have any sub-genres in mind that somehow have naturally higher quality ratios, can you share some examples?
More importantly, is the art posted in this article fridge art? Personally, I’m less interested in generic blanket statements not specific to the article at hand, and more interested in what people might have to say about the article that was posted, about Mike Bostock’s work, for example.
> So no - it’s not interesting art
What makes art “interesting”? What requirement is there to be interesting, who said it was supposed to be interesting in this thread or elsewhere? Who determines whether it’s interesting? Are you saying that if something is uninteresting, then it’s not art?
> It’s an excuse to play with algorithms
What’s wrong with having an excuse to draw if I like playing with pencil & paper? Why is having an excuse to play with algorithms bad?
> not a form of insightful psychological or perceptual abstraction and/or original self-expression.
Could you provide some examples of what you’re talking about? What’s “original” about painting or sculpting or dancing? What’s psychological or perceptually abstract about Rembrandt or Vermeer? Isn’t generative art natually more abstract than realist paintings?
In your world where art must be interesting, and not done for the sake of technique, and insightful, and abstract, and original, what is the role of art education?