[HN Gopher] The performative quality of computer-generated art ___________________________________________________________________ The performative quality of computer-generated art Author : url Score : 27 points Date : 2022-02-09 20:39 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (hyperallergic.com) (TXT) w3m dump (hyperallergic.com) | itronitron wrote: | >> "What if we are too focused on results, rather than the | process?" | | Well, that is kind of the problem with generative art, it is all | process with no point. As Helen Pierce in Ozark would say, "It | has no intention." | BasilPH wrote: | > Well, that is kind of the problem with generative art, it is | all process with no point. | | I don't see how this should be specific to computer-generated | art. You can make drawings by hand that have no point. In my | opinion computers are just another tool for artists. | nefitty wrote: | When I was young I thought photographers just took like one | photo and by sheer willpower and skill, they sometimes | captured beautiful scenes. I then found out that they | actually sit there and click the shutter thousands of times, | then they go somewhere else to sit and scour through the | "generated art" to find the gems. Then they polish the gems. | Then they publish those. | | My novice AI-art workflow involved a similar pattern. I come | up with some topic or thing I want to see, then I iterate on | the wording of the prompt and all the little variables the | tool takes. I end up with dozens of crap pictures, but | sometimes cool stuff comes out. If I keep working on this, | alongside increased generation speed, I could see myself | "creating" really good art. | | To me it is about the process. It's the human input that | makes art valuable. I mean, if AI becomes sentient then those | judgements would be a valuable input in themselves too. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-02-09 23:00 UTC)