I'm in total agreement: There is an awful lot of boring-to-bad generative art, and a smaller amount of strikingly good generative art. I like to contrast this with other financial drivers in the crypto sphere, like profile picture PFPs which are almost universally uninteresting despite their market success. There's also a lack of good editors to help us pick through the poop for the diamonds.
I don’t agree with every point (especially the one about the brush strokes as a primary connection point between the art, artist, and viewer. Yes, that adds a certain layer of depth and connection, but that is also not a requirement of art. It’s just one incarnation. Great poetry doesn’t require a pen stroke on paper for a connection with the reader, as an example.)
For what it's worth I never said that strong intentionality, like that which a brush stroke evokes, is a requirement of art, but that the less of it there is, the more of a challenge the artist faces in forging a natural connection with the viewer. We are naturally more impressed by the same composition made by hand than by AI, for example, because the strokes build up a metaphysical context around the work that embeds its history into the work in a way that we implicitly process.
Botto interests me! I don't keep up with the works produced so much, but I think the conceit around communal and autonomous forms of artistry is novel, worthwhile, and provocative. Few of the individual works have struck me, but it's less about those to me than the project as a whole. Of course, part of that project as a whole I suppose is what works it's able to produce, but it successfully asks its questions regardless of its success on that front. I would need to do more looking, but I'd say I like the project as a whole as a work of art more than any one piece it produces. A generative system perhaps! One that explores important quandaries pertaining to humans, AI, and our respective places in artistry.
Thanks for the reply! I have continued to think about this piece since I first read it (especially since I am at Inscribing Nashville and it is highly relevant). I think my takeaway from your primary point is that art is (or should be) a primarily human experience. To the extent that humanity is obfuscated (or vacant) in art, the less of a connection it forms and the less meaning it has. Ultimately, many of the concerns you raise around the financialization, commoditization, and dehumanization brought on by many executions of generative art are essentially sucking the meaning from the art, which begs the question if it is even art at all or merely just a form of design (or perhaps, "artwork" vs "works of art" ?).
That being said, I continue to find some interesting examples of artists and generative art in the Ordinals community (where I have spent most of my time) that leverage generative art in human ways.
For example, Lemonhaze has a few projects of note. First, Manufactured is a generative art project with a style based on certain cultural textiles, but collectors can “burn” three Manufactured pieces for one “Games” piece, which is a more complex output. Collectors can customize the color palettes and also add customizable messaging to the HTML. This brings a human element to the creation process where the collector participates. Some of Lemonhaze's other generative art collections are quite small (i.e., five pieces), and the collectors choose their pieces versus minting randomly.
Another interesting example is Monoliths by OTO. This is a generative collection that “degrades” over a period of about 120 years with the passage of blocks. So while the artwork is generative, there is an interesting and deeper meaning to the art that conveys ideas of time, impermanence, etc. Yes, this could have been done on a one-of-one, but the 333 collection does make the concept a bit more accessible to a wider audience.
As for Botto, I agree that the actual quality of the output of works has varied, but there is also something compelling to me about the process of the humans directing the AI output by staking Botto and voting on versions of art—a sort of collaboration between man and machine. There is a certain humanity and meaning in this process.
Anyway, I appreciate the write-up and intend to share this article with some of the communities I’m in!
Thanks for giving real thought and sharing with others. Yes I totally agree generative art can be leveraged toward human ends. The examples I gave in the essay were intended to show some of that. I haven't explored the Ordinals ecosystem much (not for any reason in particular, I just "reside" in ETH land) but will check those pieces out.
I'm in total agreement: There is an awful lot of boring-to-bad generative art, and a smaller amount of strikingly good generative art. I like to contrast this with other financial drivers in the crypto sphere, like profile picture PFPs which are almost universally uninteresting despite their market success. There's also a lack of good editors to help us pick through the poop for the diamonds.
Thought provoking piece and very well written!
I don’t agree with every point (especially the one about the brush strokes as a primary connection point between the art, artist, and viewer. Yes, that adds a certain layer of depth and connection, but that is also not a requirement of art. It’s just one incarnation. Great poetry doesn’t require a pen stroke on paper for a connection with the reader, as an example.)
But many of the other ideas did resonate with me.
Curious what your take on Botto is?
Thank you!
For what it's worth I never said that strong intentionality, like that which a brush stroke evokes, is a requirement of art, but that the less of it there is, the more of a challenge the artist faces in forging a natural connection with the viewer. We are naturally more impressed by the same composition made by hand than by AI, for example, because the strokes build up a metaphysical context around the work that embeds its history into the work in a way that we implicitly process.
Botto interests me! I don't keep up with the works produced so much, but I think the conceit around communal and autonomous forms of artistry is novel, worthwhile, and provocative. Few of the individual works have struck me, but it's less about those to me than the project as a whole. Of course, part of that project as a whole I suppose is what works it's able to produce, but it successfully asks its questions regardless of its success on that front. I would need to do more looking, but I'd say I like the project as a whole as a work of art more than any one piece it produces. A generative system perhaps! One that explores important quandaries pertaining to humans, AI, and our respective places in artistry.
Thanks for the reply! I have continued to think about this piece since I first read it (especially since I am at Inscribing Nashville and it is highly relevant). I think my takeaway from your primary point is that art is (or should be) a primarily human experience. To the extent that humanity is obfuscated (or vacant) in art, the less of a connection it forms and the less meaning it has. Ultimately, many of the concerns you raise around the financialization, commoditization, and dehumanization brought on by many executions of generative art are essentially sucking the meaning from the art, which begs the question if it is even art at all or merely just a form of design (or perhaps, "artwork" vs "works of art" ?).
That being said, I continue to find some interesting examples of artists and generative art in the Ordinals community (where I have spent most of my time) that leverage generative art in human ways.
For example, Lemonhaze has a few projects of note. First, Manufactured is a generative art project with a style based on certain cultural textiles, but collectors can “burn” three Manufactured pieces for one “Games” piece, which is a more complex output. Collectors can customize the color palettes and also add customizable messaging to the HTML. This brings a human element to the creation process where the collector participates. Some of Lemonhaze's other generative art collections are quite small (i.e., five pieces), and the collectors choose their pieces versus minting randomly.
Another interesting example is Monoliths by OTO. This is a generative collection that “degrades” over a period of about 120 years with the passage of blocks. So while the artwork is generative, there is an interesting and deeper meaning to the art that conveys ideas of time, impermanence, etc. Yes, this could have been done on a one-of-one, but the 333 collection does make the concept a bit more accessible to a wider audience.
As for Botto, I agree that the actual quality of the output of works has varied, but there is also something compelling to me about the process of the humans directing the AI output by staking Botto and voting on versions of art—a sort of collaboration between man and machine. There is a certain humanity and meaning in this process.
Anyway, I appreciate the write-up and intend to share this article with some of the communities I’m in!
Thanks for giving real thought and sharing with others. Yes I totally agree generative art can be leveraged toward human ends. The examples I gave in the essay were intended to show some of that. I haven't explored the Ordinals ecosystem much (not for any reason in particular, I just "reside" in ETH land) but will check those pieces out.