Great concept amd I'm sure many people would like this sort of 'installation', but I'm not sure how feasible buying an HDTV or large monitor just to display art is to most people?

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"If you are using mathematically generateable techniques for the creation of images, is it stilll YOU that is an artist? Or is the entire artist part attributed to the algorhythm that has created the image?"

---

I can say I create DNA of the picture instead of completed picture. You can find answer on my site (http://www.sanbase.com/interview.html):
"Basically, the image on the screen is created by the computer. But the subject of the picture, its color and stylistic concept are created by the artist. In other words, the artist creates the esthetic approach and the basic principles of creation of a picture, and then the computer, based on that, creates millions of variations of the subject. At this stage it is very important to realize that without an artist's imagination, without his creative input, computer can do virtually nothing. Computer does not create a picture. Computer does not add anything on his own into the picture. "

Look at this:

Do you think that it has been generated by computer without human?

Details:

By the way: it's 100% computer graphic. No brush, no pencil.

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you are using mathematically generateable techniques for the creation of images, is it stilll YOU that is an artist? Or is the entire artist part attributed to the algorhythm that has created the image

---

First of all, let's start with an axiom that computer does not have any intelligence. Everything you can see on the screen is created by a human. Obviously it is self-evident and does not require any proof.

And now back to your question at its essence. Let's have a look at Picasso's painting "Don Quijote".


Provided Picasso does not paint it with hands but writes a computer program creating precisely the same picture, who would be the picture's author? And would the picture be worse because of that? I think, there is no doubt, Picasso is still supposed to be the author, not the computer (see the Ch.1). The way the picture is created does not influent on its artistic virtues. By all means it would still be a Picasso's masterpiece.
Let's go on. Let's suppose that Picasso not only writes a program which paints Don Quijote, but elaborates it so that the overall image becomes slightly different. Meaning, if the program can create a picture exactly LIKE THAT, one can change the program's parameters so that the picture is a little bit different from the original. Who is the author of the new picture? Still, Picasso is (see the Ch.1).
And let's go even further, Picasso creates a program which paints several different pictures and each of them is created in the same manner. And one of them is precisely the one as on the picture above. Who is the author of all the images? Is it computer? See the Ch.1. Picasso is the author because he has managed to force computer to PAINT and not to display senseless dots and lines.

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Could it not also be said, however, that you're not strictly speaking 'creating' the art.
You write (I assume) an algorithm using completly random variables and then taking what the computer generates from that; the process is therefore not 'creative' in the traditional sense. Yes, you had a hand in producing the foundations for the computer program to work on, but you had no artistic input... rather, you select which outputs you find to be the most aesthetically pleasing and use them as your pieces.

---

It is not exactly like that. If I randomly input random colors, I would get just color chaos with zero value aesthetically. If I use math formulae, I would get images with mathematically perfect and strict images, but they would be totally boring (fractals is an example). I have to admit, the way I operate is quite an unusual approach to the creative work. But let's not get stuck on the mechanisms of HOW it works. Let's better look at WHAT is the result of the process. As I said before, the way how a picture is created does not influent on its artistic virtues. Besides, please don't miss another very important thing. It looks like you are trying to make conclusions just looking at STATIC instances of a dynamic picture. In the meantime the main difference of the dynamic picture from the static one is that it is developing all the time. It provides the work with totally new virtues. It's impossible to evaluate a movie having seen just a few frames.

Regards,
San Base

What is "artistic way" and "non-artistic way"? Who is a judge? I can call it "orthodox way" and "non-orthodox way". Technology changes our life. Art cannot be fallen asleep. There is nothing terrible that the mathematics comes to art. New time - new approaches. Anyway It does not concern traditional art. The dynamic picture it not classical painting, is a new genre of art.

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Can the factor of chance really be attributed to a developing artist?

---

I would have to say no to this. However, I would be one who takes hundreds of photos only to find some good ones (or, relatively good :P) - but this isnt necessarily due to the other shots not being of the same 'artistic value' or whatever you wish to call it... They're just blurred because I can't hold a camera still

A very limited amount of artistic credit can be given to fractal or algorithm based art, primarily because you're not actually creating anything yourself.

When you start out to design a piece, do you enter numbers or whatever until you find something you like as an output? If so, then I would question the artistic element in this; Surely it would be better classed along with the trial and error 'method' which Domen has discussed above.


Edit - Not trial and error, but... Oh whats the phrase I want. Working on the basis that if you do something enough times with minor variations that something will work out well, through probability rather than design.

It would be nice to hear some other members views on this topic, so get posting you lot :P

I think science and art can mix together to achieve some stunning effects. Mondrian's work was very geometric in nature but still visually appealing (perhaps that's the mathematician in me talking).

Brian Exton uses fractals to produce images of a spiritual nature - see http://www.picturerealm.co.uk/lamination.htm

I would definietly say that he was an artist.

Okay too many mens perspectives I think. Well BROWNSUGAR, that's why there is Architecture, the highest well payed form of art, I think.

Any whom, even though technology has affected us in so many, creational ways: Automotive engeneering, or COmputer graphics, to television/ film: ( Techonology that is) has brought us to create a more mathematically accurate measurements in our modern lives but just because we have an input with this doesn't mean the original idea is dead. Not entirely, Most people rely on computer for mail, what's wrong with regular post mail or car improvements and so on, we need it correct. We are a part of it, but because human capabilities are much stronger now than they were about 100 years ago or so we have an input in enviromental improvements, but because we can be able to manage things like this using knowledge, there is also a positive output in this as well.

Look are your digital works: You take the picture, to improve it you manipulate it in Photoshop or what not and make something good out of it. Man kind created that program and from that the output is art, depending on how you use it. As for traditional art, it's not going away just because more people have the tendency to use more computers now these days we still have that artist eye, and go back to painting or drawing, etc. So it's a balance effect in our lives whether people are still capable of computerized images or simply how we would normally do it, by hand.

CORRECT ME IF I"M wrong I write and have too much to say I lose the thought of what I was going to write in the first place or if I'm simply out of track.

Far as I'm concerned, art is art. If it looks like art, and it feels like art, and it has all the qualities of art, what does it matter how it was created? To a computer, like it's been said above, it's just another combination of 1's and 0's. And the artistic output of a computer is just the sum total of what it's been programmed with. So, in reality, the programmer is the artist.

Four of my dynamic pictures (in form of screensaver) are now available for download, but I would like to have it tested on the various hardware before I'll make a public announcement.
If you would like to help me, you can download it here: http://www.sanbase.com/download.html. Please inform me about equipment used and your experience running a screensaver.

Thanks in advance.

San.
P.S. I've updated the site: http://www.sanbase.com