I have a question: Would you consider this art? I bought an ordinary brick from a hardware store, placed it on top of a newspaper, and titled the piece 'Current Freedom of Speech.' It’s an expression of my thoughts, but keep in mind, I didn’t create the brick or the newspaper. All I did was place one on the other and give it a name. Would you still call this an artwork?
Now let’s take it a step further. What if I used a computer application that generates visual compositions using mathematical algorithms, like fractals, born from equations, expanding into infinite detail? The code does the drawing, yes, but the choice of equation, parameters, and final framing — that's mine.
What if the program interprets structured input — words — into high-dimensional vector representations within a latent space, and from that creates an image? I may not sketch it by hand, but I guide it. I refine the words carefully, choose the phrasing deliberately, and select the output that most closely matches what I feel. It’s not random — it’s shaped by vision, curated with purpose.
Would you still say this isn’t art?
Because if we accept that placing a brick on a newspaper can be art, not because of what it is but because of what it expresses, then how can we deny the same to digital tools, code, or algorithms guided by intent?
Art has never been about the medium — it’s about the message. Expression, not technique, is what defines creation. Whether sculpted in marble, painted with oils, generated from numbers, or composed in code, if it translates emotion, thought, or perspective into a form others can perceive, it is, by definition, art.
Vladimir Chopine [GeekatPlay]
I have a question: Would you consider this art? I bought an ordinary brick from a hardware store, placed it on top of a newspaper, and titled the piece 'Current Freedom of Speech.' It’s an expression of my thoughts, but keep in mind, I didn’t create the brick or the newspaper. All I did was place one on the other and give it a name. Would you still call this an artwork?
Now let’s take it a step further. What if I used a computer application that generates visual compositions using mathematical algorithms, like fractals, born from equations, expanding into infinite detail? The code does the drawing, yes, but the choice of equation, parameters, and final framing — that's mine.
What if the program interprets structured input — words — into high-dimensional vector representations within a latent space, and from that creates an image? I may not sketch it by hand, but I guide it. I refine the words carefully, choose the phrasing deliberately, and select the output that most closely matches what I feel. It’s not random — it’s shaped by vision, curated with purpose.
Would you still say this isn’t art?
Because if we accept that placing a brick on a newspaper can be art, not because of what it is but because of what it expresses, then how can we deny the same to digital tools, code, or algorithms guided by intent?
Art has never been about the medium — it’s about the message. Expression, not technique, is what defines creation. Whether sculpted in marble, painted with oils, generated from numbers, or composed in code, if it translates emotion, thought, or perspective into a form others can perceive, it is, by definition, art.
5 months ago | [YT] | 13