Let’s talk about generative art

Because it is art and we will explain to you why

Photo by Ricardo Gomez Angel on Unsplash

First of all, definitions so that we understand what we are talking about. Generative art encompasses all art created through the use of autonomous systems, such as natural language rules, algorithms, biological sequences, machines, or procedural interventions. These “generative” processes yield a very wide range of results, from works that are rigidly ordered to those that rely largely on elements of chance and randomisation.

Artistically speaking, this kind of artworks are considered to be an evolution of the early 20th century dada movement. However, pioneering artist Harold Cohen was one of the first practitioners of generative art: he used computer-controlled robots to generate paintings in the late 1960s.

‘Untitled Computer Drawing’ (1986) by Harold Cohen, courtesy of Tate. The black ink outlines of the abstract shapes were created automatically by a programme computer.

Now that we have cleared the air from any doubt, it is also evident why this art, decades after its infancy, still needs to demonstrate its raison d’être. The simplest argument against generative art is that it is not the artist who actually creates something, but the software itself. But it is this dubiously founded allegation that eventually dignifies generative art at the same level of other ingenious human activity.

In fact, generative artists devise programs that can be accessed and controlled by the public and generate a unique art making process. As the Norwegian artist Anders Hoff once said about how he makes his art:

My process is usually highly experimental. And while there is usually some kind of underlying goal there is not always any interest on my part in actually reaching that particular goal. I might be just as happy to discover some unexpected behaviour and explore that instead. Overall this means that the process is continuous, exploratory, and never really complete.

Reading between the lines, the process breaks down the figure of the romantic genius that is still the archetype of the artist in the imaginary of our culture. Generative art making is not any more about inspiration, a privileged sensibility or a unique talent to subdue matter and render an Idea visible. Instead it is an iterative process of experimentation where once the set up is completed, the artist becomes a spectator of his own work while the software makes its magic.

Processing generated images by motion designer JR Schmidt. The script he wrote generates gravity fields based on user input and then spawns particles that draw and change colour as they move across the canvas.

In this sense, those autonomous systems mentioned before open completely new artistic fields. And at the same time they enhance our understanding of a creativity born from a synthesis between art and science. It is not an art made to imitate reality, but to generate one-of-a-kind objects. It doesn’t matter anymore if the artist has a specific goal, neither if he had no clue about what result he would have achieved with the programme. It is all about that fine line of recognising authorship somewhere between artistic genius and programming tools.

“…Ars sine scientia nihil est”

I.e. practicing an “art” without proper knowledge & skill accomplishes nothing, once said the 14th century architect Jean Mignot. No quote could be more applicable to the role of computer science for contemporary generative art.

Generative art by Anders Hoff

Chiara Avino
Feral Content Creator