Generative Art
Typical definition: an artistic practice where artists use autonomous systems, such as algorithms, computer programs, or rule-based processes, to create works of art. This approach emphasizes the role of technology in the creative process, producing dynamic and often unpredictable results that challenge traditional notions of authorship and aesthetics.
Regardless of the definition, proper application of labor matters. When the creation of art culminates in the press of a button, resulting in the generation of 50, 500, 5k, 50k pieces, just pick a number, it prompts a question of whether this is actually art. While significant effort could go into developing the various aspects and traits of the input, the final act of creation is delegated to a randomizing algorithm. This process thereby transfers the creative control to a machine.
Generative art manufactures pseudo-scarcity and therefore lacks the intrinsic value that comes from the artist’s direct involvement from start to finish. When an artist asserts that he is producing only 100 pieces, or 10, or even one to maintain scarcity, yet does not personally view the art prior to creation, it undermines the authenticity of it. Its alignment drifts away from human towards robot depending on how much control the artist gave up.
This scenario highlights the difference between genuine scarcity, born of an artist’s labor and therefore a very real physical constraint to production, and the pseudo-scarcity of “only 3% have XYZ trait [in this series of infinity minus 1]” generated by algorithms. The significant labor invested in creating the initial traits and elements of the art is only half of the equation. The other half – the artist’s involvement in refining, adjusting, approving each individual piece after the algorithmic output — is essential. Without this, the output is a product of automation rather than a unique artistic expression.
In this context, generative art along with, of course, images created by more comprehensive AI outputs as one sees in Midjourney, falls short of the mark as something holding value as actual art. If it sits on a blockchain, it might hold value as a membership token or a collectible like a baseball card, but it lacks the artistic depth and authenticity that comes from the artist’s unmediated effort and vision. The absence of the artist’s final touch renders it less meaningful, reducing its value to that of a mere algorithmic output.
Objection. A counterargument:
While the proper application of labor is essential, the innovation behind generative art should not be overlooked. The initial attempts at generative art were experimental, aimed at exploring new tools and pushing the boundaries of creativity. This exploration itself is an art form. These experiments led to the development of new coding scripts and their application to the blockchain, establishing an intriguing method of authenticating ownership. The grand experiment of generative art demonstrated its potential and yielded significant insights.
However, it is acknowledged that the mere repetition of these techniques for often-sought financial gain in the generative art space (NFT space)—where “push button = make money” –dilutes the artistic value. The novelty has worn off, and it is time to move beyond this phase. Despite this, the initial flurry of activity in the generative art space, although marred by scams, did produce genuine gems among the coal.
Moreover, the notion of unlimited supply in generative art can be reframed. The final touch to align generative art with human creativity can be the selective curation by individuals. While a generative collection might contain 10,000 pieces, it is up to each person to choose the art that resonates with them. If enough people identify and appreciate the same piece, authentic scarcity is achieved through collective human judgment.
In this evolving landscape, the community of collectors and buyers takes on the essential role of discerning and elevating the most meaningful works from within vast generative collections. Historically, the audience’s reception has always been pivotal in ascribing value and significance to art. In the context of generative art, this dynamic remains true. A single piece, selected and cherished by many, can emerge as a rare and valuable artifact, standing out from the multitude of generated outputs. This collective curation process brings a human touch back into the equation, ensuring that the final appreciation and validation of art remain a fundamentally human endeavor.
Generative art will probably represent a significant moment in the history of art—a time of experimentation and discovery. Now that we’re through that initial moment, it will be on artists and their collectors to mature the tooling and keep it aligned in a way that identifies artistic labor, or what is finite and scarce, versus limitless machine generation.
