Why do my fellow artists reject mathematics as a tool for art?

[mind]

point is that most artists dont see the beauty and functionality of math.. i am an artist myself and i have a background in art directing and graphical design etc.. worked on a few big projects for 2 different companies.. i however have embraced the maths, and it shows on these forums whenever i post new algorithms to generate stuff etc.. i think maths is an awesome resource for art, however it will never really reach the pixel perfection that most artists work with these days. some things though, are impossible for an artist to visualize and thats where maths rule.. like fractals for example.. i'd say, if an artist is against maths in art, have him pixel a perfect julia or madelbrot fractal... that should teach him to stfu

[Xone]

Awesome arguments.

To Mind -
I can definately see the beauty in math, but I don't see the same type of art. It's too precise.
This is why I suggested that maybe math art should be in a different category of art.

To Pixel_outlaw -
Yes, math is very much like Engineering and technical drawing on the art side.
In this case, creativity comes about through the 'order' in which a user approaches the task.
But at the foundations, you are constrained to a rule which math always has to explain.

This topic has close ties with the notion of the Universe... as science tries to give meaning to
the universe and everything in it...  but the universe is like art, highly unpredictable and hard to explain,
almost as if there was a devine creator.

Maybe I didn't express my idea fully last time.
If you are talking about using pure math as art (with no random commands), you can't deviate to
anything outside of the main math circle, triangle, line, point right?
Only when a 1 and 0 is used can you make a distinction between perfection and random. Which
means that you will only ever get something artistic if you tell an algorithm to use imperfection from
the pure mathmatics. It has to be forced which is then a creative (user defined) process based on
binary. You are either saying yes do this or no, don't do that.
If the user decides to input that varience, then yes... the programmer is influencing the
creative side and is an artist, but an artist abiding by the rules of math or binary.

I hope I can make this next point clear.

If for example you had two mathmaticians on either side of the planet, who have no communication
between eachother... and you told them to develop a program which uses the closest thing to pure math
to acheive a beautifully creative Math based image... would they not both have ended up
at the same result given time - the mandlebrot ?
Whereas if you have two photoshop artists or two freehand artists on opposite sides of the planet,
you would never see anything that matched. Because they're not governed by rules about which
pixels to light up and in any particular order (much like chaos theory).
Their individuality has no constraints which rely upon anything math can explain (its choatic, not ordered).

I'd like to extend on your question a little regarding 'math in computers'.

My point being, that math (unless influenced to be chaotic) will always lead to the same result.
The problem with this, is that computers are only giving the machine a boolean response mechanism.
Computers can't deviate from math while running from binary (which has always been the case).
Computers would have to have something beyond the two digit binary foundations in order for you to ever achieve
what an artist would call real art (or chaos) with pure math.
If anyone designed a triple digit computer, it would require support of all three:
0 = do nothing
1 = Do something
? = Do nothing or something !  Then the machine would be randomly deciding... and would be way out of human control.
Even then, the computer would not be randomly deciding based on intelligence.
So computers would still be dumber than a human regarding it's ability to create art with math.


I hope some of this makes you see why artists are not happy about math being termed art.
I personally don't mind math being classed as art... I just don't think it's the same type because of
the fundamental restrictions you have to depend on, what an artist doesn't.

Your question is like:  Can Math imitate Art, or Can science explain nature.
These aspects may be opposing forces ?

If math ever imitates real creative art, then you've found the answer to the universes creation and
a number of other defining stuff, which I'll leave to your imagination.

[Shockwave]

Basically what you are saying is that the difference is the same as analog and digital?

But what you are forgetting is that a computer only does what it is told, a programmer can use maths as a tool to create things just as well as an artist could use a pencil to sketch...

[rain_storm]

Art is a skill but maths is more of a tool. computers are just calculators that we can use to create complex images. We as a community recognise the rendered images (and even the code itself sometimes) as art but the world at large does not. They tend to think along the lines that computer graphics are artificial and that there must exist a human element for it to be considered art. What they are missing is the fact that the code that generates those images has a very human element its just hidden between the lines.

Computers are to us what a camera is to a photographer. But everyone has taken a photo. Everyone is familiar with cameras. Not everyone has dabbled in pixel art so its unfamiliar to many. If someone were to convince a big name rock star to use a demo for their music video then the demo would automatically be considered art just by being attached to a popular music release and many people would appreciate it as such. Like wise if some one took a photo of some one standin in the street it may or may not be considered art. But hang that photo up in an art gallery and it gets appreciated. Just a thought that entered my head

[Xone]

To the topics original question... I have no problem with math being used as a tool for art.
The artist needs programmers to create the amazing shaders and such that are used these days... it
is certainly aiding art in computing in a remarkeable way.

I have no concerns with coders being called artists, just mandlebrot being called art (in the traditional sense).
Mandlebrot acts more like geometry, because it's following strict math rules and can never deviate unless given
chaotic instruction.

I have done enough programming to know that what i program can be made to look unique to an extent.
But I am also aware that it's fairly easy for someone else to have achieved the same result without
ever having seen what I did. Why? because they're working within the same perameters. Governed by
the same language.
Ok, the other person may have used a different colour or added higher gravity etc, but
ultimately it's sitting on a bed of math (or binary).

So, is a programmer suddenly an artist if they change a variable from 1.3 to 1.1 in the code ?
Because this is what appears to be proposed. The 'variables and the order' being the paint from the programmers discreation ?
I'm finding it hard to grasp. It's certainly a personal choice of the developer in the way they input the code,
but there's nothing stopping another developer from acheiving the same result by changing their values to match.

Virtual reality is a very odd thing, as everything an artist or programmer does is non physical and is often
easily viewed in a god-like way. An aspect of programming I find very interesting.

[Shockwave]

Do you think that a painting or a sculpture could be copied by another artist just as easily as a programmer copies some visual effect or fractal that some other programmer has written?

[Xone]

A painting or scupture could be copied for sure, but it would never be exact unless developed by an
engineer or a draughtsman (who would turn to math), the closest thing to a programmer.
But I don't see how it could be possible that a painting or scupture could be copied exact by a
traditional artist, because there would always be some lack of precision.

The traditional artist works by sight alone and rarely (if ever) requires any usage of math, so the amount of
individuality present in the work is immense. Making it almost impossible to copy precisely by another individual.
Here's the interesting part.
Traditional art is heavily conveyed by the artists personal emotions at the time their work
is created, could/would the draughtsman measure this ?

Every brush stroke, every tone, the way the paint was layered over other paint, the way the brush
hairs splattered tiny specks of colour as the artist worked. Would a draughtsman be willing to try and replicate
something like this? I'm guessing not.

The mandlebrot to the traditional artist is like the traditional artists painting to a draughtsman.
Extremely difficult to copy.

[Pixel_Outlaw]

Pixel sprites created pixel by pixel are easily copied. These don't use any tool like blur or such it is a matter of what you see is what you get. They are fully recreatable and they are fully art.

They could be hand copied EXACTLY by color picker and are also indeed art. In the same manner in which they were originially created.

http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixels/new_icons.asp?ob=showcase

Reproducibility has nothing to do whether something is art or not. However I don't believe that math itself is an art.

Here is some food for thought, the following image is not art. It is the product of a 2d tree generating program I wrote some time ago in my Game Maker days.

[taj]

The mandlebrot to the traditional artist is like the traditional artists painting to a draughtsman.
Extremely difficult to copy.

Nobody is claiming the mandelbrot is art. Maths != mandelbrot.

However, what makes you think I cant express my feelings through the mandelbrot? The angle its displayed, the part I chose, the colours, juxtaposing with other imagery, shades, tones CAN all be chosen and worked as "art", albeit a very primitive kind. 99.9% of the time its not: hence its just maths.

The computer is not like traditional art tools. Though the computer follows a precise set of rules, I agree, it can combine those rules in surprising ways. Karl Sims claimed the compuetr was a collaborative tool and I tend to agree. It moves "tools" to the next level. Take for example texture generation using genetic algorithms. Here, to the user, he guides the computer choices and nothing more - he does not tell it what to do. There is no equivalent in traditional art tools.

And its here I think most artists have a problem with computers. How many great painters worked in pairs? Collaborated on a single work? Its very rare , perhaps examples can be found in murals and building artwork but I suspect even these were created by one lead artist with others "filling in". So "fine" artists have a real issue with the computer as a tool.

Where I think we can find computers and maths used as art is in Disney movies. Even Disney though resisted the urge for many many years. Time though has shown this was a mistake.

 

[Xone]

Pixel sprites created pixel by pixel are easily copied. These don't use any tool like blur or such it is a matter of what you see is what you get. They are fully recreatable and they are fully art.
They could be hand copied EXACTLY by color picker and are also indeed art. In the same manner in which they were originially created.

You can replicate the art because the data is being stored. Data which the computer expects from the artist.
The artist cannot go outside the boundaries of what the application expects. My arguments on the artist side will (I have no
doubt) become more difficult as applications get better, as they are allowing a lot more freedom to the artist.
But ultimately we are dependant on the applications ability to translate what we want it to do. I personally see this as being a governing point in computers. Because everything is storable data for the very purposes of 'replication'.

Reproducibility has nothing to do whether something is art or not.

That's where you're wrong. This is a very important factor to artists.
The integrity of what it is to be a 'unique' traditional artist is suddenly being challenged if it can be replicated (by anyone) with relative ease.

Anything in a computer can be replicated because they are built on binary.
How many works of original art (in real-life) do you see being copied by other people (even other artists) ?
Very few indeed. This is because the artist has expressed unique abilities (personal attributes), which is why original works of art
are valued highly.
I personally would never value a peice of art I made on computer in the same way that I would value it as a
traditional artist working with paper/canvas. Any artist using a computer should be aware that what they are producing is being captured by math, and can be easily replicated.

With regards to pixel-based art (like sprites), copying can only be acheived if the original is made available.
Which is nothing like art that is computed by an algorithm.
... in the case of art designed by an algorithm:
You do not need the original art ('like mandlebrot') for it to be replicated, you do not need any stored data.
I hope you can see my point. You said you can replicate a sprite, but you can only do this by sourcing stored data.
You could not replicate the sprite easily if you didn't have the original data.

Here is some food for thought, the following image is not art. It is the product of a 2d tree generating program I wrote some time ago in my Game Maker days.

Some time ago I wrote a galaxy generator in code which was a very complex program that I spent months working on.
However, as time passed during it's design, I quickly learned that the computer was lacking something very important.
Because no matter how good the code is, ultimately you (as the programmer) are the one defining how it will look through math.
You can't generate something unique while using math.
Here is some food for thought...
I could not get the galaxy generator to work with just a 0, and I could not get it to work with just a 1.
Only when both variables 0 & 1 are given, would it generate a galaxy. Exactly the same way mandlebrot works.
My point being:
For there to be 'unique', there has to be a creator who decides whether to put both the 0 and 1 together.

If this is true, whatever created the universe must have been a damn good artist.
Because how else can you get to 'something' 1 from 'nothing' 0 ?

Traditional artist = 0        [an artist starts with 0 and invents the 1]
(starts with nothing and invents something from scratch, usually from imagination)
Programmer = 0 and 1      [a programmer is given both and creatively puts them in order]
(starts with nothing and something, then rearranges until a creative result is achieved)

The programmer is using artistic/creative skills, but you're doing it on a foundation which disregards the
aspect of 'unique'. Hence, anything you make is susceptible to perfect replication (purely because,
no matter what algorithm you write, math will always describe it). You havn't invented it, you've discovered it.
Math cannot describe what an artist draws in photoshop, it can only store it as 'invented' data.

Programers are scientific explorers, and Artists are inventors !
No matter which you do, you are aided by the presence of the other. 

Apologies to anyone for the lack of relative info on Demo making. 

[taj]

Reproducibility has nothing to do whether something is art or not.

That's where you're wrong. This is a very important factor to artists.
The integrity of what it is to be a 'unique' traditional artist is suddenly being challenged if it can be replicated (by anyone) with relative ease.

Anything in a computer can be replicated because they are built on binary.
How many works of original art (in real-life) do you see being copied by other people (even other artists) ?
Very few indeed. This is because the artist has expressed unique abilities (personal attributes), which is why original works of art
are valued highly.
I personally would never value a peice of art I made on computer in the same way that I would value it as a
traditional artist working with paper/canvas. Any artist using a computer should be aware that what they are producing is being captured by math, and can be easily replicated.

Though I hate it, this is 100% true. Reproduceability is key in classical art value. Followed by originality. Modern art seems to be a distilled form of originality but often completely reproduceable. How often has someone rejected modern art because "I could have done that!" arguments. I suspect this is a deep reason why computer art is not taken seriously.

Here is some food for thought, the following image is not art. It is the product of a 2d tree generating program I wrote some time ago in my Game Maker days.

Agreed it isnt art. Its pretty, its interesting. Its not art.

You can't generate something unique while using math.

Maybe this is out of context but .. of course you can. Equations are like words in one sense. When you pick the right words, put them in the right order , combine them in correct ways, you get a story. It can be the worst kind of Star Trek fan fiction or James Joyce Ulysses. The point is the skill lies in the use and the resulting "art" if it is art, can vary in merit as equally with programming and equations as it can with words. Just because you can photocopy (reproduce) a great work of fiction does not devalue the work of fiction or the "artist" behind it. I'd argue that just because you can reproduce an image on the computer does not devalue the ... hmmm "creator". Or shouldn't.

The programmer is using artistic/creative skills, but you're doing it on a foundation which disregards the
aspect of 'unique'.

Just like much modern art...

You havn't invented it, you've discovered it.
Math cannot describe what an artist draws in photoshop, it can only store it as 'invented' data.

Ah but not all swans are black.
Just because maths cant describe all of art (the hand drawing in photoshop) does not mean that it cant be used to describe some forms of art. Maths is not equal to photoshop image is not the same as maths is not equal to art. And also a photoshop image can be as far from art as a vanilla mandelbrot is or a crappy sprite or anything else. Just because you drew something by hand does not make it art.

And invention v discovery. I cant agree. No more than James Joyce "discovered" Ulysses. I have never written a program I consider art, yet if I did I imagine the process would be similar to writing or painting (concept -> manifestation through a skilled process with a unique view).

Programers are scientific explorers, and Artists are inventors !
No matter which you do, you are aided by the presence of the other. 

To be honest most programmers are not scientists at all, more like engineers I think. I would define an engineer as someone who uses abstract principles discovered in science to create new things. They are the inventors. Thats what programmers are. Programs are not discovered , they are invented.

Taj

[Xone]

Just like much modern art...

Exactly taj.

To be honest most programmers are not scientists at all, more like engineers I think. I would define an engineer as someone who uses abstract principles discovered in science to create new things. They are the inventors. Thats what programmers are. Programs are not discovered , they are invented.
Taj

The reason I didn't say programmers were inventors, is because the 1 and 0 is already present... you are using binary
to reach a destination already described by mathematics. What the programmer invents, is the 'order' of the 1s and 0s.
To this extent, the programmer is an artist at ordering numbers.
Surely this sounds about right ?

Personally, I think Math and Art could be opposing forces. Where Math is order, and Art is chaos.
There must be a good reason why the brain splits the two. But why we evolve with one stronger than
the other is a mystery to me. Maybe we are desgined this way to ensure discussions like this occur.
Evolution at work, but that's another topic 

[taj]

Just like much modern art...

Exactly taj.

To be honest most programmers are not scientists at all, more like engineers I think. I would define an engineer as someone who uses abstract principles discovered in science to create new things. They are the inventors. Thats what programmers are. Programs are not discovered , they are invented.
Taj

The reason I didn't say programmers were inventors, is because the 1 and 0 is already present... you are using binary
to reach a destination already described by mathematics. What the programmer invents, is the 'order' of the 1s and 0s.
To this extent, the programmer is an artist at ordering numbers.
Surely this sounds about right ?

Personally, I think Math and Art could be opposing forces. Where Math is order, and Art is chaos.
There must be a good reason why the brain splits the two. But why we evolve with one stronger than
the other is a mystery to me. Maybe we are desgined this way to ensure discussions like this occur.
Evolution at work, but that's another topic 

Going back to the ones and zeros for a moment. I dont see this as different to having a fixed colour palette of oil paints.
You mix the paints or you mix the numbers.
Every artwork starts with some basic media be they paints, pens, pastels, a block of stone or a dead cow. In the case of computers (not maths), it starts with 1 and 0.

[Xone]

Yep, sounds about right taj.
I would never use a cow though, too difficult. That requires some serious talent.

[taj]

Yep, sounds about right taj.
I would never use a cow though, too difficult. That requires some serious talent.

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/H/hirst/for.html