Creativity often springs from encountering the limits of a medium (and one's mastery of the medium).īut look at the excitement this week among people like me about Swift.
#Nodebox no repeat code#
I definitely believe that there is value in artists learning to think with the rigor that code encourages. I can certainly imagine a language that would describe 3D behavior, and a whole host of other things, in a way that a visual artist would describe them. I get it now (mostly), but it still feels unintuitive. I spent days looking at code examples just to try and grok how 3D works in processing. I feel like I achieved a pretty respectable level of knowledge in what I had been exposed to.Īnd yet, many aspects of Processing were a huge leap for me. I have a design background and learned front end code (and eventually ruby on rails) by getting progressively more interested in how the things I was designing were built. I think it's easy for people who have by now built an intuitive grasp of code to appreciate how challenging tools like Processing can be for a beginner. I certainly agree with the article that the possibilities are immense. It would also help more of multidisciplinary creative thinking on both sides. If computer science departments offered and occasional art course and fine art departments intro to programming, the generative arts would possibly become one of the most popular art forms in the new century. What stops fast adoption of this type of art is the educational institutions insistence on separating artists from engineers. This is what makes it an interesting new visual arts discipline.Īnd if you study lives of many artists you realize that they can be pretty obsessed and determined to work hard to learn tools and techniques in the process of their practice, so I am not worried - there will be many who will become excellent programmers! Creating images using code lets you escape these limitations.
All the Photoshop and other image creation and editing applications are very powerful, but still limited by the imagination of the people who made them. The whole interest in generative art and design is driven by the fact that you can create things that you cannot using Adobe (etc.) tools.
#Nodebox no repeat professional#
Attempting creation of generative art via interfaces other then conventional programming languages is what would limit it! This is for the same reason that professional programmers haven't adopted (not yet at least) visual programming languages - they are too limited in their expressiveness. I would even go as far as stating the opposite. Programming is just a new/differnt tool required for creating generative art. Think of years of training required to play a violin concerto.
Think of work required to learn to sketch human figure well or chisel it out of wood. And mastering them often takes insane amounts of study and practice. The whole point of generative are is to use programming language as the tool of visual expression as opposed for example to using UI based tools like Photoshop or Illustrator.Īny art (visual or not) requires creators to use various tools and learning these tools takes a lot of time and afford. The huge community of artists who code suggests this requirement is not a problem. I don't think that generative art needs to stop requiring programming skills to be successful.
0 kommentar(er)
