Art in Code

Art in Code

With my first computer science midterm drawing uncomfortably close, I can’t help but reflect on my brief forays into the world of Java and nested for-loops. Before Stanford, I never had any interest in computer science. The windowless basement in which computer science classes were taught at my high school served as the best metaphor for the way the concept of coding was presented – bland, uncreative and somewhat irrelevant. Consequently, instead of spending time getting intimately familiar with VisualBasic, I donned some tastefully ripped skinny jeans and opted to take visual art courses. However, now that I am at Stanford, CS106A has become my favorite class. How did this happen? How did I transition so willingly from acrylic to acm.graphics.*;? While a large amount of credit is due to the fact that CS106A is a wonderfully designed and entertaining class, I believe that computer science’s inherent creative similarities to art is more responsible for holding my interest amidst the perils of Karel and late nights spent debugging. 

Through art classes, I learned to plan out a creative vision through a sketchbook, to spend hours pursuing that vision in the studio and to appreciate the skill and vision of others who have gone through a similar creative process. In CS106A, I am re-learning these same concepts but in a different medium.

My experience with computer science thus far has demonstrated to me that creative problem solving is at the core of what it means to be a computer scientist. To write successful code, it seems to me that one must balance vision with intuition and practical elegance with technical complexity. Similarly, in the realm of visual art, one is constantly moving between the dynamic boundaries that separate one’s preconceived vision of the final piece, artistic impulses and technical ability to manipulate the medium. If these balances are maintained, some amazing things can come about.

Although it is a point that has almost fallen into the realm of cliché, Steve Jobs truly understood these similarities. In fact, his accomplishments demonstrate the interconnectedness of creative artistic thinking and computer science. He is quoted as saying that,

"I think our major contribution [to computing] was in bringing a liberal arts point of view to the use of computers. If you really look at the ease of use of the Macintosh, the driving motivation behind that was to bring not only ease of use to people — so that many, many more people could use computers for nontraditional things at that time — but it was to bring beautiful fonts and typography to people, it was to bring graphics to people ... so that they could see beautiful photographs, or pictures, or artwork, et cetera ... to help them communicate. ... Our goal was to bring a liberal arts perspective and a liberal arts audience to what had traditionally been a very geeky technology and a very geeky audience." (NPR)

Like Jobs suggests, computers and computer science should be universal. In an effort to accomplish this goal, he found a creative solution involving the actual fusion of art and code that in turn made computers more accessible and more useful to the average person. However, he did not just use technology to create art. In fact, he did the opposite. He used art to create useable technology.

It is accurate to say that art class made me love art; but more importantly, it made me value creativity. Thus far, my experience with computer science is reinforcing the value of the same concepts: planning, vision, creativity and perseverance. Oh, and time. Don’t let me forget that.

By no stretch of any possible definition, am I a computer science prodigy. I do not have aspirations of writing the next five editions of The Art and Science of Java nor do I consider myself competent enough to even phone Palantir’s office to ask for a brochure. And, you know what? I’m okay with that, for the moment at least. I think it’s amazing that I have the time now in my life to start learning something completely new, to start fresh and to make mistakes. But now I digress into that touchy-feely-ness that only seems to single me out as the artsy-fartsy kid. Thankfully, that doesn’t seem to exclude me from exploring the world of computer science. 

For Further Reference:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/bjork-biophilia/id434122935?mt=8

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/49718309?byline=0&amp;portrait=0&amp;color=ffffff" width="400" height="300" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe>

http://formandcode.com/

The Analytics of Art: Some observations on Art.sy

The Analytics of Art: Some observations on Art.sy

The Internet has great taste. 

iTunes seems to know all about my passion for blues music. Amazon keeps suggesting books that would help me brush up on my neuroscience. And, Epicurious even picked up on my preference for spaghetti alla carbonara.

For the past decade or so, the Internet has been making great recommendations to its consumers. Now with the creation of Art.sy, the self-proclaimed online, artistic “genome”, the Internet now seems equipped to help Internet trolls and normal people alike hone their taste in fine art.

Carter Cleveland, Founder, Art.sy

Art.sy is the newest way to experience art online. However, it’s not just a virtual gallery. Instead, it is a platform to “help you discover the art you’ll love”.  Like iTunes, Amazon and Epicurious, Art.sy uses analytics to help expose users to new content, in this case artwork. Although it may seem simple, Art.sy’s intention to create a recommendation and networking platform based off user’s artistic preferences is a technically lofty goal.

While “analytics” may be a buzzword these days, the method Art.sy uses is nothing special or cutting-edge. Currently, Art.sy employs a dozen art history majors to organize artworks by particular “genes”. These genes are categories or labels that denote different kinds of information. Some genes describe an artwork’s historical context or geographical origin. Others attempt the feat that countless pretentious artist statements have failed to do; to distill the greater meaning of a work into a handful of characters, like “Identity Politics” or “Documentation of Social Life”. Additionally, each descriptor’s relevancy to a particular artwork is scored on a scale between 1 and 100. Once enough artwork has gone through the initial labeling process, this information is combined with user-generated preferences. In turn, this data is used to power algorithms that helps suggest new artworks to Art.sy users.

An overview of Art.sy's "gene" organization

Art.sy qualifies as an element of Net Art because it relies on the Internet to help art lovers make connections with new types of art. The initiative’s innovation lies in the fact that it is the first platform to extend this idea of organization and recommendation of fine art – a class of artistic media that has practically no intrinsic ties to the Internet or digital technology. In turn, however, this goal has a series of inherent challenges, the solutions to which will have a large impact on the way art is understood by Art.sy’s viewers.

First, there is no obvious way to analyze the huge breadth of art’s visual qualities in the same way algorithms can compare music’s aural qualities. Unlike translating sound waves into bytes, fine art does not posses many qualities that are easily translated into digital data. For example, how does one quantitatively differentiate cubism from impressionism? Or, tell the difference between oil paints and acrylic paints? Furthermore, the challenge of analyzing an artwork’s visual qualities is compounded by the fact that Art.sy uses a two-dimensional image to represent a three-dimensional art work. This begs the question, how could a computer program quickly distinguish a three-dimensional ceramic work from a photographic work, if both are represented in the same two-dimensional digital format?

Second, fine art’s significance relies to a large degree on its context and meaning. Based my own experience, Art.sy’s current system is quite consistent in its ability to suggest art works that share thematic similarities; however, how will this system fare when Art.sy has increased its database from 2,700 artists to a number around 5,000 – the current scale of the Google Art Project? Will the paradox of choice ultimately drown any system of organization?

Finally, can Art.sy really afford to cater to “everyone”? Many people in the tech world hold the opinion that social media platforms have an inherently flawed business model. To some, Art.sy seems to be heading down the same, flawed path. Currently, its business platform is based off taking a commission for online art sales that are negotiated through its website. Although more and more art is being bought and sold online, will this e-commerce traffic be sufficient for Art.sy’s continued growth? If not, Art.sy may have to revert to its original business model: catering to a private group of wealthy individuals. Indeed, Art.sy only recently opened up its membership to the public; previously it was an “invite-only” club.      

All of these challenges have an impact on the way users “discover” new art works through Art.sy. In providing a means to navigate such a wealth of artistic information, Art.sy has adopted a “browser” oriented interface. The ease of use and accessibility of recommendations in this browser encourages “artistic speed dating”, where users briefly flirt with one artwork before moving on to the next recommendation. Consequently, Art.sy could potentially create a very reductive art-viewing experience in which users feel compelled to cursorily scan over a huge breadth of art instead of delving more deeply into a handful of selected art works. Also, Art.sy’s business model could have an effect on the actual recommendations it makes to users. For example, since, Art.sy’s main method of monetization is based of sales commissions, it has an incentive to direct users to pieces of artwork that are currently “for sale”. If this were to happen, Art.sy’s recommendations would likely be skewed towards contemporary artworks. This situation might come about because contemporary artists will be drawn to use Art.sy as an online marketplace more so than owners of older, more famous artworks who have pre-established art trading connections.

Overall, Art.sy is an interesting concept that is worth watching. At the moment, however, it is still much too early to view it as a major force of change in the world of art. The real impact of Art.sy hinges on whether it can break in to popular culture and then dramatically increase its user base. Alternatively, if Art.sy stays within the niche of the art world elite, its greater influence will be reduced to an over-glorified mail-order catalog.

Additional Reading:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/arts/design/artsy-is-mapping-the-world-of-art-on-the-web.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/arts/design/google-art-projects-expanded-offerings.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.quora.com/Art-sy

Net Art? What Art?

Net Art? What Art?

During the infant stages of HTML and graphical web browsers, there was an artistic movement that few know about or remember.

It was called net art.

Started in the 1990’s by a handful of artists who borrowed from avant-garde paradigms like Dadaism, Fluxus and Situationalism, the net art movement sought to utilize the Internet as an artistic medium.

At the time, the thought of using the Internet to create art was revolutionary. Until that point, the Internet had been largely regarded as a means to share academic data and communicate remotely  – a system of information transit largely devoid of emotion and passion. However, with the advent graphical web browsers like Mosaic, artists suddenly saw the Internet’s potential as a means for artistic expression.

Today, art has spread to all corners of the Internet. Every day, thousands of artists across the world upload their work to websites, blogs and forums. As a result, many artists are able to debut their work to a much greater audience than a traditional gallery display might allow. At first glance, one would think that this signifies net art’s climax; it’s successful integration into popular Internet culture and triumph as an artistic movement.

In fact, the opposite is true. Net art has neither succeeded nor peaked. It is still in its fledgling stages.

Sure, paintings have been scanned and photos have been digitized, but much of the art that is displayed on the Internet is not net art. While it may be viewable on through a computer screen, the vast majority of art found on the Internet is not fundamentally different than the art found in physical galleries or in generations past. That said, there is still hope for net art.

Since the 1990’s, the Internet has evolved considerably. Web 2.0 is sleek and sexy and practical. Furthermore, computers more powerful than those that helped launch the first space shuttles now fit into the palm of our hand, and by the virtue of wireless technology, these devices have tethered our lives to the Internet.

Now that the Internet has become a way of life, the Internet can start to become a way of art. 

What is #art?

#art is dedicated to examining the Internet’s impacts on the way humans create and experience art. More specifically, this blog is concerned with instances of artistic expression that rely on the Internet for existence. For artists and art lovers, it is a fascinating time because net art has the potential to create a completely new art form that could be supported by large masses of Internet users. I hope that this blog will serve as a resource to those who are interested in using the Internet to facilitate personal expression and connection through art or other means.