[jeeceebees]

By this logic no photographer is an artist either. They just 'selected' a composition they liked. They didn't work to create any of their subjects, just walked up and took a picture.

Slowly coaxing a desired result out of a computer by painstakingly tweaking an algorithm over the course of hours or days doesn't sound like work to you? The computer wouldn't have just done it on its own if an artist didn't tell it what to do.

I think your definition of art is narrow-minded. Who are you to tell someone their work isn't art. Art is (and always has been) in the eye of the beholder.

[pawy]

Alright, that is an argument I give right.

Still, I see the work putted as an art, not only the result.

What I mean is that tools that allow re-generation without someone putting he heart into it would not result in art.

Dropping 200 pics and having a new one is no art.

If you iterate your self on how these mechanics goes on and create something with it with control and skill then that looks more like it.

But then, if you drop out an algorithm that does that, handle it to users,

would their results be art ?

Tools and way are more important than result. How you use them and how you create something original from it is the art process.

I guess it really depends on how you use this.

[sdwisely]

>But then, if you drop out an algorithm that does that, handle it to users, would their results be art ?

in the same respect, did someone not create art in photoshop because they used some fractal noise?

I've had this conversation and thought about it a lot for what I'm doing and come to this conclusion.

art can be directed, it can be accidental, it can be both (every artist loves a happy accident), it can be because of a million iterations whether by hand or computer.

it's up to you, the viewer to decide if you think the end result is good art.