[monokai_nl]

I really like generative art. It's part intellectual ingenuity, part aesthetics.

I've only realized later that it had a name, but since I've had my hands on a computer, I've been making generative graphics with code one way or another. First in GWBasic, later in Flash, and more recently in JavaScript.

In my view generate art is art created by an autonomous system. The trick is to balance randomness with intent and to create clever algorithms with maximum visual impact. Nowadays the term "generative" is more associated with AI, and to differentiate it from AI Art, I call it Algorithmic Art now. I wrote a piece about it: https://monokai.com/articles/algorithmic-art-as-a-subset-of-...

And I know NFT's are frowned upon here, but I've always found Algorithmic Art a perfect match for NFT's. Where before I created autonomous systems that ephemerally generated different outputs each run, now you can store specific outputs on the blockchain by just storing the PRNG seed. There are platforms that facilitate this, like Artblocks or Fxhash.

[t0bia_s]

There is no "generative art" by definition. Art cannot be generated. It's oxymoron.

Correct is "generative images". Or "kitsch".

[pawsocks]

I'm curious about what benefits having them on a blockchain provides, besides proof of ownership?

[monokai_nl]

Generative systems often produce random outputs every time it runs. When run in a browser, an output just vanishes after a refresh and is usually never found again if you haven't saved the PRNG seed.

Using a blockchain, you can store a specific output of your generative system in a way that's definitive and collaboratively agreed upon. If you believe in collecting / trading digital assets, that's a prerequisite for algorithmic systems.

[zamadatix]

I'm not sure I manage to follow accurately. If you don't save the art you make then it's gone, generative or not. If you do save the output in some way (either by saving the output itself or saving the full information needed to regenerate the output) what is special about doing so on the blockchain vs anywhere else beyond the aforementioned proof of ownership?

One is of course allowed to care about proof of ownership and the method used to do so if they like :). I just didn't follow the response in context of the question of how it's different from doing the same without the blockchain otherwise.

Unrelated: Kickass you're the Monokai author - I still use that today! Have you ever posted a retrospective about Monokai?

[monokai_nl]

A generative system can produce an infinity of outputs. An art platform combined with a blockchain allows you to store a finite number of outputs from the same system definitively without knowing upfront what the outputs would look like. This forces you to think carefully about your system: it should produce interesting works with each iteration. Some people call this long form generative art.

Regarding Monokai, I’ve written some history about it here: https://monokai.pro/history :)

[sdenton4]

Yah, I think the question really comes down to: what's so special about a block chain vs any other public record or database?

For example, it's just as easy - and more accessible - to put the code and example configurations with output in a github repository.

[monokai_nl]

The special thing is that it’s decentralized. I know this discussion will not resolve and I’m not a blockchain zealot. I do think it’s an elegant decentralized storage system for algorithmic art where you make outputs definitive and collectible after initiating a run.

[zamadatix]

Thanks for the history page :).

[crooked-v]

Of course, "proof of ownership" with generative art isn't, because pure generative art is ineligible for copyright protection (https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-de...).

[monokai_nl]

You’re conflating AI art with algorithmic art. This is the reason why I wrote the article.

[t0bia_s]

You mean images? Art cannot by generated by definition.