[tannk11001]

Programmatically generated art is still an immature medium, and rudimentary experiments in the medium still dominate what you see. They don't need to be great art for them to stimulate a little curiousity and interest among people are are following the medium more closely than you are, and that's what you see in galleries like those presented here.

You don't find them remarkable because they're the medium's equivalent of photography's early Daguerreotypes. Those early photos lack many truly artistic qualities. The substrates couldn't capture tonality, dynamic range or action very well. The artists were still surveying the very basic possibilities of photography. It wasn't until decades later that we start seeing great art coming from photography.

The same applies here. Most generative pieces using Context Free or Processing are unremarkable as 'art' because they're just basic surveys. They're still just using tempura paint and seeing what they can do with it.

But keep your mind open -- give it another 30 years, as the medium matures, and you're sure to be embarassed by how trivially you pass it off here. Year after year, more expressiveness will come through in more sophisticated generators made with more and more sophisticated tools.

[trop]

Absolutely! I'm a big fan of VectorPark interactive work http://www.vectorpark.com/. It's algorithmically created, yes, but also cleverly drawn within the algorithms. And more so, there's a sense of wonder and surprise and beauty to this work. It takes a really particular sort of artist/coder to pull this sort of thing off -- technical virtuosity while retaining an imagination. All too often the technical mastery required reduces subsumes the emotional range of the work...