Can an algorithm be art?

Courtesy of Hamid Naderi Yeganeh
'15,000 Circles'

Two ways to read the story

  • Quick Read
  • Deep Read ( 2 Min. )

Digital artists have long faced criticism from art-world purists who challenge the idea that art created with computers qualifies as “real art.” But for Hamid Naderi Yeganeh, the computer is just another artistic tool. The Iranian mathematician and digital artist uses mathematical equations to create intricate geometric designs, as well as birds, flowers, and other features of the natural world. This kind of collaboration between artist and machine rekindles perennial questions about what constitutes art and who deserves attribution. For his geometric work, Mr. Yeganeh readily shares credit with the computer. More recently, however, he has branched out into renderings of real-life objects. That process requires more intentional planning on the part of the artist, he explains. In this case, “the computer plays the role of a brush. So the artist takes 100 percent of the credit,” he says. But to others, the question of “whose art is it?” is more philosophical rather than technical. Does any work of art truly belong to a single artist?

Why We Wrote This

Art and technology have always been intertwined. But each new twist on that collaboration revives old questions about how to define art and the artist.

Hamid Naderi Yeganeh is not a typical artist. Instead of using pencils, brushes, or even a digital stylus, his medium of choice is math.

Using mathematical formulas, the Iranian mathematician and digital artist programs computers to draw looping geometric designs, as well as birds, flowers, and other features of the natural world. This kind of collaboration between artist and machine rekindles perennial questions about what constitutes art and who deserves attribution.

“An artwork is never wholly independent; someone else made the canvas, someone else made the brushes, someone else made the paint,” says Richard Rinehart, director of the Samek Art Museum at Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Pa. “And those things are not incidental. They are incredibly important to the art world.”

Why We Wrote This

Art and technology have always been intertwined. But each new twist on that collaboration revives old questions about how to define art and the artist.

And digital artwork, created using computational technologies, involves even more people than painting, says Mr. Rinehart. 

Digital art is nearly as old as computers. From fractal art and graphic design software to photo-editing and digital animation tools, artists have for decades employed computational tools to produce and enhance art.

Digital artists have long faced criticism from art-world purists, who challenge the idea that art created with computers qualifies as “real art.”

That idea has withered over time, as digital art has found gallery space in modern art museums. Even some traditional fine art museums such as London’s Victoria and Albert Museum now have computer art collections.

Courtesy of Hamid Naderi Yeganeh
'Carnation'

When Mr. Yeganeh started making digital art in 2014, he set out to see what kind of art a computer would produce using his trigonometric functions. For these images, the computer plays an essential role and deserves 50 percent of the credit, he says.

“After a while, I understood I could draw real-life things by using mathematical equations,” says Yeganeh. 

This process requires more intentional planning on the part of the artist, he explains. He begins with a clear vision for the end product and uses a step-by-step process to find the appropriate mathematical function to make that vision a reality. 

When producing these pieces, “the computer plays the role of a brush. So the artist takes 100 percent of the credit,” he says.

But to Rinehart, the question “Whose art is it?” is more philosophical than technical.

Courtesy of Hamid Naderi Yeganeh
'Ball Dahlia'

One theory, put forth by French literary critic and theorist Roland Barthes in the 1967 essay “The Death of the Author,” suggests that the viewer plays an integral role in realizing a work of art. Barthes urged the art world to expand the idea of “author” to include both artist and viewer.

That idea spawned a slew of philosophical questions, Rinehart says: “Who is the author? Is there one solitary genius [behind] any work of art? Or is every work of art really the social production of the environment in which it came, including dozens if not hundreds of other people?”

The introduction of artificial intelligence into digital art brings more than just a machine into the process, Rinehart says. AI is part of a social fabric. Behind every program, there are people. Any AI is going to be heavily influenced by the people who wrote the program. The creators of the underlying code are influencing the artwork, and their aesthetic choices are built into the code.

Yeganeh agrees that the role of the programmer can never be fully disentangled from the product. “Computers make it possible for us to explore beautiful patterns quickly,” Yeganeh says. “My computer can’t determine the most beautiful shapes. It is my job to find the most beautiful shapes. So I don’t think computer-made art clashes with human creativity, but it can change the role of artists.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Can an algorithm be art?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2018/0507/Can-an-algorithm-be-art
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe