First Interactions

Art defies a singular definition. It can manifest as a blank canvas, reflecting the artist's psyche, or as simple lines that evoke elegance. Imagination and aesthetic sensibility are the only prerequisites.

Generative art, by definition, is created through autonomous systems—in my case, an algorithm designed to produce unique art pieces. For my inaugural piece, I utilized two lines: one sloping left, the other right. These lines, being the most basic forms of creation, set the foundation for my work.

The crucial phase in the artistic process is algorithmic design; on their own, these lines lack artistic merit, but paired with an algorithm, they flourish. Central to generative art is the principle of randomness. Each time the algorithm is executed, I witness a fresh outcome, one that I hadn't encountered before. This element of randomness infuses life into the piece, countering the cold uniformity often associated with algorithms.

Imperfection embodies digital perfection.

To illustrate, I devised a 4x4 grid filled randomly with 0s and 1s. Each execution of this filling algorithm yields a different numerical arrangement. Following this, I illustrated a left-sloping line for every 0 and a right-sloping line for every 1. The result? A simplistic yet captivating art piece. The algorithm transformed random values into something genuinely delightful—an experience that left me in awe during its creation.

What Are the Boundaries?

After dedicating a month to generative art, I pondered the limitations of this medium. Given that all art pieces stem from algorithms—regardless of their complexity—one might assume that computer-generated art has finite boundaries. Unlike humans, computers maintain consistency; a line produced by one computer mirrors that of another. However, when humans attempt to replicate a line, each rendition varies.

Generative art devoid of randomness appears identical across different machines and iterations. Below are two distinct generative pieces I created without a random element. In the first, every round maintains the same radius, while in the second, all lines share identical dimensions. The downside of these works is that anyone with access to the same algorithm can recreate them. In contrast, no one could ever replicate the Mona Lisa's unique brush strokes.

Viewing this as a challenge, I sought to extend my creative boundaries. I aimed to design an algorithm that could transform a given image into art reminiscent of human painting—ensuring that each output is unique. This required extensive use of random numbers and various shapes, including dots and sinusoidal waves.

After numerous attempts, I finally crafted an algorithm that met my standards. It analyzes the color of each pixel and, based on its position, draws either a dot or a wave-like line, incorporating color data and a touch of randomness.

Ultimately, the only limit is your imagination. With just a few lines of code, you can create virtually anything. I named my artwork "Vincenstein" as a nod to Da Vinci, who passed away in 1519. Although the tools available to artists have evolved dramatically since then, the yearning for beauty and creativity remains constant.

A Question for Reflection

If Da Vinci were alive today, what form would his artistry take?