Algorithmic Art. What shall art become in an algorithmic world?
Art and science are typically seen as two different disciplines. Especially in the United States, colleges are divided into Liberal Arts and Science-focused institutions. The term 'arts' is widely used and typically refers more to the humanities—such as literature, philosophy, history, and the visual arts—than to the fine arts alone.
Moreover, what should go hand in hand is often seen as being in competition. With the advent of computer science and the idea of 'software eating the world,' engineering or science-based degrees seem to be stronger or more successful in terms of career prospects and measurable success.
The main commonality between both fields is creativity. It is deeply required in both spaces. Creativity can be understood as the process of bringing something new or novel into existence. In art, it is easy to imagine what that means: being creative in writing, painting, or performing is a clear and tangible endeavor. Creativity seems to come naturally in all fields of art.
However, in the sciences, creativity is often related to finding innovative ways to solve problems. These problems can be small—like figuring out how to fit an oddly shaped screw into an unfamiliar joint—or large, such as building a bridge between the Italian mainland and Sicily. The latter has not yet been realized due to extremely strong currents, posing a new and as-yet-unsolved scientific and engineering challenge.
Is algorithmic art even possible? From a scientific perspective, something novel or creative must be useful or at least solve a problem. With art, however, it is not that clear. Art poses a different kind of challenge: it forces us to ask whether it is useful at all, whether it can be felt or emotionally relatable.
Art, therefore, is a broader and more complex topic. To be an artist is typically to be engaged in an artistic task such as, writing, drawing, performing, and so on, which often requires a free and less structured approach than applied in science. Replicability and general applicability, core concepts of science, are not needed or even wanted in art. Perfection often kills beauty and art can be more impactful when it is more random, more unpredictable, hence more alive and natural.
A key aspect of art is the audience. During the process, it is not clear whether or when the target audience will value the created artwork or artifact. This quality of art, its uncertain reception, means that whatever an artist creates, whether abstract or specific, must ultimately be able to connect or relate to the audience to whom it is presenting the art as a fact, or existing thing.
Bringing this into an algorithmic space is interesting because algorithms are generally not seen as creative or artistic. They tend to be designed with a specific target or goal in mind. Effectiveness and efficiency are typically more important than, harder to replicate, measure and predict aspects such as emotional impact and inspiration.
This does not suggest that algorithmic art is not a random creation, nor a uncertain statistical model-based output of something the algorithm has digested from other art. It can, therefore, be something genuinely new and creative even if created by an algorithm. A poem, for example, created by an algorithm, can indeed be inspiring, sometimes to the extent that it becomes difficult for a reader to distinguish whether it was written by a human or an algorithm.
Overall, however, the main question about algorithmic art is, why should we even care, or perhaps worry, about it? The simple answer is that we should not. Most algorithmic art is, in fact, created by artists. It is hard to imagine, if not impossible, that an algorithmic artist could emerge and autonomously write thousands of books per hour, books that might be interesting, but to what end? Perhaps such an algorithm would exist to generate revenue for a publisher, but then again, how meaningful or useful would that be, and how much could it truly reach or connect with an audience at such as scale?
A possible perspective is to see art as a form of creation meant to entertain or enlighten us. Successful art touches us deeply, though that happens rarely, and when it does, it is a deeply personal experience. It is possible to imagine an algorithmic artist that exists solely for me, that is, one that writes books and poems exclusively for me, because it can draw on all the data it has about me, and it can learn how to enlighten or entertain me based on my feedback. Hence, it can optimize towards deeply touching me. Yet, even though that is an enticing thought, it would ultimately result in a very lonely experience, being unable to share this beautiful encounter, because it is so deeply personalised.