>The problem here is likely how you define art, and that is of course messy.
i don't think the problem is that it is art- i think what people argue is the value of the art made by such tools as computor and other technologically advanced tools, as seemingly lesser value than other forms of visual traditional art.
a computor has a list of given choices that any other medium has- such as paint or plaster. - and what gives the art value is more than just skill of rendering the material into a recognizable form. i would argue that the use of any such tool- is a ready made. it only becomes art once all the choices (applicable/available to the context) are made with intention- being the aesthetic choices. this would include the art object's relationship to the viewer/body- whether that be to be alienating or not-.
a piece of art would also have to hold up in the art community today with
certain standards of art history which are mostly subjective- and have to do
arbitrary categorization (into terms such as "minimalism" and "modern" that do not mean anything to the actual artist. . . or the group of artists placed under the heading) to be considered valued art by museums and galleries.
if you are looking for a higher standard- which i hope you are- the only thing that can be done is to perpetually educate your self on the history of forms and images and their cultural implications and intentions.
and to crush the standard held that art's value is in the skill administered
given material (ready made). art is more than about mastering the use of paint. it is also about mastering the way that viewers will interpret you iconographical use, material use, and context use.
>> The hundreds of choices a person makes at each step leads to a very
>> expressive image of that persons' cumulative choices. Give two people the
>> same seed images and their end results will be completely different.
>> It also takes some skill to evolve really good images. Some people just
>> can't seem to get the hang of it. Since these images are generated by
>> individual expression and intention, and requires an element of skill, AND
>> are often damned pretty, why would it not be art?
>Exactly. I would say art (as opposed to "just" beauty) comes from the
>application of a selective process (not necessarily by humans, but at
>least by some kind of thinking system). Of course, evolutionary art is
>in many ways the purest for of art in that respect since it relies on
>minimal control and only works by selection :-)
>One complaint against much electronic art I have heard is that it
>doesn't relate to the human. I don't see that as a problem since I
>think there can be great art relating to non/trans/posthuman stuff. It
>is just that humans can more easily relate to human stuff (but that is
>just bias, of course).