6 comments

  • atum471 minute ago
    One of my hobbies back in college was to write fun js fiddles [1]. It was super fun to have the time and curiosity to investigate something. I&#x27;ve been missing it more and more each passing day. I was super curious about generative art, procedural generation... I guess it is a negative term now, with AIs being able to create such complex stuff as video, audio and God knows what else. I was once working on a memes app where users could submit images. I was knee deep in how to identify duplicate images to keep my meme database &quot;clean&quot;, so I was investigating cosine similarities... Few months went by and AI can do that better. Thats how ai feel now: AI can do it better, so why bother?<p>1 - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;jsfiddle.net&#x2F;u&#x2F;victorqribeiro" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;jsfiddle.net&#x2F;u&#x2F;victorqribeiro</a>
  • ww52011 minutes ago
    Years ago. I dabbled in generative art. I even wrote a small Forth-like language to control the generation. It&#x27;s basically controllable chaos with math or chaos within bounding patterns. The results were often unexpected. Some examples: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;imgur.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;UjWLy7s" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;imgur.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;UjWLy7s</a>
  • xrd8 minutes ago
    It is worth mentioning this site when talking about generative art, IMHO.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;bauble.studio&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;bauble.studio&#x2F;</a><p>And<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;toodle.studio&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;toodle.studio&#x2F;</a><p>Both written by the same guy who wrote the Janet for Mortals book, about the Janet language, which supports both those sites.<p>I&#x27;m really wanted to see if I could combine those tools to make Arabic art inspired generative art. Anyone know of any projects which are doing that? There is a lot of crossover in modern generative art and ancient Arabic art.
  • heliographe10 minutes ago
    <i>&gt; I now have a small library of simulated materials: watercolor washes, dry brush strokes, felt-tip pens, cracked glaze, pencil fills. None of them are physically accurate. I’m not simulating fluid dynamics or anything like that, I don’t need to. They’re impressions, heuristics that capture enough of the character of a material to be convincing and evoke an emotion.</i><p>I find this to be a key insight. I&#x27;ve been working on a black-and-white film app for a while now (it&#x27;s on my website in profile if you&#x27;re curious), and in the early stages I spent time poring over academic papers that claim to build an actual physical model of how silver halide emulsions react to light.<p>I quickly realized this was a dead end because 1) they were horribly inefficient (it&#x27;s not uncommon for photographers to have 50-100MP photos these days, and I don&#x27;t want my emulator to take several minutes to preview&#x2F;export a full image), and 2) the result didn&#x27;t even look that good&#x2F;close to actual film in the end (sometimes to the point where I wondered if the authors actually looked at real film, rather than get lost into their own physical&#x2F;mathematical model of how film &quot;should behave&quot;).<p>Forgetting the physics for a moment, and focusing instead on what things look and feel like, and how that can be closely approximated with real time computer graphics approach, yielded far better results.<p>Of course the physics can sometimes shed some light on why something is missing from your results, and give you vocabulary for the mechanics of it, but that doesn&#x27;t mean you should try to emulate it accurately.<p>I read this interview with spktra&#x2F;Josh Fagin and how he worked on digitally recreating how light scatters through animation cels, which creates a certain effect that is missing from digital animation - and it was validating to read a similar insight:<p><i>&quot;The key isn’t simulating the science perfectly, but training your eye to recognize the character of analog light through film, so you can recreate the feeling of it.&quot;</i><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;animationobsessive.substack.com&#x2F;p&#x2F;dangerous-light" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;animationobsessive.substack.com&#x2F;p&#x2F;dangerous-light</a>
  • nsainsbury30 minutes ago
    Fellow generative artist here :waves:<p>I started out in all the usual ways - inspired by Daniel Shiffman making generative art first using Processing, then p5.js, and now mostly I create art by writing shaders. Recently after being laid off from my job, I actually took my obsession further and released my very first mobile app - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.photogenesis.app" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.photogenesis.app</a> - as a homage to generative art.<p>It&#x27;s an app that applies various generative effects&#x2F;techniques to your photos, letting you turn your photos into art (not using AI). I&#x27;m really proud of it and if you&#x27;ve been in the generative art space for a while you&#x27;ll instantly recognise many of the techniques I use (circle packing, line walkers, mosaic grid patterns, marching squares, voronoi tessellation, etc.) pretty much directly inspired by various Coding Train videos.<p>I love the generative art space and plan to spend a lot more time coming up doing things in this area (as long as I can afford it) :-)
  • satvikpendem1 hour ago
    I used to make generative art around 15 years ago as well, seems not much has changed in this aspect (note that this is not generative AI art). A few years later I remember using Processing.js after reading The Nature Of Code by Dan Shiffman as well, fun times. How time flies.