Originality and generative art

Is it unique?

I recently discovered a new artist relatively new to generative art. As I scrolled through their portfolio of work, I saw several pieces that looked nearly identical to work of my own. 

However I am almost positive they were created independently.

This is not the first time I’ve felt this and I think it’s fairly common in generative art.

Particularly for things like flow fields, asemic writing, warped noise, watercolor simulations, etc. Anywhere you’re using out-of-the-box primitives like rect() and widely used formulas like Perlin Noise it’s very easy to arrive at the same result despite thousands of seemingly unique choices along the way.

Why might this be more pronounced for generative art than other fields?

The obvious reason is the tool set. Every paint brush is slightly unique, but every instance of e.g., p5js is identical.

Another compelling reason is that the field is relatively new and small. Many artists tend to have somewhat homogenous backgrounds (e.g., programming as a career) and, given the nature of the field, many tend to be ‘online’ by default and thus more influenced by the same things other generative artists are influenced by. There’s also a limited number of high quality educational resources, e.g., Coding Train, and so people often go through the same fundamentals training.

I’m sure this is a pattern in other fields though. Does every photographer have an angsty black and white photograph of a fire hydrant? Does every impasto oil painter make an all white, abstract minimalist collection? 

I can’t imagine the answer to that question is ‘no’. But maybe it’s more pronounced in generative art in particular.

NFTs may have made this more noticeable. Sometimes I go back and look at all of the generative art I saved in 2013 - 2019 and it certainly feels very different to todays work. Overall, I would describe it as less sophisticated yet more original and interesting.

The average piece released today (and often selling poorly) is far more technically advanced and aesthetically pleasing than many ‘grails’ from 2019 - 2020. I know many people disagree with this and I find that to be an astounding case of cognitive bias. It’s not that the work is holistically worse. But it should be held to a different standard because being original is much more difficult than being best.

This is subjective, but feels logical. Generative art in 2013 - 2019 had less conformity pressure but also less feedback and fewer resources due to the lack of mass audiences and even smaller group of peers.

If you make any sort of art, I’d love to hear what your field's equivalent of flow fields is…

—

This newsletter was adorned with a magnificence of capital letters and produced without the use of a pen (although it lacks clearly divided rubrics). If you enjoyed it, please feel free to forward it to a friend. If you have a question or request, please feel free to reply here.