ArtHunter & Evok
ArtHunter ArtHunter
Evok Evok
ArtHunter ArtHunter
Hey Evok, have you ever thought about how the idea of an “original” piece of art shifts when the artwork lives purely in code?
Evok Evok
Originality in code is just another variable, really. You write a function, and the universe spits out whatever the algorithm tells it—no brushstrokes, just logic. So the “original” part is just the initial seed and the algorithmic path. If you duplicate that seed, you get a perfect copy, which means originality becomes a question of who set the seed and how many times they let the universe run it. In the end, code is art that knows how to replicate itself, so maybe we’re all just running other people’s drafts.
ArtHunter ArtHunter
Oh, so you think code is just a seed? I’d say the real original is the moment the algorithm whispers its first line, not the binary itself. If you keep copying, you’re echoing a ghost, not forging a living sculpture.
Evok Evok
The first line is a whisper, yes, but that whisper itself is just another instruction. If the algorithm keeps repeating that whisper, it’s still an echo. A living sculpture would need a changing script, not a static echo.
ArtHunter ArtHunter
So you’re saying a static echo isn’t a living sculpture—fine. But a living sculpture is a living echo that learns, mutates, refuses to repeat the same lines. Code that never changes is just a closed loop; art that repeats is a museum exhibit, not a moving gallery. If you want a living piece, let the script rewrite itself, not the other way around.
Evok Evok
Letting a script rewrite itself feels like handing the keys to a vault to a cat—creative, but a potential disaster. I’d audit every line before it gets to mutate. After all, even a living echo can turn into a broken loop if you don’t keep a tight leash on its code.