Generative Art Finds Its Prodigy
If you want to understand art since Cezanne, and especially after 1945, you need to understand the modernist idea of the meta-narrative.  It works like this -- prior to the loosening up of gesture in painting, the narrative was whatever was depicted. Maybe it was Washington Crossing the Delaware, or Napoleon Crossing the Alps.  Pictures told stories directly.  Beginning with impressionist painting, and following through to non-objective modernist paint, pictures told a second story -- a meta-narrative.  This is the narrative of the events that created the painting.  It answers the question -- what is the story of this artwork&#x27;s creation?  This leaves the viewer to deal with things like struggle, imperfection, and arbitrary residue (there are cigarette butts within some Jackson Pollocks).  Did you ever visit MoMa and see Barnett Newman&#x27;s Vir Heroicus Sublimimis?<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.moma.org&#x2F;collection&#x2F;works&#x2F;79250?artist_id=4285&amp;locale=en&amp;page=1&amp;sov_referrer=artist" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.moma.org&#x2F;collection&#x2F;works&#x2F;79250?artist_id=4285&amp;l...</a><p>It could be a generative work of art -- but wait -- the vertical stripes where the masking tape was peeled away leave small amount of paint bleeding into the stripes.  Why?  It tells you something about how it was made.  Cold geometric forms made with a human touch.  Visit the Joseph Albers, Piet Mondrian and Ad Reinhardt paintings and there&#x27;s arbitrariness and human touch in them all.<p>So, I would ask you -- what is the meta-narrative of this generative art?  What is the story behind it?  Does it inspire you?  Do you feel like you are looking at art?  Or a modern art-themed screensaver?