I am an artist and a programmer. These are different, but not opposite ways of thinking. My approach to making art is born out of a combination of them. I believe good art is a series of perceptions that has been run through an algorithm in the artist's head, and output into a different format that is unique to that algorithm. I am always gathering information about my surroundings and storing it in long or short term memory. Most of this information disappears from my conscious memory, unable to be recalled later on demand, but I think that significant amounts of that lost information remains subconsciously as an echo in my brain. Both the easily accessible information and the unconscious echoes work to shape my personal algorithm of how I understand the world. When I make a piece of art, I take inputs and run them through my algorithm to create a unique output that becomes the art.
This process is different than just making an observation or coming to a conclusion. The same process occurs in those situations, but in the art-making scenario, the output is specifically shaped to exist in a recognizable physical form, usually a medium that I prefer to work with. Art needs to exist in a form that can be perceived by the senses of other people, no matter how small, or it's not art--just a thought. My best works all originally took shape as a fully formed idea that appeared in my head, and then were made in a physical form almost identical to the mental image. My less successfully executed works involved conscious effort to become inspired by trying to run the algorithm on demand with inputs I selected. Some good works have come from brainstorming this way, but the very best ones come fully formed.
The process can be started in many ways. It's rarely completely involuntary--I go about my daily life and with no clear trigger, the artwork appears. In this situation, I believe the subconscious echoes have coalesced in a way that makes sense to my conscious brain, which then executes its interpretation and presents the output. This is the most universally successful method, but it happens very rarely.
Sometimes it's triggered by a prompt, such as a school assignment, or the experience of another piece of art. These complete a set of inputs that allows the the inspiration to happen. Sometimes this can take multiple tries, or the presence of other similar inputs, like those that can be found by doing research around the subject. Once inputs have been found that make a coherent set to the algorithm, they can be run and the art produced.
Sometimes art is made where the algorithm is mostly or entirely bypassed. In that case, the cultural algorithm is primarily used--an algorithm much less specific than the personal one, that is present in the minds of all members of a given social culture. It's the tropes we see in media, the fairytales and classic moves that provide easy templates. This art is usually very bad, and results from having the wrong set of inputs. Without the right inputs, the artist's personal algorithm can't run fully or at all, and the artist must default to the cultural algorithm, which makes bad art.
How is the algorithm formed? Some of it is conscious choice--I choose which pieces of art to view, which life experiences to pursue. Much of these experiences are not chosen--they are just part of the course of life. I think much of the shaping of the algorithm falls under the aegis of nature vs. nuture. It's my personality, as shaped by my perceptions of the world and the experiences the world gives to me.
Ultimately, this definition of inspiration allows me to feel comfortable that my art is meaningful and important in the world. Each person's mind is unique, and when experiencing a well-made piece of art, the consumer can see a glimpse of the artist's mind by observing their algorithm's output. Humans wish to connect to each other, and a well-made piece of art allows the consumer to connect to the artist in a small but fundamental way. A badly-made piece of art is one that is not unique to the artist. It may be trite, or poorly executed, or incomprehensible.
The presence of an artist's algorithm can be evident in something as small as the particular way an artist draws a hand, or in the way an artist makes a piece of art that is a radical leap from anything that has been done before. I think for the most successful art, the presence of the algorithm is finely tuned to fall just far enough from the commonplace to be new and to open new ideas for the consumer, but still close enough so that consumers can make the mental leap from their current understanding to the new. Art that makes too small of a leap becomes trite, and too big of a leap leads to incomprehensibility or art that conceptually doesn't gel.
How can an artist improve their algorithm and improve their art output? Consume more art. Have more life experiences. Experience all spectrums of emotions. Talk to many people. Record their own thoughts more, so that things that would fade to unconscious echoes can be returned back to the consciousness for further processing. The more inputs that are available, the finer tuned a person's algorithm will become, and the more possibilities will exist for coherent sets of inputs to form that will create a successful output.
Disclaimer: I doubt this musing is unique. Itâs based on my thoughts on my own artistic process that have been slowly gelling over the last few years. I wrote it down to clarify my thoughts, and thought it would be appropriate to file it among my actual artistic output. Maybe you found it interesting, who knows!
Other Disclaimer: I felt uncomfortable about being ableist while writing this. As far as I can tell, experiencing art involves using one or more senses, and I imagine that for people who have one or more impaired senses, experiencing art that involves that sense can be hard. I wrote this in an awkward place of trying to articulate my experiences while also trying to make it more broadly applicable, so I tried to keep it as sense-neutral as possible, even though to me, art=viewing. I think given how much I am trying to apply how I think to how other humans think, there may be some neurodivergent issues I am treading on, but I am not sure what those might be. Basically, I tried hard to keep ableism out of my language when writing this, but if you have suggestions on how I could improve this aspect, please let me know!