Pollock's art definitely has a story, it's the story of the creation of his works and he even made videos about that.
And this, that story of creation, is the story that all generative art--as far as I've always understood the term--must share.
The art in generative art is for a large part the story of its creation, crystallised in the form of an algorithm.
Without that, you ultimately get computer-generated art or something. Which is often nice to look at, but has about the emotional impact of a fancy photoshop filter.
Compare to this artist, I forget her name (I think it's a she), wrote algorithms/instructions on paper, to be executed by a group of people (I think explicitly without her presence, IIRC). There's no computer involved and it's still generative art. It's entirely about the process.
Now of course most generative art is a mixture of the two, which is good because we like pretty things.
And this, that story of creation, is the story that all generative art--as far as I've always understood the term--must share.
The art in generative art is for a large part the story of its creation, crystallised in the form of an algorithm.
Without that, you ultimately get computer-generated art or something. Which is often nice to look at, but has about the emotional impact of a fancy photoshop filter.
Compare to this artist, I forget her name (I think it's a she), wrote algorithms/instructions on paper, to be executed by a group of people (I think explicitly without her presence, IIRC). There's no computer involved and it's still generative art. It's entirely about the process.
Now of course most generative art is a mixture of the two, which is good because we like pretty things.