And Now Everyone Can Make Algorithmic Art: The Accessible Revolution of Creative Code

Platforms like Claude, with the new Artifacts features (2025), have introduced the possibility for anyone to generate algorithmic art simply by describing what they want to create. But what exactly does “algorithmic art” mean, and why does it represent something radically different?

Algorithmic Art: A Work That Never Ends

In the vast universe of digital art, algorithmic art occupies a unique space. The fundamental difference is not only in the creation process but in the very nature of the work. While an image created with Photoshop, a digital photograph, or even a work generated by Midjourney can be saved, printed, and "frozen" in a definitive state, algorithmic art exists as a continuously evolving process. It is not a finished product to be passively enjoyed, but a living system that continuously generates new variants. This is the fundamental difference: algorithmic art is processual, not objectual. The spectator does not enjoy a finished product but participates in a generative process that never concludes. Of course, prints can be generated from individual moments of execution, but each print would only be a snapshot of a continuous flow, like photographing a sea wave.

Historical Roots: From Kinetic Art to the Algorithm

The idea of art that changes, that reacts to the context, did not originate with the computer. Kinetic art of the 1950s introduced real movement into works. Michelangelo Pistoletto, with his Mirror Paintings (Quadri Specchianti, from 1962), took this idea further: paintings on mirrored surfaces that incorporated the spectator and the environment into the work itself. Each view was unique. Jeff Koons, with the Gazing Ball series (from 2013), revisited this concept: reproductions of classical masterpieces with a blue mirrored sphere reflecting the viewer and the environment. Algorithmic art brings this intuition into the digital age, but radicalizes it: it is no longer just the external context that changes the work; the internal process itself is designed never to repeat itself. It is as if Pistoletto's paintings not only reflected the viewer but continuously repainted themselves according to rules established by the artist.

Max Bense and the Pioneers of the Sixties

Algorithmic art was born in the sixties thanks to pioneers like Vera Molnár and Georg Nees, but the philosophical context is marked by Max Bense, a German philosopher who formalized the idea that the artist can conceive a process rather than a finished work. Bense theorized that the artist should define general rules (colors, geometric shapes, variation parameters), then entrusting the algorithm with the concrete generation of the work. In this way, creativity, error, surprise, and chaos entered artistic practice as structural elements. The first historical exhibition of computer art, Generative Computergrafik, was held in Stuttgart in 1965 with Georg Nees. In 1968, Vera Molnár gained access to an IBM mainframe and a plotter, starting the first series of geometric drawings in which the algorithm decided how to vary composition and color according to rules and random variables defined by the artist. The process, the succession of generated choices and events, became an integral part of both the authorship and the fruition of the work. Machine, code, and chance were considered "co-authors" of every result.

The New Creative Renaissance

Every artistic era has been defined by its tools. Oil paint in the Renaissance, photography in the nineteenth century. Today, the algorithm represents an equally profound revolution. The programmer becomes an artist, the artist assumes the role of code curator. The work is no longer a single expression but a dialogue between data, algorithms, and human intuition. The artist becomes a curator of processes, a programmer of possibilities, and a witness to the unexpected. Art opens up to a multitude of voices and visions. With conversational platforms like Claude Artifacts, the barrier is lowered even further: there is no need to even know programming syntax. One can simply describe the idea and watch the generative code come to life. Can everyone be an artist? Perhaps. I discussed what is or is not "officially" art in a separate article (link).

The Tools: From Processing to NFT

If you are wondering how algorithmic art is concretely created, here you are. Processing, created in 2001 by Casey Reas and Ben Fry, was designed to teach programming in a visual context, with a large community and extensive documentation. It demonstrated that it was possible to create a language designed for artists, not for engineers: the first true bridge between programming and art. p5.js, developed by Lauren McCarthy in 2014, brings Processing to the web, making programming accessible to anyone. The real revolution? Only a browser is needed, with the free online editor. You open the page, write code, and see the result. Today, Claude Artifacts can integrate p5.js-based sketches: just write a prompt. For those who want to go further, OpenFrameworks (since 2005) is an open-source C++ toolkit ideal for real-time installations and interactive exhibits. It is the preferred tool of many professionals for museum installations and major commissions. The world of creative coding also offers Three.js for 3D graphics in the browser, TouchDesigner for visual environments and performances, and Hydra for live video coding. Algorithmic art has also found fertile ground in the world of NFTs, creating an interesting paradox: works that are processual and infinite by nature are "crystallized" into unique tokens. Art Blocks is one of the most famous platforms for generative NFT art and in 2021 recorded approximately $1.4 billion in total sales volume, an enormous economic impact even if direct artist revenue only represents a portion of that. The work is randomly generated at the time of purchase via smart contract: it is unpredictability taken to the highest level—even the artist does not know exactly what will be created. A buyer collects a system, not a specific image.

Artists Redefining Creativity

It is worth mentioning some key figures who are redefining the boundaries of computational creativity. Refik Anadol, a Turkish artist, has transformed data into sensory experience. His installations, such as Unsupervised at MoMA (2022-2023), are visual landscapes generated by algorithms that rework archives of images and collective memories. Sougwen Chung paints alongside collaborative robots programmed to replicate and reinterpret her gestures: her works arise from the dialogue between human unpredictability and algorithmic precision. Her work questions the romantic idea of the solitary artist: what happens when your collaborator is a machine? Who is the author when human and robot create together? Returning to the pioneers, Vera Molnár programmed the computer to generate infinite variations according to precise rules but with random elements. Instead of a single perfect drawing, she created "families" of works. Georg Nees, with his 1965 exhibition, presented works that looked like scribbles but were the result of algorithmic processes calibrated with mathematical precision: art born from code, not from the paintbrush. The collective Obvious created the Portrait of Edmond de Belamy, sold at a Christie's auction in 2018 for $432,500, marking the moment when the traditional art market recognized the value of algorithmic art. Jeff Davis explores generative art by introducing chance as an active part of the creative process, while Rafael Lozano-Hemmer uses OpenFrameworks for large-scale interactive installations that involve spectators in unique and immersive ways.

The Future That Awaits Us

Immersive experiences and increasingly widespread generative works demonstrate how it is possible to create dynamic environments that dialogue with the public in real-time. Museums that change based on visitors, works that are never the same twice, experiences that blur the line between observer and creator. Who is the author of a work created by the algorithm? What is the boundary between human and algorithmic creativity? Perhaps these questions are precisely the point. Algorithmic art forces us to rethink: what does it mean to "finish" a work when the process never stops? What does it mean to own a system instead of an object? The true revolution transforms the spectator from passive consumer to active participant. With a browser and curiosity, you can become a creator. Algorithmic art does not replace traditional art, it joins it: it is a new way of thinking about art as a living process, not as a finished product.