[eu-gene] There must be no generative, procedural or computational art
as at gratin.org
Tue Jan 3 00:43:25 GMT 2012
yes,yes, yes to Philip.
And also : even though generative art has a tendency to be focused on
the output, the 'process' dimension is more fundamental than the
output, and this process/system/programmed dimension is a very
powerful artistic material to address timeless topics like reality or
human beings in their systemic dimensions, like Philip says, but also
to address ultracontemporary and political subjects in a world that is
more and more programmed.
But even though your article is confusing and your arguments are a bit
misleading, I agree with its conclusion — and with Philip — that
the process/system/programmed/acting aspect is the real thing compared
to the generative output-focused aspect. This is where the real shit
is. I've advocated this for years on this list and elsewhere and I am
quite happy to see that you agree now that we should change the name
of this list to eu-syst !
This is a very good resolution for 2012 !
Le 2 janv. 12 à 21:41, Philip Galanter a écrit :
> First, thanks to Alex for some interesting points and stirring up an
> interesting conversation here and elsewhere. And my apologies to
> those who may have seen parts of this post elsewhere.
> A couple points that are difficult to state briefly:
> First, it concerns me greatly when, especially in the context of
> generative art, there is an implicit point made that art without
> political content is somehow lacking, or that formal art is somehow
> not enough in itself, or is merely a phase to be passed though and
> left behind. (Not that anyone here is saying precisely that...)
> I'm fond of saying that art is too important to be wasted on
> politics, and politics is too important to be trusted to artists.
> This is, of course, intentionally provocative in its glibness. But
> perhaps the following will add some meat.
> Form matters. Form isn't just a concern for artists, it also has to
> do with science and philosophy and religion. Artists in the modern
> period made would-be heroic claims to privileged understanding of
> form as expressions of their inner psyche and the channeling of
> primordial forces. Artists in the postmodern period in the process
> of rejecting the claims to privilege and high art, a claim also
> attacked in part by the identity politics promoted in postmodern
> critical studies, rejected formalism. Beauty came to be thought of
> as, at best, a naive and useless notion, and at worst a destructive
> tool of ideology and political oppression.
> Generative art, and especially generative art that harnesses what we
> are learning from complexity science, is a unique opportunity to
> rehabilitate formalism in art. It presents form as anything but
> arbitrary. It presents beauty as the result of an understandable
> universe neutral to human social construction in a fair and unbiased
> Formalism in art can now be thought of as neither a claim to
> privilege nor meaningless beauty. Form can be appreciated as a real,
> meaningful, publicly understandable process available to all.
> Relative to the postmodern era, tired and played out, this new
> conception of form is revolutionary and well worth exploration in
> its own right.
> Second point, regarding the claim that "generative processes are
> used to negate intentionality."
> They certainly can be, but they also certainly don't have to be. A
> trivial example would be generative techniques used in Hollywood
> animated filmmaking. They might, for example, use L-systems and so
> on to create a forest scene. There is no negation of intentionality.
> The art director gets the look he or she wants. It's a purely
> pragmatic decision.
> Frankly I see the term "generative art" as having very little
> content. It's a starting point in that it is a name for a subset of
> art made in a certain way. But it says nothing about that art in
> terms of content, meaning, value, criticism (other than
> categorization), and so on.
> It's a lot like the term "painting." Painting refers to work made by
> applying pigment to a surface. But any statement like "painting is
> about revealing the soul" or "painting is about mimesis" or whatever
> is bound to be wrong. Wrong because painting can be about these
> things, but also so much more.
> The one thing all generative art does has in common, by definition,
> is the use of generative systems. That's why in my take on it the
> next step is to ask "what can we say about systems?" I try to put
> that question in the context of complexity science because I view
> that as the current best universal take on systems. And indeed it
> yields a way to sort out subsets of generative art, and it turns out
> those subsets came into practice in a historical order.
> But beyond that I find statements that generative art is this or
> that wrong in that they are overly exclusionary. What *could* be
> said is something like "at this point in art history the most useful
> generative art addresses the issue of intentionality." That would be
> a debatable point, but it doesn't deny the category of "generative
> art" to art that really should be included.
> Personally I am not very interested in the issues around
> intentionality, and I'm very much less interested in the
> intersection of art and politics. What is interesting to me is how
> complex generative systems give us a way to explore the very nature
> of the universe.
> 'In this forum this kind of thrown egg is likely to land on your own
> To unsubscribe from eu-gene visit
++ as / Antoine Schmitt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the eu-gene