[eu-gene] There must be no generative, procedural or computational art
as at gratin.org
Tue Jan 3 10:08:15 GMT 2012
Yes, exactly, and this is what I forgot to say in my last mail :
generative art in the sense defined by Philip Galanter ("any art
practice where the artist uses a system, such as a set of natural
language rules, a computer program, a machine, or other procedural
intervention, which is set into motion with some degree of autonomy
contributing to or resulting in a completed work of art.") is a subset
of a much larger art practice using programs/systems/processes, which,
because of it very peculiar relationship to the output of the process/
system considered as an artwork in the traditional sense, is a great
way to shine a very interesting critical light on existing artistic
artefacts and practices through the angle of their creation process :
their aesthetical codes, their creation context, their inner
structures, their historical evolution, their relatioships to their
author, etc...It is also a way to break uncouscious barriers and
explore new forms. And also a doog way to pay tribute to such existing
art fields by revisiting them in a different way.
Le 3 janv. 12 à 10:19, Nicolas a écrit :
> One of the potential social commentaries I find generative art may
> have, is making a strong statement about the formulaic nature of
> entertainment. Although I know of no good example yet, a piece of
> software that would be capable of, say, realize dozens of competent
> pop songs or even better some more underground genres, would maybe
> serve a strong statement about the industrial nature of
> On 3 janv. 2012, at 01:37, alex <alex at slab.org> wrote:
>> Thanks for the thoughtful response, Philip.
>> I disagree that your definition of generative art has little content.
>> You define generative art as produced by an autonomous process. That
>> negates programmer intentionality.
>> Your example works against you. Not only are l-systems less
>> autonomous than a paintbrush, but animation studios are not at all
>> interested in autonomy, everything must be controlled within tight
>> parameters, because render farm time is expensive. Just using
>> generative grammars does not conform to your definition of generative
>> When generative art (such as Adrian Ward's auto-illustrator) makes a
>> sociopolitical point, it does so by focussing on the process and not
>> just its output. That is when it transcends generative art as you
>> define it, and becomes something else. Not work produced by
>> but work *about* autonomy.
>> Furthermore you ignore the strong political content of SAP's press
>> release, and of the curatorial decision to show military and
>> industrial designs in the same exhibition as computer artwork.
>> Yes, there is plenty of room to explore the nature of the universe
>> through computation. But personally I'd rather leave that to Wolfram
>> -- for me code is much more interesting as a way of exploring
>> ourselves, including in terms of what we can experience as
>> individuals, and understanding our place in society.
>> 'In this forum this kind of thrown egg is likely to land on your
>> own face.'
>> To unsubscribe from eu-gene visit
> 'In this forum this kind of thrown egg is likely to land on your own
> To unsubscribe from eu-gene visit
++ as / Antoine Schmitt
More information about the eu-gene