[eu-gene] There must be no generative, procedural or computational art

[Antoine Schmitt]

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   
> entertainment.
>
> Nicolas
>
> 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
>> art.
>> 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  
>> autonomy,
>> 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.
>> alex
>>
>> -- 
>> http://yaxu.org/
>> -- 
>> 'In this forum this kind of thrown egg is likely to land on your  
>> own face.'
>> To unsubscribe from eu-gene visit
>> http://www.generative.net/mailman/listinfo/eu-gene
> -- 
> 'In this forum this kind of thrown egg is likely to land on your own  
> face.'
> To unsubscribe from eu-gene visit
> http://www.generative.net/mailman/listinfo/eu-gene
>


++ as / Antoine Schmitt