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

[Aymeric Mansoux]

Hi Philip, list,

Philip Galanter <list at philipgalanter.com> said :
> [...]

> Each of these rules-based art works cannot be considered generative
> art because the artist never cedes control to an autonomous system.
> There is an in-principle dependence on the artist from moment to
> moment, and at no point does the artist lose control of the art making
> process. As these examples show, it is a mistake to use the phrases
> ?rule-based art? and ?generative art? interchangeably. 
>
> [...]
>
> In an attempt to avoid these theory-related misunderstandings the
> following improved definition of generative art is offered: Generative
> art refers to any art practice where the artist cedes control to a
> system that operates with a degree of relative autonomy, and
> contributes to or results in a completed work of art. Systems may
> include natural language instructions, biological or chemical
> processes, computer programs, machines, self-organizing materials,
> mathematical operations, and other procedural inventions.

It might be a bit of a stretch, but I am wondering if licenses, more
specifically free culture licenses, would fit into this definition.

I am asking because I recently wrote a paper that tries to explain the
issues of artistic intention within the choice of free cultural licenses
in the context of system, constrained art and proto-copyleft practices.

http://su.kuri.mu/00000001/2011----MY.LAWYER.IS.AN.ARTIST/

Reading your mail, I can't help to think that there might be also a
link with generative art. In that case the autonomous system and the
rules would be provided by the interactions between the law, the rules
specified in the licenses and the artists who are transforming each
others' works outside of the control of their original author(s)? 

a.
--
http://su.kuri.mu