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

Thu Jan 5 14:01:52 GMT 2012

It would be even more pertinent if you had thought about an artist considering a performance in which they thought, without further output, and hadn't posted it to this list at all ;  )  

I shall promptly disappear in a puff of smoke, having just realised that I shouldn't hit send. 

On 5 Jan 2012, at 10:33, Adrian Ward wrote:

> 
> So a performance artwork consisting of the artist thinking, with no further output, could still be valid generative art?
> 
> Tenuous, I know, but fun.
> 
> Happy new year everyone.
> 
> 
> A.
> 
> 
> On 5 Jan 2012, at 04:52, Philip Galanter wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Boolean Logic 101 fail!
>> 
>> I should have said:
>> 
>> What would be an example of a generative artwork that doesn't generate anything *and* wasn't itself made by a generative process?
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 4, 2012, at 6:22 PM, Philip Galanter wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm not sure what you mean.  Generative art can be art made via a generative system (an artifact like a painting) or art that includes a generative system as a component (an event like a performance or installation).
>>> 
>>> But to be generative art it has to exist.  I.e. it was either made or performs.
>>> 
>>> What would be an example of a generative artwork that doesn't generate anything *or* wasn't itself made by a generative process?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jan 4, 2012, at 5:30 PM, Antoine Schmitt wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Mmm, this means that there can be generative artworks that do not  
>>>> generate anything... This is confusing I think. This is what has  
>>>> always refrained me from using this term for my works. Also I don't  
>>>> feel right to qualify a Tingely's machine of generative art (except  
>>>> his explicit Metamatic drawing machines, but these are rare in his  
>>>> production). I think that generative art should stop where no art is  
>>>> generated by the process (obvious art related to art history —  
>>>> images, music, literature, movement, etc... or anything meant as art  
>>>> by the artist). Otherwise, it is misleading..., no ?
>>>> 
>>>> Le 4 janv. 12 à 23:51, Philip Galanter a écrit :
>>>> 
>>>>> Howdy Antoine,
>>>>> 
>>>>> by "contributing to or resulting in a completed work of art" what I  
>>>>> meant was the generative system might:
>>>>> 
>>>>> create just part of a piece, e.g. draw outlines that you then  
>>>>> manually fill in with color
>>>>> create the entire piece, e.g. paint an entire picture from scratch
>>>>> *be* just part of a piece, e.g. a robot drummer plays and you  
>>>>> accompany on guitar
>>>>> or be the entire piece, e.g. a band of robot musicians perform
>>>>> 
>>>>> pieces that terminate in an external artifact (e.g. the audience  
>>>>> only sees finished paintings after the fact and never the painting  
>>>>> machine) or pieces where the real-time process itself is the art  
>>>>> (your examples) and everything in between can be considered  
>>>>> generative art.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Really the only requirement is that the artist cede some degree of  
>>>>> control to an external autonomous system. It's a term that basically  
>>>>> splits art in two...art where the artist retains control of all the  
>>>>> moment-to-moment aspects of composition and execution, and art where  
>>>>> the artist uses a system that has some degree of autonomy.
>>>>> 
>>>>> (Actually there is a third possibility...art where the artist cedes  
>>>>> control to other *people*. This is not considered generative art  
>>>>> (example: Allan Kaprow's "happenings" or straightforward  
>>>>> fabricators) unless the other people are using manual generative  
>>>>> systems (example: Sol LeWitt's wall drawings)).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Within generative art there is room for all manner of variations,  
>>>>> priorities, art theories, cultural values, etc. Calling something  
>>>>> "generative art" is just the beginning of the discussion.
>>>>> 
>>>>> cheers,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Phil
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Jan 4, 2012, at 3:49 PM, Antoine Schmitt wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi, I love this discussion ;) Very instructive and precise.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> While everybody is hot, and you Philip especially, I'd like to talk  
>>>>>> if
>>>>>> you don't mind about the only thing in your definition that has  
>>>>>> always
>>>>>> boggled me, and has always refrained me from calling most of my work
>>>>>> 'generative art' : it is the last words, about the output :
>>>>>> "...contributing to or resulting in a completed work of art".
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What about if the process does not produce anything ? Or at least
>>>>>> anything finished. You can see (or hear) it executing, but it never
>>>>>> stops. There is no finished output, there is just process, movement.
>>>>>> Like Tinguely's machines, or Calder's. Or like my Pixel Blanc.
>>>>>> or : What if the process does not produce a work of art, but  
>>>>>> something
>>>>>> that is _not_ art, obviously according to historical standard or as
>>>>>> defined by the artist author. For example, a news article. Or a
>>>>>> In both cases, it is the process itself that is the work of art, i.e.
>>>>>> to which the audience is confronted, and that the artist molds and
>>>>>> signs.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Do these fall into your definition of 'generative art' ? If yes, what
>>>>>> is the difference between 'generative art' and wider definitions like
>>>>>> 'process art', or 'system art', or 'programmed art', or 'living art',
>>>>>> or 'algorithmic art' (did I forget one ? let's forget 'digital art'
>>>>>> and 'media art' for now) ?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I personnaly use 'programmed art', when I need to describe precisely
>>>>>> my process-centered works, but I am not totally satisfied with it
>>>>>> either...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you for your opinion
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ++ as / Antoine Schmitt
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> '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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> '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
> 
> -- 
> '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