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

[derek hales]

On 5 January 2012 14:01, Nikolai Collinsky <nikolaicollinsky at yahoo.co.uk>wrote:

> 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
>
> --
> '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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.generative.net/pipermail/eu-gene/attachments/20120105/22bd8697/attachment-0001.htm