[eu-gene] Software / generative / whatever

[Adrian Ward]

Whilst I agree that questioning significance is a worthwhile thing to be doing, I would say that - especially in respect to the "Processing generative graphics" community - this approaches the age-old dilemma of art vs design, which in itself is a complex and messy issue that is mostly a digression, and one that is in no way unique to generative art (eg. performance design, which is very fine-art orientated).

Personally I am extremely fond of conflating the two, but I'm not sure it helps to define what Generative Art is.

By the way, does capitalisation somehow help in any way? </flippant>


A.


On 6 Jan 2012, at 03:05, Philip Galanter <list at philipgalanter.com> wrote:

> And a lot of questions one asks about "regular" art could also be asked about generative art. I wonder how many folks in, say, the Processing generative graphics crowd ask themselves why they do what they do, and whether the work has significance beyond eye-candy? If not should it? If it should how do you get there?