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

Antoine Schmitt as at gratin.org
Fri Jan 6 08:39:14 GMT 2012 

Ok,
I understand now : your definition of 'generative art' corresponds to  
what I call 'process art'. It is just a matter of name. I will now  
wonder if I can personnaly use the word 'generative' for process-based  
artworks which explicitely do not generate (in the common sense)  
anything but just 'are', especially as this is my main artistic  
subject : being.

Apart from this difference in semantics, I think that your definition  
articulated around the notion of autonomy is very useful indeed  
because of its simplicity and openness. It is indeed a very useful  
starting point for doing critical thinking about such artworks. For  
me, and to give part of an answer to Marius, this is the reason why  
such hair cutting discussions are interesting, and the reason why I  
love this list, is that there is still a huge lack of a critical  
approach to generative/process art. So everything that articulates  
thinking is welcome...

As for your subsequent questions Philip, they could open to long  
discussions, but rapidly my take :
- about complexity, I see no reason to put apart simple systems,  
because a technologically simple system can have a powerful artistic  
(aesthetic, conceptual..) strength depending on the context.
- there are probably many ways that generative art (especially digital  
generative art but not only) can particularly well address our time,  
and especially our relation to computers, the computer industry or the  
media
- generative bio-art is very exciting... ;)

Cheers !

Le 5 janv. 12 à 23:18, Philip Galanter a écrit :

> Antoine,
>
> I don't see any reason why these works are a problem. They all cede  
> control to an autonomous system (although some of those systems do  
> much more than others). They are "completed works of art" in that  
> they are ready to be shown to an audience. It's really that simple.
>
> What gets complicated are subsequent questions. For example, there  
> are simple highly ordered systems (e.g. tiling), simple highly  
> disordered systems (e.g. randomization), and complex systems that  
> mix order and disorder (e.g. evolutionary systems). Are simple  
> systems relevant at this point in generative art history? I.e. are  
> those kinds of systems worth using any more?
>
> One form of generative art is that executed using a computer. Is  
> there something distinctive about digital generative art? Does it  
> speak to our time in an important and unique way?
>
> What kinds of systems are likely to come into play in the future  
> that we haven't seen much of yet?  How, for example, will synthetic  
> biology in generative art contribute in ways that previous "bio-art"  
> has not?
>
> In short, generative art is a big tent with room for everybody.* But  
> within that big tent there are all kinds of questions to be asked  
> and debated.
>
> cheers,
>
> Phil
>
>
> * except, of course, art that simply doesn't use autonomous systems,  
> i.e. the kind of art the general public expects!
>
>
>
> On Jan 5, 2012, at 2:28 AM, Antoine Schmitt wrote:
>
>> Ok, a few examples :
>>
>> Most of Tinguely's works : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXvdJYlYOj4&feature=related
>> Most of Calder's mobile sculpture works.
>>
>> My old Pixel Blanc : http://vimeo.com/26969599 (or live (requires
>> shockwave): http://www.gratin.org/as/pixel/PixelBlanc.html)
>> My recent "1000 pixels / n+141" : http://www.gratin.org/as/txts/1000pixelsn141.html
>> My recent Systemic http://www.gratin.org/as/txts/Systemic.html
>> and most of my works actually : http://www.gratin.org/as . Sorry, to
>> be so self-centric, that's all that comes to my mind right now...
>>
>> Well, I guess that this is again semantics... You seem to imply that
>> all processes are generative. I think that some processes do not
>> generate (produce) anything else than their own existence. I think  
>> the
>> word 'generative' in the sense of 'producing something new' (I'm not
>> english-native so I might be mistaking). But then you are going to  
>> say
>> that if it does not produce anything then it cannot be perceived, and
>> that it produces at least its own manifestation in the perceptual
>> space... But then everything is generative, and the word loose its
>> specificity.
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 5 janv. 12 à 05:52, Philip Galanter a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> ++ 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

More information about the eu-gene mailing list