[eu-gene] Software / generative / whatever

[Robert Spahr]

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:26:12 -0500
Michael Gogins <michael.gogins at gmail.com> wrote:

> As someone who has been making music by generating scores for decades,
> my take on this is somewhat different.
> 
> I appreciate the idea of autonomous processes, yet personally I have
> no desire to cede control to an object or process.
> 


I never meant to suggest the artist must cede control to an
object or process. 

I was trying to suggest that it is an illusion as to
how much control we really have in the first place, and a generative
process tends to openly embrace that issue, actually incorporating with
intention, a loosening of control with an autonomous process that is
reandom, or indeterminate. But ultimately if the process does create a
work of art, the artist is accepting that work in a duchampian readymade
framework.




> What I find valuable in generative processes is the notion of
> computational irreducibility - nobody can tell what the process will
> produce by examing its code or methodology, it is necessary to run the
> process to see what the result is.
> 
> Computational irreducibility is a term of art in theoretical computer
> science, not my own coinage.
> 
> Irreducibility applies both to deterministic processes and to random
> ones. I am more interested in deterministic irreducible systems
> because they lend themselves to "tweaking" until I get a result that
> satisfies me. This is control, control, control.
> 
> Irreducibility is useful because it produces results I cannot imagine,
> or only very vaguely imagine, 


This is the happy accident, or surprises discovered in the process of
making, whether through the act of carving stone, or running a computer
program to then view the (unknown) result. It is definitely these
surprises that keep me creating generative art.



all the best,

-- Rob









>then determinacy gives me the control to
> polish the jewel, if there is one lurking in there somewhere.



> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/12/12, Robert Spahr <rob at robertspahr.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 15:36:48 -0500
> > Marius Watz <amoeba at evolutionzone.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The deliberate vagueness of the term "generative art" has been very
> >> useful (thanks Philip!) for those promoting computational
> >> aesthetics to a broader audience. But it describes a "how" and not
> >> a "why", and thus can't describe a conceptual framework or an
> >> artistic movement.
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree that generative art describes a "How" and not a "Why."
> > Another way to look at generative art, is through a framework of
> > control.
> >
> > Everyone making media creates some framework of control, trying
> > to convince themselves that they are in control of the process. For
> > me, a generative art process embraces that illusion of control. To
> > intentionally create a process that is autonomous, with all the
> > inherent surprises that go along with it. How much lack of control
> > are you willing to embrace, and include within your artistic voice?
> >
> > Every artist works to manipulate their medium, one of the
> > reasons many artists change mediums is to become surprised with the
> > accidents as they struggle with the work against the resistance of
> > the medium. Some materials are more forgiving than others, such as
> > manipulating clay versus carving stone.
> >
> > Do I work to control dripping paint? Do I accept that drip even
> > though I did not intentionally create that particular drip? Once I
> > accept the drip into my finished work, it then falls within my
> > artistic intention, although the process that created that drip may
> > not have been within my control.
> >
> > All art may be generative to some extent, but for me, a generative
> > art process, is a process that is intentionally created, which
> > embraces some lack of control, whether that is through simple
> > randomization, or various algorithms who's outcome can not be
> > predicted. This process does not in any way require a computer; the
> > history of art is filled with non-computer generative art examples.
> >
> >
> > -- Rob
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Robert Spahr
> > http://www.robertspahr.com
> >
> > "...why should we not calmly and patiently review our own thoughts,
> > and thoroughly examine and see what these appearances in us really
> > are?" -- Plato, Theaetetus (dialogue)
> >
> > --
> > '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
> >
> 
> 



-- 
Robert Spahr
http://www.robertspahr.com

"...why should we not calmly and patiently review our own thoughts, 
and thoroughly examine and see what these appearances in us really are?"
                    -- Plato, Theaetetus (dialogue)