[eu-gene] need advice on a framework design
rob at robmyers.org
Tue Jan 31 19:13:19 GMT 2012
On 31/01/12 18:24, alex wrote:
> On 31 January 2012 16:21, Philip Galanter <list at philipgalanter.com> wrote:
>> Artists exercising traditional media can depict, comment, and opine on the generative nature of the universe. However, artists working with generative systems *participate* in the generative nature of the universe.
> I find this confusing, do you mean to say that the autonomous artworks
> participate in the generative nature of the universe? If you really
> meant that, surely all artists participate in the generative nature of
> the universe as biological human beings.
But there are differing degrees of participation.
Generative art presumably seeks to exemplify some aspect of
generativity. Even if it is a *lesser* generativity than human
generativity in total.
> You do not have to aspire to a special form of autonomy in your
> artwork, to participate in the generative nature of the universe.
Most of the universe is just vacuum with the occasional rather
disappointed electron. :-) Again, there are degrees of generativity. And
of *perception* of generativity. Is the concern that the trivial
generativity (compared to human generativity) of simple physical or
software processes is being fetishised as *morally* exemplary rather
than *aesthetically* exemplary? I would point out that fetishes are
useful foci in ritual, and that ritual can be a producer of both insight
>> As for it being cliche, I suppose if one stops at "hey look, I'm giving up control" then, yes, it could quickly become a cliche. But if you go further to "and here is a unique reason why I'm giving up control, and here is something unique that I've found in doing so" it's a font of constant interest.
> The cliche I was talking about was saying "hey look, I'm giving up
> control" while carrying out intensive, highly controlled, hands-on
> design processes in private, then stepping out in public and leaving
> the handbrake off.
This is an ethical problem but not an aesthetic one. I think. And we are
talking about generative *art*.
Although, yes, being surprised by systems we put endless work into
wanting to surprise us is a bit arch. ;-)
I'm still embarrassed about how pleased I was that my draw-something
program gaining the ability to draw rounded corners. If I'd been less
caught up in the code I would have realised that I'd written it in such
a way that this *had* to happen.
But aesthetic generativity must mean something more than a correlate of
our techical ignorance, surely?
> As Rob says, autonomy is a worthy aspiration, and it's the aspiration
> for which you claim the term "generative art". But it's also a worthy
> aspiration to use code as a medium for engaged, hands-on exploration,
> and doing so doesn't disconnect you from the universe, generative or
How about combining the two?
Generative art wouldn't be hurt by being more live, live coding wouldn't
be hurt by being more generative...
More information about the eu-gene