[eu-gene] need advice on a framework design

[Rob Myers]

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
and socialisation...

>> 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
> otherwise.

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...

- Rob.