RE: [-empyre-] transparency+digidos
> Damien Everett
> The main reason I've been working in the area of generative
> programming is to evolve my limited imagination, and make
> original art/music. By creating agents to inhabit new worlds
> of computational possibility, I allow them to suggest
> interesting manifestations.
I must reject that. I mean the very idea and concept in its essence.
Original art/music does not need a computer for its generation. Not even
computer/digital art. I trust the unique judgement power of the artist
as creator. Art, ultimately, is for the fruition of human being, not
computers (yet!). Mozart, Arvo Part and the likes CREATE ORIGINAL art
without the aid of a computer as their source of inspiration.
While neural net are useful and good when it comes to washing machines
programming and genetive algorithms have been successfully employed in
managing airports, there are tasks where a limited number of final
results, well defined constrains and set conditions are given, for the
resolution of a practical problem in unexpected ways. That's fine.
But I'm afraid art is elsewhere, and a inspired human being is needed
for that. I'm not denying computers are there to help, but to allocate
creation powers to them is to foul yourself. As for the originality of
the result, I wouldn't use that as a parameter to judge its quality. At
any time I can sit at my piano and hit keys at random, indeed producing
stunningly original results. But I doubt I can be invited to play at the
Royal Albert Hall on the bases of that. A monkey can certainly also
write Romeo and Juliet, given infinite time, but I'd allow Shakespeare
to have a go. It might be quicker :-)
I'm no luddite and I see your point. But computers are not artists
either. And your imagination is as vast as you want it to be.
Ultimately, you're the one and only judge.
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and