RE: [-empyre-] transparency+digidos
>>> email@example.com 03/27/02 19:04 PM >>>
> 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.
Sure, traditional art it may not "need" it, although it can suggest new aesthetic possibilities.
>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.
Perhaps, although such composers used systems / mathematical processes to create their work... Mozart wrote a piece based on the roll of a die... interactive music? Bach's works are inspired, highly structured mathematical developments on a theme. John Cage is a prime example of not seeking to own the art, just to facilitate its realisation.
>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.
Inspiration need not be human generated, look at a sunrise, or listen to a bird song, or transform the output of a chaotic algorithm into a minor pentatonic scale. Personally I believe originality to be essential to Art, all else is craft... but it is just one quality... being offered new possibilities with the work is a liberating thing, I don't see it as negative, though it does threaten the sense of definite ownership... do I own the work, or does the computer... or is the program a kind of newborn child?
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 :-)
Hmmm, have you heard much atonal music? ;) Sure, Shakespeare is likely more interesting to the average audience, although you are being unfair... humans have had millenia to evolve their aesthetic sensibilities, computers have only had decades. Although Shakespeare is dead, people have been working on computational modeling of his writing style, so I guess gettting computers to do this might be more realistic after all.
>'m no luddite and I see your point. But computers are not artists either.
(are not recognised as artist yet)
>And your imagination is as vast as you want it to be.
Or as you believe it to be... ever thought of a yellow sock nosed elephant eating toffee? My point is that we all tend to think in similar patterns, which can sometimes be hard to escape... computers offer another means of breaking free from older modes of thinking.
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and