Re: [-empyre-] transparency+digidos

Damien Everett wrote:
> Well I believe the computer is making art... though this perhaps is
> more of a sematic issue...

as much as chisel makes a sculpture, well maybe a bit more.

> if you teach someone to paint like degas, how is this different from
> teaching a computer to do the same? 

a lot different. when one teaches another to paint like degas, one
expects that the other will start there and end up someplace else. one
expects the other to learn from degas, not simply to mimic degas, and
usually this is the case. it happens naturally that the art student of
degas will go off in their own direction, and its impossible to say what
that direction will be. in the case of "factory painting," where a
person is trained to make the same seaside scene (or a kostabi) over and
over again, to fill the walls of motel-6's around the globe, the artist
isn't an artist, they are a factory worker, a xerox machine, a computer.

don't get me wrong, i myself use generative methodologies in many
pieces, but i'm pretty clear ahead of time, bugs not withstanding, what
the range of behavior will be. but with a computer, and with bugs, you
can always step through and discover EXACTLY, with double precision
floating point accuracy, why something happened the way it happened. can
you say the same for a person, let alone a wacky artist? i love what you
are suggesting here, but i think you should give yourself more credit!

> The advantage is I can suggest an idea to it and then it can create
> millions of variations in the same time as it might take me to make
> one. "take this building design and mutate it X% then show it to me"

bad example :). this more or less proves that the computer is an
extension of your own hand, simply doing things faster than you can, and
presenting the results so you can decide which ones to keep.
> >> 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.
> >to be precise, "inspiration" *is* human generated, it only exists in our
> minds. but of course things other than human can be inspirational *to*
> us.
> Hmmm yep sematics... was the first monkey to learn how to peel a banana 
> inspired, or the octopus who learns how to open a jar with a treat 
> inside, or a whale who creates a new song?

hmmm nope not semantics. the monkey and octopus were hungry, the whale
horney. is that "inspiration" or just cleverness in the face of need? 
arguably, art was first produced when humanity had some free time away
from basic need fulfillment (also arguably, art is a basic need unique
to humanity, thus inspiration also unique). if you want to compare
inspiration to cleverness, then that's semantics, but i'd prefer to
assume that a whale has no idea what inspiration is 'cause it doesn't
speak english. i *don't* really believe that the human species has some
special (god given) something-or-other that sets us apart from other
species. i think we just have a whole, whole lot more of what all
species have, to the point where it becomes of very limited use to make

> Macs always have more fun than PC's... its a well known fact! I'd 
> much rather do creative art than wash dishes, i know when my computer
> is happy and when I've done something to really piss it off, but mind
> you I often sleep with my laptop so perhaps we are on more intimate 
> terms than yourself ;)

well, whatever is your kink, i don't pass judgement provided both
parties consent.  problem here is, how do you know if your computer says
"no." humor aside, your computer is neither happy nor sad, it just is.
it exists in a perfect state of zen.


This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.