RE: [-empyre-] transparency+digidos

["Cristiano Bianchi" <cristianobianchi@yahoo.com>]

John Klima

> algorithmic. with a domain system, the creator may spend 
> hours, even days, tweaking the "training set" until a desired 
> or pleasing outcome is achieved. the beauty of it being 
> generative is that it never works out the same way twice. but 
> the computer is not making the art here, the artist is, or 
> should be, constantly making aesthetic decisions and 
> modifying their structure accordingly.  All an artist ever 
> really does is make decisions.

You know this is between the lines of my message :-) Of course I agree
with you. It's back to the the concept of computer as a stupid very fast
machine that can take the hurdle away from humans, so we can concetrate
in better things and don't let our mind idle.

But, though... I remember the times I was drawing shadows on my
architectural elevations, made of ink lines at 45°, one next to the
othet at 0.4 mm distance (approximately :-). I wasn't taking any clever
decision, but the repeatedness of the task let my mind free to explore
other possibilities. The low level task I was involved to gave me very
precious time to THINK, following the suble variations of a Brahams
concerto, eventually leading me to discover that there was another way
of arranging the windows on the façade.

Is there a value in slowness? And boring tasks? Edgar Degas was
convinced of so. But, then, he's also dead ;-)

Cristiano





> -----Original Message-----
> From: empyre-admin@imap.cofa.unsw.edu.au 
> [mailto:empyre-admin@imap.cofa.unsw.edu.au] On Behalf Of John Klima
> Sent: 27 March 2002 17:21
> To: empyre@imap.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] transparency+digidos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cristiano Bianchi wrote:
> > 
> > > 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.
> 
> Indeed, though much of the public's concept of neural nets 
> and AI is heavily influenced by the fantasies of hollywood, 
> most AI is employed in extremely mundane tasks, like 
> converting a scanned document into editable text. However we 
> are beginning to see more concrete examples of machine 
> intelligence (ie creativity) from research labs and the 
> gaming industry.  Many characters in recent games have what 
> is refered to as "domain knowledge," a less than perfect (by 
> design) view of their world that they build on, and draw 
> from, to make decisions in the course of the game.  This 
> deviates from a rigid rule set (expert system) in that the 
> rule set is modified during play, so the programmer doesn't 
> completely define ahead of time, all the behavior a character 
> can have.
> 
> When the artist/programmer invents or employs generative 
> algorithms, what they are doing is establishing a structure 
> and an initial set of parameters they then let loose.  if 
> they have a lick of sense, they watch the outcome and make 
> aesthetic decisions, modifying their structure and parameters 
> to achieve a better (what ever that might mean) result. So 
> yes, its not terribly interesting to create a generative 
> algorithm, let it loose, and accept what ever result it 
> offers as "Art" simply because it was generative and 
> algorithmic. with a domain system, the creator may spend 
> hours, even days, tweaking the "training set" until a desired 
> or pleasing outcome is achieved. the beauty of it being 
> generative is that it never works out the same way twice. but 
> the computer is not making the art here, the artist is, or 
> should be, constantly making aesthetic decisions and 
> modifying their structure accordingly.  All an artist ever 
> really does is make decisions.
> 
> j
> _______________________________________________
> empyre mailing list
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyrean/empyre
>