[-empyre-] Process as paradigm

[Yann Le Guennec]

I completely agree. In a systemic approach (or Systems thinking), 
processes are part of the dynamic view on the system, when elements and 
components involved in processes are part of the structural view on the 
system. Agents, or actors, can be seen as system components if they are 
within the limits of the considered system. The nature of a component, 
or element, e.g. artificial, biological, mineral, binary, encoded, ... 
is a property of the element, sometimes allowing or not some kinds of 
interactions with other elements.

 From this point of view, processes can not be separated from a system, 
they necessarily refer to one. A project is also a system, with inputs 
and outputs. If an art object can be an output of an art practice seen 
as a system, the system itself can be the object for the art practice.

So, thinking about art in terms of processes *and* thinking about art in 
terms of objects are both sides of thinking about art in terms of systems.

Systemic art ? .... Let's add Lawrence Alloway to valuable artistic 
references in this discussion.




Simon Biggs a écrit :
> This question opens a very interesting can of worms regarding what valid
> agents can compose a system of a particular kind. Conventionally, generative
> art has been seen to involve artificial agents, such as software routines
> and hardware processes. However, why we should limit the character of the
> agents involved. Why not allow all sorts of agents in such systems ­
> biological, social and ecological systems are just a small number of the
> potential examples.
> 
> The first generation of generative artists emerged at the same time as
> process became an abiding concern in other areas of creative arts practice.
> Smithson¹s eco-systems, Campus¹s video systems, Trisha Brown¹s movement
> systems or Le Witt¹s formal structural systems all share this fascination
> with constraint, process and emergence. The thinking of people like Jack
> Burnham, Richard Gregory, Gordon Pask and John Conway were in the mix,
> blurring differences between aspects of creative practice, engineering and
> early informatics. The commonality of approach was a structuralist
> understanding of things, whether formal or more informal.
> 
> To take all that in a relaxed manner, where we do not require narrow
> definitions of what constitutes correct practice, and to situate it in a
> contemporary post-structuralist context that is very much concerned with
> notions of expanded agency, complexity and emergent phenomena across all
> sorts of living and non-living systems might be the more productive route to
> developing other ways of understanding and imagining the world.
> 
> Best
> 
> Simon
> 
> 
> Simon Biggs
> 
> s.biggs at eca.ac.uk  simon at littlepig.org.uk  Skype: simonbiggsuk
> http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
> Research Professor  edinburgh college of art  http://www.eca.ac.uk/
> Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments
> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
> Electronic Literature as a Model of Creativity and Innovation in Practice
> http://www.elmcip.net/
> 
> 
> 
> From: Yann Le Guennec <y at x-arn.org>
> Reply-To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 21:27:16 +0200
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Process as paradigm
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I'm very interested in your definition of 'generative image'.
> 
> http://www.laboralcentrodearte.org/en/714-catalogue (p55)
> 
> The text describes well what i call 'variable pictures' (eg, a networked
> still picture, always changing, and removing its precedent state,
> according to some online activities) or 'evolving pictures' (eg a
> networked still picture transforming itself, according to some online
> data accumulation processes).
> 
> I think that the term 'generative' is now closely linked to what is
> called 'generative art', dealing with algorithms and systems, looking
> for some kinds of emergence. That's ok, but a 'generative artwork' is
> also often defined by its autonomy and self-containment. Is this
> approach compatible with the picture as a result of a process where the
> involved system is wide and open, closely linked to other systems (the
> internet + its users , for example)?
> 
> Furthermore, with the expression 'generative image', one can think that
> the image generates something, not that the image is generated by a
> system or process ?
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Yann Le Guennec
> http://www.yannleguennec.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> 
> 
> Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre