This post concentrates on the topic of generative art. The term generative art was confusing to me at first, but after reading Galanter's (2003) article I got a more clear idea of generative art
Galanter gives a definition to the term of generative art:

Galanter, Philip. 2003. What is generative art? Complexity theory as a context for art theory. In In GA2003–6th Generative Art Conference http://www.generativeart.com/on/cic/papersGA2003/a22.pdf.
Galanter, Philip. 2008. What is Complexism? Generative Art and the Cultures of Science and the Humanities. In GA2008, 11th Generative Art Conference, 151-167 http://www.generativeart.com/on/cic/papersGA2008/13.pdf.
"Generative art refers to any art practice where the artist uses a system, such as a set of natural language rules, a computer program, a machine, or other procedural invention, which is set into motion with some degree of autonomy contributing to or resulting in a completed work of art." (Galanter, 2003).
Five years later Galanter improved his definition a little but basically the core meaning remains:
"Generative art refers to any art practice where the artist cedes control to a system that operates with a degree of relative autonomy, and contributes to or results in a completed work of art. Systems may include natural language instructions, biological or chemical processes, computer programs, machines, self-organizing materials, mathematical operations, and other procedural inventions." (Galanter, 2008).
In Galanter's article "What is generative art" he describes the activities, which are a part of todays contemporary generative art. These are for example electronic music, computer graphics and animation, industrial design and architecture. All of these activities use computer systems to create a complete work of art. Galanter believes the systems to be the most important part of generative art. "The key element in generative art is then the system to which the artist cedes partial or total subsequent control," he says (2003).
The systems which can not be easily or not at all comprehended by the scientists, but which seem to have an order are called complex systems. Galanter describes complex systems like this:
"Complex systems typically have a large number of small parts or components that interact with similar nearby parts and components. These local interactions often lead to the system organizing itself without any master control or external agent being "in charge". Such systems are often referred to as being self-organizing."(Galanter, 2003).
Another systems Galanter analyzes are chaotic and random systems. He believes chaotic systems to be a part of complex systems. Galanter brings out examples such as weather, which is a complex system that is not very easily comprehendible, yet it is a system where each small particle is dependent on others and vice versa. Galanter strictly says that chaotic systems are not the same as random systems. The weather example proves it well.
Corcuff (2008) describes generative art a little differently and also brings the subjects of chance and unpredictability into the picture. So if to compare Galanter's and Corcuff's articles it gets kind of mixed up. If Galanter strictly demands the usage of systems in the generative art and Corcuff describes chance then they do not match completely. Galanter does not think that Jackson Pollock's works should be considered as generative, at the same time Corcuff mentions Pollock in her article. Therefore it can be assumed that she takes Pollock as a generative artist.
But if to look at Corcuff's article, what is chance in the concept of generative art. Is it actually a system or is it not? In one hand for example if the dice are used, it is still a system, the predictability can be calculated and possible results even if there are millions can be predicted. Or is the chance just so unpredictable and complex that it could be called chaotic?
In his article "What is Complexism?" Galanter (2008) describes the complexity theory which he believes to be the core component of generative art. Complexism in his words is a highly disordered system which seems chaotic. He suggests that complexism is the next step from modernism and postmodernism. He compared the three, explained their characteristics and differences.

It could be seen that complexism is a part of art evolution, which follows modernism and postmodernism. When the modernism involved a concrete system, the fixed way of doing things, authority and hierarchy, then postmodernism resented modernism and did completely the opposite. Complexism in the other hand is again another wave of difference. But it seems to have grown up a bit. Instead of total collapse, no truth and randomness, complexism in taking more into account the feedback, generative networks and co-evolution. Although the generation of art is seemingly chaotic, it still leaves an impression of higher meaning and goals.
As always, art represents the thoughts, dreams, desires and resistance of the creative elite of the particular era. In general, generative art could be considered as obscure or chaotic, meaningless even. But as I could understand, in this case, it is not only about the art piece itself but also the system, which was developed for making the art piece.
Corcuff, Marie-Pascale. 2008. Chance and generativity. In GA2008, 11th Generative Art Conference, 189-199. http://www.generativeart.com/on/cic/papersGA2008/16.pdf.
Galanter, Philip. 2008. What is Complexism? Generative Art and the Cultures of Science and the Humanities. In GA2008, 11th Generative Art Conference, 151-167 http://www.generativeart.com/on/cic/papersGA2008/13.pdf.
No comments:
Post a Comment