You’re still the artist
KeithHandy posted in Generative on September 23rd, 2006
Reposted with permission from the Eu-gene mailing list:
I’ve been thinking about this a bit, and if I were to contribute yet another alternate definition of ‘generative art’ (not that I think it needs one) then it would be something like this:
“Generative art is the production of rules to define a fixed conceptual space as art. A rule-follower (such as a computer) then moves through the space in an arbitrary manner, but not beyond it. Furthermore the method for navigating the space does not change with time. What is presented is simply a single, unchanging conceptual space navigated by naive serendipity.”
I put it that way to underline the fact that generative art does not present a limitless, ever-changing stream of creativity. Instead it presents a model with some parameters, and those parameters define a conceptual space. Together those parameters might define a high dimensional space of possibilities, but they are have limits, and beyond a few iterations a naive approach to searching that space is unlikely to turn up anything of interest.
The output from generative systems looks samey after a short while, unless the system is modified. For example AARON would not produce interesting output if Harold Cohen didn’t keep modifying it. So once you divorce a generative system from its programmer it dies.
That’s not to say that something beyond generative art isn’t possible, for example evolutionary art takes a more intelligent approach to searching a conceptual space, and hopefully soon software art will start transforming the conceptual spaces it works upon.
alex
The feedback he received on this was largely along the lines of “why do you have to focus so much on what it can’t be”, which spiraled into debates about free will and determinism — but I like the way he put this, and think it’s a good way of dispelling any fear or fantasy of creativity itself ever becoming a non-human thing. Even if a given work has infinite iterations, it bears pointing out that “infinite” does not mean “everything”. (There is an infinite set of fractional numbers between three and five, but that set does not include seven. In fact, there are a heck of a lot more numbers that aren’t included.) As a process is designed to be more and more complex, it can appear that its own “conceptual space” is shifting, but all this means is that the artist (programmer) has put in the work to build a larger metaspace.
I don’t think any of this, either Alex’s post or my commentary, should be taken as a bitter attempt to deflate anyone’s dreams of making a machine behave more like a human. I just think it’s healthy and practical to know what you can and can’t expect from something.
