Generative art discussion

[Duq]

Since the sanbase thread seemed to get a bit of attention, I thought it might be an idea to just discuss the concept behind generative art here.

To give you an idea I will show you something I generated earlier today with my own program. This program I wrote about 6 years ago when I was studying information technology. My program doesnt compare to the program that San Base wrote, but then again I wrote my program for a homework assignment.

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/5631/generativeoi8.jpg
My description would be, creature on a orb.

Now how did I get here.

Step1: I made an image with one black orb, and a white background

Step2: I openend a text file with two variables. One variable influences the color use, another variable has some influences on the movement.

Step3: I throw the image in the program, and let it run for 5 minutes. The program generated a folder named "art" with around 200 images. If I would montage all this images together, you get a fun movie of a black orb mutating to this.

Step4: I go through the images, and select the one that has the best composition. And I'm done.

Now for a bit of discussion. I dont see myself as the creator. Even though I made the originally artwork, the computer fucked it up so much that it isnt recognizable anymore. So basicly the computer created a piece of artwork within the boundary of a ruleset. I just run in then and select the piece that looks nice and recieve the credit.

Now lets compare this to my workflow for creating with the pencil. I analyse my subject, I use a ruleset to recreate my subject. Basicly me and the computer do the same thing, however in the pencil example I have full control of the pieces I make, I actually know what I'm making it for, the computer just generates. If someone would be selecting the best of my pencilwork and sell it off as his own, I would kick his ass.

So what am I trying to say, computers dont have a goal, and cant work for a purpose. They work like a machine in a ruleset, in the art program that means endlessly generating images with no context within the rules determined by 3 parameters. The artist just comes along, and decides wich lucky piece could have context. However the intent for context was never there. So basicly there is no artist, just an person ripping off a machine.

This is my view, now I just wonder what the view of others is about this progress of creating

[HunterKiller_]

There has been some debates in the past about 'art' generated by computers.
Why view is that, it art is still created by a human, the one who set it's parameters. Just think of it as a new medium. ;)

I think images created in this manner can be best described only as 'aesthetically pleasing abstract pictures'.
All forms of art have their purposes. This style of images could be nicely implemented as backgrounds, or perhaps be printed on a canvas and hung on the walls of your work place lobby. That's as far as this stuff goes in my opinion.

[Brendan N]

I think images created in this manner can be best described only as 'aesthetically pleasing abstract pictures'.
All forms of art have their purposes. This style of images could be nicely implemented as backgrounds, or perhaps be printed on a canvas and hung on the walls of your work place lobby. That's as far as this stuff goes in my opinion.

No I see it going a LOT further. Recently announced video game "Spore" utilizes generative method to create entire models and texture, effectively eliminating the need for extensive modeling and texturing, as well as concept art.

I believe films have also used generative methods. I may well be wrong on this so don't quote me, but the tree in "What Dreams May Come" was generative as far as I know.

That's all fairly recent. Think at what we are looking at in ten to twenty years.

Duq: So is a photographer also just a person ripping of a machine?! Also, being in control of your artwork is intrinsically a Western idea and is not something that needs to be reflected (never mind valued) among all artists. Many artists have sought to lose control over what they produce (Abstract surrealists to name but one instance). Finally, negating someone as an artist means you need to understand exactly what is art and what it encompasses, and not even art theory experts have come to a concise conclusion about that.

[Duq]

Actually spore is created procedural, but it is also bound to the rules created by the developer and artists working on the game. If the game calculates a creature/tree/texture beyond the defined boundary it is a bug.

In the end whether it is an photographer, painter or programmer you are always working based on parameters applied on the creator. When someone just starts drawing the parameters are undefined, only when someone starts working more will the parameters be defined. In the end resulting in the "perfect" output. In a painting a few of those parameters go to the brush and canvas, creating "happy accidents". In a photo a few of these parameters are given away to the camera. In a digital painting more parameters are given away to the computer, especially when working with textures etc. And I think that at some point you give so much of your own thoughts and uniques away that it becomes somethings elses work.

The thing is not negating someone or something as an artist, its about determining who actually did it. Both human and machine behavior is influenced by math and alghoritm. But we consider a machine as dead, inanimated. And since dead things cant do things according to the general masses, there is no artist I think.

Whether or not there is art, I think there can be art without an artist. Just look at the human race, or the world. The parameters for a planet to harbor life is so exact that you would think there was some perfect system that created it, but we have all these wondrous and awesome designs without a clear artist. Ofcourse we can create an artist by using religion, but I dont want to touch that :)

[Seedling]

we consider a machine as dead, inanimated.

A paintbrush is also "dead". Therefore, since I create art with a paintbrush, do you think the paintbrush should get credit for the art?

[Brendan N]

When someone just starts drawing the parameters are undefined, only when someone starts working more will the parameters be defined.

That's BS. Even before you start there are parameters. What size is the paper, what colour is it? What is the softness of your lead? etc, you get my point.

its about determining who actually did it.

If you're concerned about who did it, look at this:

http://french.chass.utoronto.ca/fcs195/photos/DuchampFountain.jpg

For those of you who somehow don't know this yet, Marcel Duchamp took a manufactured urinal, signed it, called it "Fountain" and presented it in a gallery. Cool idea.

Some decades later, Gober (I think) does this:

http://www.askart.com/AskART/photos/SNY5102005/24.jpg

Now who's idea was this? Gober is credited with the piece, as he was central to bringing it about.

The machine would not have done it without SanBase, but Sanbase may well have done without the computer and found some other way.

If you're trying to say "I don't find this approach as respectable as a traditional approach" then say so, it'll be your opinion and our secret - since I may well be inclined to agree with you if I knew a little more about the programming part.

[Duq]

A paintbrush is also "dead". Therefore, since I create art with a paintbrush, do you think the paintbrush should get credit for the art?

In a way, it should. The paintbrush gives a certain stroke on the artwork, it leaves a signature so to say. You as an artist specificaly selected that brush for that signature stroke. This is one of the parameters that I mean with transfering some of your own thoughts and ideas to something else. Although the transfer is minimum.

That's BS. Even before you start there are parameters. What size is the paper, what colour is it? What is the softness of your lead? etc, you get my point.

yes you are right, I meant that the definitions for how to create are more raw. So the person makes something that we would call amateur work.

The toilet example is a good one. In San bases thread, would be awesome if he could join in, he mentioned that a new instance of an idea is still an idea of the original creator. So if we follow that ideology, the toilets from Gober are actually from Duchamp. Basicly we get a double standard; if a person changes something it is a new work, if a computer changes something it is an new instance.

The machine would not have done it without SanBase, but Sanbase may well have done without the computer and found some other way.

Would SanBase have even thought about doing it, if he was born somewhere else and recieved a different social programming? I think humans and computers arent really that different, we both recieve programming and act accordingly.

If you're trying to say "I don't find this approach as respectable as a traditional approach" then say so, it'll be your opinion and our secret - since I may well be inclined to agree with you if I knew a little more about the programming part.

The thing with me is that I come from an IT background. I used to work as a system designer, and think out structures and systems to guide the computer into calculating the right stuff. One of the things you notice while doing that work is that a computer is quite alive in a sense. They analyze, process, and output, and they do it again and again untill the person behind the monitor is happy. Thats not that different from what we do, I observe what I want to make, I draw it, and whether it is good or not I make it again.

So basicly I find the method respectable, what I didnt like about sanbases work is how it is presented. What I think is; if you let the computer take over so much of your creative process (about 90% in my program) that it should get credit. The question is just, where is the balance?

[Seedling]

Hey, now you're making sense, Duq! FYI, please make sure to include all the names of the various people you quote. You just attributed a bunch of stuff to me that I didn't write.

[Duq]

Hey, now you're making sense, Duq! FYI, please make sure to include all the names of the various people you quote. You just attributed a bunch of stuff to me that I didn't write.

I am? :) English isnt my mother language, so alot of things I write get out of my head in some weird dutch-english combination :D

[Brendan N]

Agreed with Seedling ;)
Still have some opinions to air :).

Would SanBase have even thought about doing it, if he was born somewhere else and recieved a different social programming? I think humans and computers arent really that different, we both recieve programming and act accordingly.


You may as well argue "Would Picasso have done anything to art if he was an monk scribe? Or an Early Christian artist?" Probably not much, the circumstances weren't right. However, SanBase did think of it under these circumstances and the rest is "what if."

With your other statement - it's largely true, almost entirely. But remember, computers function according to logic. Logic wasn't discovered, per se. It's a system those ancient Greek Philosophers imposed on the natural world, and has shaped Western thinking since. So whilst most of us subsribe to logic and reason, it is not the only way to approach the world. Dadaism reflected this in a lot of ways.

So basicly I dont find the method not respectable, what I didnt like about sanbases work is how it is presented. What I think is; if you let the computer take over so much of your creative process (about 90% in my program) that it should get credit.

Giving the computer (and the paint and the brush and etc) credit seems entirely fair, but what will it do with the credit? It's not quite practical. Plus (not sure if this is a bad analogy) you'd have to give credit to opium for some of those wonderful surrealist pieces, since the artists were completely reliant on it to help generate their images.

As for the question of balance - I think that's a matter of opinion, which means it's up to the artist. Sanbase did mention that the image is 100% digitally generated I think, so I think he did give credit to the computer.

I could bore you with more about conceptual art (not to be confused with concept art), but artists have been known, especially in the modern era, to present ideas rather than artworks. The work is often just the medium for communicating the idea. I can't speak on behalf of Sanbase but I found the idea as interesting as the pieces themselves.

meh, I'm not making sense now, going to bed. Thanks for the interesting discussion :).
cheers!

[Seedling]

Your English is WAY better than my Dutch, Duq! :D

[Farvus]

If you want to see purely procedural creation then I recommend downloading some demoscene intros.

Just very few examples:
"fr-08 - the product" by Farbraush" (http://www.farb-rausch.com/fr08_final.zip) - It's rather crappy design but what is amazing about this intro is size in comparison to amount of art generated by computer. It has 66 textures that would weight 178mb in bitmap format. 15 minutes of sound that would be 159 mb in wave format. Together with all 3d it would be 1.9 GB while the intro is only 64kb. Compression rate 1 to 30000 :).

"fr-034 - Time index" by Farbraush (ftp://ftp.scene.org/pub/parties/2003/simulaatio2/in64/fr-034_time_index.zip) - Other intro from that group that I like. More eye candy interesting visuals.

"bakkslide 7" by hellcore and omnicolour (http://www.rociek.com/audiovisual/bakkslide7_win32.zip) - One of my favourite intros. It's mainly about mood.

It all needs lots of good design skills to create something eye appealing. Trying out different effects, planning, compositing, synchronising with music and so on. Computer just generates final result when you run this exe file.

[Brendan N]

HUGE thanks for posting those, Farvus! I've heard about them (didn't believe it at first since 64 kb is ridiculously small) and have sort looked out for them with no luck. The last two are my favourites, whilst the first is a wonderful technical achievement.

Again, thanks for sharing. /off topic.

If you want to see purely procedural creation then I recommend downloading some demoscene intros.

Just very few examples:
"fr-08 - the product" by Farbraush" (http://www.farb-rausch.com/fr08_final.zip) - It's rather crappy design but what is amazing about this intro is size in comparison to amount of art generated by computer. It has 66 textures that would weight 178mb in bitmap format. 15 minutes of sound that would be 159 mb in wave format. Together with all 3d it would be 1.9 GB while the intro is only 64kb. Compression rate 1 to 30000 :).

"fr-034 - Time index" by Farbraush (ftp://ftp.scene.org/pub/parties/2003/simulaatio2/in64/fr-034_time_index.zip) - Other intro from that group that I like. More eye candy interesting visuals.

"bakkslide 7" by hellcore and omnicolour (http://www.rociek.com/audiovisual/bakkslide7_win32.zip) - One of my favourite intros. It's mainly about mood.

It all needs lots of good design skills to create something eye appealing. Trying out different effects, planning, compositing, synchronising with music and so on. Computer just generates final result when you run this exe file.

[Farvus]

Brendan N - No problem. Actually is super small percent of this kind of art. You can find lot's of this stuff here:
http://www.scene.org/awards.php?year=2006

Some of the 64k intros or demos might have really high requirements so not everything will work on every computer.