https://www.accurat.it/works/worldpotus/

video link: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/d8gip9eu6h0vvu4/world_potus_tablet.mp4?dl=0

Google News Lab

The artists transform countries into bubbles, bouncing around as the user switches from topic to topic and sticking to each other depending on additional information on search habits. To visualize the data, the artists make use of variables such as colour, size and position of bubbles. I found this art piece pretty interactive because the balls change size, colour and position based on how the data and topic change. And the transition is very smooth. Details of issues they are representing is left out or simplified by the visualization due to limited size of bubbles. Using visual elements to represent data, the artists need to prioritize both artistic effect and readability of data, because artistic effect determines how people perceive the image and readability of data determines how much information they can receive.

According to Ten Questions Concerning Generative Computer Art, generative art is an art form produced by a “complex generative system involving many processes outside the direct control of artists, who are supposed to be the agents of production”. After reading the articles, I had new understandings of two art pieces created by LIA: Tentasho and Floralis Digitalis.

Tentasho is a procedural work by LIA that has two running modes: one is the interactive mode, when the user can control parameters of the art work through sliders on the interface; the other is the automated mode, when the art work autonomously explores the parameter space. Within the automated mode, the application can get rid of human control and make random artwork on its own. This interest me a lot because it helps illustrate a point mentioned in Ten Questions Concerning Generative Computer Art: generative system’s representation in potentia. The point is raised based on the fact that some generative systems have enormous numbers of potential variations. So “does the system represent this enormous range in some sense?” I think the authors are questioning the credit we should give these generative systems for creating marvelous art pieces, because randomness is embedded in the algorithms instead of intentionally designed by artists. So a machine can never be original because it needs human input of statistics and codes. Even without human input, such as the case in the automated mode of Tentasho, randomness can never be considered as equivalent to a machine making independent choices to create art. These two types of randomness are also discussed in the article, referred to as pure randomness and pseudo randomness (which means that “numbers are obtained by deterministic functions”). After all, without an independent mind, a machine cannot be original.

In addition, Floralis Digitalis is also a generative artwork created by LIA, who features flowers growing in quintessential algorithmic form. The art piece demonstrates how beauty is “proceduralized”. However, not all artworks can be proceduralized. In the Ten Questions Concerning Generative Computer Art, two definitions of art affect how art pieces are perceived. One definition of art makes it an object that is simply aesthetically appealing. The other definition makes it a product that is born within a social or cultural context, thus requiring conscious intent on the part of the artist. As such, an art work that are people oriented cannot simply be created through constructed algorithms.

links:

Tentasho: http://www.liaworks.com/theprojects/tentasho/

Floralis Digitalis: http://www.liaworks.com/theprojects/floralis-digitalis/