Jessica Rosenkrants works at the Design Studio known as Nervous System. Some of the projects here have delved into the use of 3d modeling to simulate real life occurrences throughout nature. One of their projects, featured here (Floraform), generates a design system mimicking the biomechanics of growing leaves and flowers. Another one of her projects, Kinematics, can transform 3d shapes into a flexible 4d printing system. The flexibility is a big leap forward in the printing processes available. In further relation to design, there is the Custom Jewelry project, which takes advantage of 3d print and computation to create custom jewelry.

In relation to artists/designers, her studio is giving people a new avenue to use to create. 3d printing is allowing for people to skip some of the physical labor that was so critical to artists in previous years. I think it’s interesting because part of what made artists of the past so admirable was the amount of time and pure dedication they poured into an idea just to make it come to life. Now, with 3d printing (if it really takes over), this might mean that people are admired more purely for just their creative ideas (?)

Another aspect of her work I was fascinated by was how it can transform the way we research. Having these simulations, such as Floraform, opens amazing possibilities for research with a great deal of freedom/control. But a big concern with this type of technology is that, while it can simulate an individual process of growth, it can’t always simulate the environment surrounding that structure. For example, Floraform is able to simulate the way a flower grows, but I’m not sure it will ever be able to simulate the dynamics of every detail of the environment around a flower. In real life, the environment has a huge effect on it’s growth and lifespan, and this environment is so randomly detailed. These simulations focus so much on the focal point of the plant without maybe seeing its growth as a constant conversation between plant and its shifting environment.

Amygdala is a generative art installation created by fuse that interprets the collective emotional condition of the internet. Named after the amygdala neural network within the human brain, the artwork scans through a large number of tweets on the internet. Then utilizing a rendition of the Sentiment Analysis algorithm and comparing the contents of the tweet to a database of words with attached emotional connotations to determine the emotional state exhibited by the tweet. Repeating this over the hundreds of tweets being sent in that instance the system then generates a light display based on its interpretation of these emotions. The display itself is composed of 41 luminous pillars arranged in a circle that displays its interpretation in the moment, as well as 12 horizontal screens that display the history of the various interpretations.

In making this artwork the artist is surrendering a great amount of control to the computer. Beyond setting up the lights and giving it the sound files, the artist leaves creating the visual and audio output entirely to the computer. Fuse has little idea or control over what the finished art piece looks like, instead allowing the computer to determine it. However, it’s also difficult to say that the computer is being entirely original in this case, as it’s not generating the image solely in it’s own head but instead pulling firstly from the contents of the tweets of a set pattern and secondly from a database in the algorithm and using its knowledge to visualize that. However, I’d say that this computers are just as original as humans are, as just as this computer is pulling information from what it observes from the tweets into the contents of the artwork, human artists base the contents of their artwork on their experience, surroundings, or knowledge. Neither of these entities are creating an image from nothing.

Link: https://www.fuseworks.it/en/works/amygdala/

B&W Forever!

by LIA

“B&W Forever!” by LIA, 2013

“B&W Forever!” is a video that uses expanding rectangles to create complex monochromatic patterns. The use of black and white represents a steady balance between good and evil, form and void, and light and darkness. Occasionally, you can see the shades of grey, which means this existing state of dynamic equilibrium somehow might change to favor the other temporarily.

To me, the idea and concept of an art work is much more important than anything else, and artist is the one who can apply this to any form of art. There is no difference between computational art and other traditional type of art, such as watercolor or oil painting; all of them are undoubtable to be considered as original. It’s just an edgy way to bring the concept that the artist would like to convey to the society. Computer-generated art might not be able to have the same sense of warmness as handmade art because of the artificiality of the lack of flaw. However, it gives audience a different way, a more interactive way, to feel the aesthetics of art.

Link: http://www.liaworks.com/videos/bw-forever/

One example of generative art that I found really beautiful was Weaving by LIA. It is composed of minimal, reduced black and white lines that are constantly shifting, braiding, and intertwining with each other. The black and white lines also alternate between existing in 3D and 2D; some lines are just stripes, but some lines form into cubes rising out of the piece. The resulting visuals are mesmerizing and very fun to look at. This composition was inspired by the Jacquard loom. The Engine for this can process the input data and “weave algebraical patterns just as the Jacquard loom weaves flowers and leaves.”

I think the idea of machine creation is really interesting. Since computers have already shown the ability to originate new creations that exceed the programmers’ expectations, to me, to most intriguing question of a computer creating art is how much intent a machine can have. In my opinion, art should be approached with an intent to express something like a concept, emotion, message, or etc. Even if the intent is just to create something beautiful, can a computer create something that is beautiful based on its own concepts of beauty and not based on human aesthetics?

 

This generative art is by Marius Watz.

http://mariuswatz.com/2010/09/18/bvalsys/

Marius Watz’s art is very bold and uses abstract shapes and colors. He makes software art as well as physical works. No two pieces of art are the same, which makes his work very unique, and the strong contrast of colors draws people’s eyes to this art. I especially like the first picture because it looks like a 3-D shape, but it’s actually countless triangles in different shapes and sizes which give the illusion of a 3-D piñata-looking shape. Watz’s art has shown up in multiple exhibitions and galleries, including ones in London, Vienna, and Sao Paulo, to name a few. The other two images depicted caught my attention because they look a little bit like tunnels. They are kind of similar at a glance, but when looked at carefully, you can see that they are actually pretty different. The red one has a lot of stripes and more than one color, which makes it contrast with itself. Meanwhile, the blue one doesn’t have as many stripes and has many shades of blue rather than different colors. Also, this tunnel looks a bit deeper than the red one, which is likely because it comes out a little bit more. This art is abstract, and simultaneously very mesmerizing.

 

I looked at the different of variety of artists who have created many types of generative art. One of the first artists that caught my eye would be Allison Parish Who is a computer programmer, poet, educator and game designer that researches on and makes art about language and the many ways on how its used. While looking through her art work, there were two that I really liked and thought were interesting. The first one was rewordable which is a card game that is based off arranging words and the complexity of the words increases each time as you keep playing.It is a very colorful game which makes the game pop a lot. A fun fact is that it was chosen foo NYU’s Game Center’s Incubator program. Here is the link to the webitsite http://www.rewordable.com/. 

Another artist that I found very interesting is Neri Oxman who is an Architect and designer that does many 3D prints such as the one in this one in tlink http://www.materialecology.com/projects/details/zuhalhis . 3D printed with Stratasys multi-material 3D printing technology was used to create this piece. It consist of swirls, shapes,lines, circles and has a mixture of colors such as green, yellow and blue.

The two artist I chose are good examples of different types of generative art. Both of these artists are different from each other. One does crazy 3D designs that become objects or are incorporated into clothing, while the other does more like game design with colorful shapes. The artist is the one giving the directions to the computer to make certain shapes and sizes. I feel as thought there is some type of team work between the two and thats how the finish pieces for the projects come in. Beauty and human aesthetics be formalized and proceduralized because a computer can create perfection if it is told to. Although I also think that if the artist wanted to they could tell the comuter to make something not so perfect if they told it to.

Algae is a generative art by Nervous System which was founded by Jessica Rosenkrantz and Jesse Louis-Rosenberg, that has 2D and 3D models based on the natural growth of plants(such as algae) and their competitive growth. The outward branching of the art piece reminds me of the endless expansion of fractals. This endlessness could not be drawn by a human, which enhances the role that the computer plays in the art. While the computer has control over how the branches develop, where they branch out, and the pattern it creates in the end, the machine also has its limitations. It can only go as far the artist allows it, or as far as it can go within the restrains of its code. Does the computer know what it is doing is art? Is it just a sequence of numbers and letters to execute? Art I believe, is something that requires some human feeling or meaning behind it, and while there might be some algorithm for a computer to use in order to replicate some human aspects, in the end it is just an algorithm.

                 Mary Huang and Jenna Fizel are founders of Continuum Fashion, a fashion brand that 
incorporates their background in interactive design and architecture into expressing fashion with digital softwares
and technological design. Their collection "Myth," is the first 3D printed shoe collection that is ready to wear. They aim
to minimize human touches in order to let the digital design speak for itself,
as well as to show what using computational software can make possible. 
Their Laurel tree Sandal, seen at the right, is the first to be made available for purchase. 
It exemplifies the organic forms capable by a digital software that is based upon geometric 
intricacies, imitating a creative process that could originally be produced by human 
signature. A significant detail about the shoe's design is that the 3D printed material
makes it a product of zero waste. Making use of computer softwares ultimately provides a
way to express an artist's image but with higher accessibility. 

With the modern ability to format a relationship of creativity between an artist and a computer,
there is question about how much of what is being produced is actually able to be considered of
human artistry. I think that the art that is made from an agency of an artist and his computer
could still be deemed as original because the artist is able to determine the extent of the
computer's role. The machine produces what the programmer is putting into it, therefore making
it an extension of the programmer's creativity to produce an original piece of work. Art may be
based on the human experience, but the artist is allowing his experience to be expressed digitally. The computer might not be producing its own form of
"art," because it is conformed by human assessment, yet it is producing based on the artist's own consciousness. The formalization of human aesthetics
is in the hands of the human, who is allowing the aesthetics to be created by the computer. There's no way to truly comprehend the computer's own artistic
mind, however, there's little reasoning to justify that a partnership with an artist cannot allow for art of substance to be created.

Mitchell Whitelaw, an associate professor at Australian National University, works with data aesthetics and generative systems as a medium for his art. In one of his works, Limit to Growth, based on a report of the economic effects of exponential growth, Whitelaw created a two dimensional generative system through Processing. This program is able to create constraints for itself, creating a visual for the self limiting growth of the economy in contemporary capitalism.

Whitelaw designed his project, Measuring Cup, through Processing, STL, and Meshlab. It was inspired by the changes in temperature data in Sydney, Australia. Average monthly temperatures from 1859 to 2009. The cup visualizes the effects of global warming, through the expansion of the cup towards the top (present times). The cup is marked on the inside in 25 year intervals, similar to how a measuring cup (for cooking) would be marked.

In 2011, Whitelaw revealed Local Colour, a project that was executed in two parts, through diagrams that were made using a generative system created through Processing. The diagrams were based on network science- visualizing how new network nodes attach themselves to nodes with the most connections.

The first part: forms that were laser cut from cardboard produce boxes.

The second part: forms made from vinyl cut transfer.

Mitchell Whitelaw and other writers- Jon McCormack, Oliver Bown, Alan Dorin, Jonathan McCabe, and Gordon Monro- in their paper, “Ten Questions Concerning Generative Computer Art,” argue the “possibility of a machine and a human sharing experiences that result in something meaningful and worth communicating” can’t be dismissed. However, artists use generative systems and coding as tools to create works that express a purpose. Machines cannot be original, because they operate on algorithms created by humans. Computers do not experience the feeling of making art because they are inanimate, and they follow human-given instructions to generate art.

 

Resources:

https://researchers.anu.edu.au/researchers/whitelaw-m

http://mtchl.net/limits-to-growth/

http://mtchl.net/measuring-cup/

http://teemingvoid.blogspot.com/2010/06/measuring-cup.html

http://mtchl.net/local-colour/

http://teemingvoid.blogspot.com/2012/02/local-colour-smaller-world-network.html

Click to access LEON_a_00533-McCormack.web_.pdf

Here’s two pictures of generative art by Tom Beddard.

The project produces different surface detail. It seems like the pictures appears in biology book. One would believe this comes from nature life. The hue of these pictures are pretty much the same; however, the details are so different. Through this project, I agree that art does not limited to handmade; it can also be made by machine. Since the code contains variables that changes randomly, the result is unique. No one can predict the detail of machine’s work; we can only design the outline. I think it is very cool to produce art by both human and computer, because random variables may create results that one would never think about.