“Hyphae Zoetrope” by Jessica Rosenkrantz, part of the “Zoetropes” collection

I came across Jessica Rosenkrantz’s work on N-E-R-V-O-U-S, where she 3D printed several objects resembling forms in nature. The one attached here is called Hyphae Zoetrope, where the object is printed used an algorithm mimicking leaf structures. I personally find art resembling forms in nature to be the most appealing to me, and Rosenkrantz’s combination of computer generative processes and natural structures intrigued me a lot in how every instance of creating the structure will never be the same as the previous one.

I find machine-generated art such as these to be original, because I don’t base originality on what it is on the finished visual project, but on the idea behind it. I find computer-made art to be quite unique from previous forms of art established by so many generations, where those art forms are “finalized” in a way, where they can’t be generated differently and yet so similarly in another fashion. I find that human aesthetics can never be formalized and proceduralized in such a way that computer-generated art is, due to human beauty not functioning on such a rigid algorithm that mechanical beauty is.

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/

Generative Art with Node.js and HTML5 Canvas

by Matt Deslauriers

In his project, Deslauriers used the rendering algorithm to create his generative art. Each particle is rendered as a small line segment in the direction of its velocity. The scale of the noise is randomized so that some lines curl tightly, while others head straight. Deslauriers also used photos of snails, flowers, architecture, and geometry as guides to make the renderings look a little more polished. The particles sample a black and white image, and the luminance value of the image determines parameters such as noise scale and line thickness. When choosing colors, Deslauriers used popular colors in design communities rather than pick schemes by hand.

Deslauriers’ work relies more on the artist’s creativity. As explained, the programmer made the decision of the color palette used in his work. The randomized noise value and line thickness are also determined by images chosen by the programmer. Therefore, the computer’s role in the making of this art is very passive.

Machines can randomize, but it can never be original. They learn from patterns and programmers’ instructions. Everything created by a computer comes from a pattern or image that it has seen before. This is the same for human — all of our ideas come from previously seen objects, but the way of how we put images together makes us creative. Computers cannot do so. They might be able to randomize locations or shapes, but in most cases they are instructed by a programmer to do so.  Similarly, human aesthetics cannot be formalized or proceduralized. The human mind thinks freely, and is not controlled by boundaries. A programmer can always use computers to express or recreate a piece of art, but the computer itself can never mimic the creative process of a human.

I think for a machine, making art to satisfy human aesthetics can be hard. Human’s beauty standards are constantly changing, and for computers to realize that pattern is really hard. Human on the other hand, might not have the ability to appreciate a computer generated artwork. Therefore, it’s pretty hard for a computer to make good art.

link to website

The artwork that I choose is called Heavenly, So Long! by a new media fine artist Yael Kanarek. This artwork is video displayed with and infinite duration. There are varies dimensions in the video. This artwork is a viral remix of a North Korean Army March.

 

link: http://www.yaelkanarek.com/videoclocks/2015/3/18/heavenly-so-long-2011

These pictures above were created by ROZ DIMON. I found them really impressive and innovative. I used to shoot photos in the dark and have someone hold the light and move randomly to created photos with blank background and strings in the middle. But Roz did it differently and boldly. His pictures are more detailed and really do have shapes. After digital production and computational revise. You can actually see the layer of the object in the photos. And that’s what makes his artwork so extraordinary and intriguing. There are also more meanings behind the pictures. As he states, the social problem is what the picture trying to reflect.