Jon McCormack's Eden: an interactive sonic ecosystem
In a second talk Maggie will focus on the philosophical issues raised by computer generated art, but she suggested that applying computers creatively has led to radical changes in art. Firstly, the generality of digital computers means that they have the potential to generate more complex forms than traditional artistic tools, perhaps even forms that cannot, at the outset be imagined. Using Jon McCormack's phrase, Maggie argued that they enable artists to explore the computational sublime.
Secondly, digital computers enable artists to diminish or even completely relinquish their control over the artistic process, thereby 'shifting the locus of creativity'.
A close up of Jon McCormack's Eden
Technology is enabling powerful new forms of creative expression; Maggie's paper seems like a good place to start a discussion about how and why this is the case.
6 comments:
Hello?-- anyone there?-- I thought that Margaret Boden's concentration on control was interesting because I have always found that working with computers gives me too much control. If I draw with a piece of charcoal I can not predict exactly what is going to happen. If I draw with a 'charcoal' tool in a graphics programme I know too much about what is going to happen. My understanding of the 'nature ' of charcoal as a drawing medium has been built up over years of practice. This does not give me control over the medium. I am unable to predict what a mark may be. In the broadest possible sense the same would seem to be the case in any creative discipline. Can anyone name a creative process where the artist has complete control? I await the intellectual bullet in the back of my neck- J
If an artist can decide whether to keep or destroy the result of a creative process then, in one sense, they have 'complete control'. They control what happens to the result (artistic product) of a process.
However, I think that when Jeremy and Maggie (and Jon McCormack in his computational sublime paper) talk about 'control' they are primarily referring to an artist's control of an ongoing creative process. In this sense, I think that in principle no artist can ever have complete control - they might make a mistake, lose concentration, spill their coffee, etc.
But as Jeremy points out - part of the attraction of art, and in particular generative art, is the potential for novel, surprising results?
I think it's also a major part of the attraction of science.
Both artists and scientists benefit from 'happy accidents' which result from them losing, to some extent, control. We've all benefited from Alexander Fleming being a bit slack on washing up...
I'm not sure how this affects Maggie's taxonomy but something that seems to be very different in most forms of generative art is the way in which the final `output' whatever that is, becomes less significant, or even completely irrelevant. The real focus is usually on the generative process, so maybe this is the real output. But that would mean we need to have some new, special term to refer to the pseudo-goal of the process.
Can anyone think of any cases in non-generative art where the consumers have a stronger aesthetic response to the process than to the output of the process?
Chris, here are two artists who are well inside the fine art 'bubble' whose work doesn't really have a 'product' - viewers engage with the process.
Olafur Eliasson, for example
The Weather Project at the Tate.
Continuing on a weather theme, James Turell whose work provides the audience with opportunities to experience light and space, for example his Roden Crater (sculpture on a Pharaoh-like scale) or the smaller, more intimate Deer Shelter at Yorkshire Sculpture Park (worth visiting if you're going up the M1).
However, although their work isn't computer generated wouldn't we want to label both these artists 'generative' in Maggie's taxonomy?
As an aside, one of the drawbacks of art where the focus is the process rather than the product is that it's harder to make a living. I noticed that as part of The Weather Project the Tate were selling golfing umbrellas with a message from Eliasson on them that was revealed when it rained (kerching?).
Here's another where the output is not so relevant. Chris Burden's "When Robots Rule: The Two Minute Airplane Factory". What it does is all in the title. Basically it was meant to produce a paper aeroplane every two minutes. The process of making the plane was the central part of the work. I can testify that the paper planes were a minor part as when I went to see this exhibition the machinery was malfunctioning (it was broken). Instead of paper planes we got to see a bunch of guys in white lab coats poking around looking worried - very odd experience to see this in a flagship "Fine Art" gallery. We thought this was a performance and only later found out that the exhibit was broken which in fact added to the aura of the piece and made us smile.
Link to "When Robots Rule: The Two Minute Airplane Factory" here
It seems that these guys never saw it work either.
Post a Comment