A-  I don’t mean to be repetitive here, but my LookingOutwards03 assignment is very relevant to this situation. Tom Beddard’s Aurullia is I think a very good example of effective complexity- it was generated from an algorithm (a fractal formula) which is a very ordered method, but the final product is way more difficult to establish a category for (in terms of complexity as a random or ordered state). I would argue it is closer to ordered (you can expect a great many of things from the unknown parts of this “world”, such as there are no floating objects, buildings will be gray, there is a certain maximum height and minimum height, etc. The reason why I say it is not complete order, is because it is not repetitive and entirely predictable, in terms of anything from shapes of buildings to patterns amongst the “streets” and cracks.

B- “Problem of Intent”  I personally find myself using random or generative procedures as a sort of computer-self-exploration, where the computer tests, experiences, and explores designs and patterns and I benefit from it’s findings. Or i use random factors for times when I don’t want to control it, or don’t have any idea how to control it, and would rather have the computer do it for me. Often I am pleased with the results and work off of it rather than leave it as the artwork itself. However I do believe an artist should have a meaning for using random factors, and a purpose like mine (don’t know what to do if it weren’t random) doesn’t seem like a good enough reason.

Comments are closed.