Category: 02-Reading

Question 1A.

3rd grade birthday parties are these fantastic events that exhibit effective complexity, in that at this age the imposed parental structure and plan provided tends to follow the order of specific patters, ex: balloons, cake, theme (the specifics of falling under random as often chosen by child), child-friendly location, 3rd graders invited. 3rd grade birthday parties in this sense are often immediately recognizable as 3rd grade birthday parties. Then there is the total randomness that  occurs when 5 to 20 3rd graders of different dispositions are introduced onto the scene with balloons, cake, hats and freedom to play on a sugar kick, making each event unique. 

Question 1B,

To the Problem of Authenticity, and whether generative art is really art at all, I hold some personal stake. I've often heard from certain people that 'computerized' forms of art must be easier to make, as its the computer doing the work rather than the artist, and that particularity frustrates me as I think it is A) Not true, and B) Cheapening and disregarding of the authenticity of the work and art itself. I think that generative art is most certainly art, in that the process of creating the constraints and directions that allow for exciting randomness and multiple productions, is directed and chosen by the artist themselves, the computer is their creative tool.

1A. A honeycomb exhibits the idea of effective complexity as this is a simple system that contains high degrees of order and disorder. The beehive is a pretty complex hierarchical system and the honeycomb itself as a structure is very orderly, however I think there is a degree of disorder in the hive. I would place the honeycomb closer to the "total order" side of the spectrum (but not completely) and a little directed to the total randomness side.

1B. The Problem of Locality, Code, and Malleability is an interesting one to me as Galanter questions where art resides onto its logical status. The argument about generative art is that some people feel as though it is like any other artwork that has an object or event while others criticize the object or event and see the generative system as the art. Personally, I feel as though the generative system is the art itself because the most interesting/ more important part about generative art is how it was made to become the "object" or "event" rather than what the object becomes.

1. If effective complexity is to be understand as a system moving in a structured yet unpredictable way, the slime mold can be a fine example. The slime mold is a single celled organism that will continuously expand itself until it reaches food nearby, at which point it will contract until it exists in the shortest path between itself and food. It has no control over the food position, but will follow the same logical procedure when it finds the food.
2. I think about The Problem Of Uniqueness quite often. Instagram is now full of simple effects on typography, or looping gifs of shape illusions. Even more complex generative art tends to follow much of the same structure. I do think that there are moments with which artists can express uniqueness, even in a space where it seems everyone is playing the same hand. Take for instance the generative artist Shane, who has done many plays on the idea of a tunnel, or turned a truchet pattern into a structure, or sculpture.

1A. I think any board game that creates a complex world based on a set of rules can be considered a work with effective complexity. A family favorite of mine is the German kingdom building game Carcassonne. The game relies on a series of very specific rules and outcomes for each draw of the game, yet every time it is played, the kingdom looks entirely different, as each tile placed is drawn at random.

1B. The issue of intent in generative art is very interesting to me because I (whether I try to or not) tend to lean towards labor heavy work and attribute more value to something that has been painstakingly created. While happy accidents are something I frequently stumble upon, I can't help but think of them as a lazy approach and give less importance to a work.

Question 1A.

I think games with very simple rules that are played by humans are a good example of effective complexity because they are great stages for emergent interactions. Games that come to mind are the loop activity we did in class and r/place, where a rule as simple as "You can color a pixel every 20 minutes" allows for complex social interactions. I choose these as examples because they are a combination of order (simple rules) and disorder (human individuality) that constitute a complex system. Perhaps the only point of contention is whether these examples are truly generative, because the artist(s) are not removed from the decision-making in the way that Galanter emphasizes in the beginning of the text.

Question 1B.

I relate the most to the problem of meaning because I find it something that I struggle with in all forms of art. Galanter highlights generative art's inclusiveness of all forms of "meaning", whether it be presenting the system itself, invoking awe, or delivering social commentary. Because of this, I find it hard in general to evaluate the critical value of my ideas. At the same time, I find it liberating to not have to evaluate the critical value of my ideas because all delivered meanings are valid within the realm of generative art, including the lack of "higher" meaning beyond being interesting. Galanter also mentions a radically bottom-up "truth-to-process" approach, which I find intriguing but also personally difficult to practice. As an artist, I enjoy adopting a director position over my projects, which makes it difficult for me to relinquish control to the system.

1A. Going back to teamLab once again, I believe their piece BORDERLESS exhibits a high effective complexity. The experience of the art itself is completely different for every viewer, as the programs and displays are almost completely interactive, depending almost entirely on user input and movement. It sits in the middle of total order and total randomness, because the art generated is created by the same algorithm (total order), but the art's conveyance and comprehension is different for everyone (total randomness). 

1B. Problem of Authorship:

I took the mini-course Art & Arduino last year, where I thought about this specific idea for a long time, because my final project dealt with a robot producing art based off of human input. Especially since I am a digital artist interested in computer graphics and animation, this problem is very close to the career I want to pursue. I came to believe that yes, since the artist is the one creating the program and coding the processes that the system uses to generate the art, the authorship of the artwork can be credited to the artist and not the machine. If the artist is simply using specific programs of the machine and changing the input values to vary results, then by the transitive property, the artist is effectively creating the artwork itself as well.