Zara Feeney 803454305 - week 4- Systems of Duality

Zara Feeney
803454305
04/26/07
Desma 9
TA: Xarene

Desma 9- Week 4
In this weeks lecture, we discussed many different topics. We talked a lot about dualism and how although computers are extremely efficient and beyond creative inventions, they still unfortunately lack compassion that. In this weeks lecture we also discussed a lot about the idea of systems. The reading quotes,”the generative systems we create as artists are far simpler than the systems we encounter in everyday life. But by creating these comparatively minimal systems we can discover truths about the world that might otherwise be masked by the relative chaos of the day to day.” Thinking about systems, helps us further investigate the difference between a human cellular systems vs. a computer networking system. Why does the set of networks in the body give rise to compassion and love that computers lack? Are they not both organizations that react to the rest of the system?
Based on the idea of a computer network vs. a human network, I became very interested in Allen Turing. He was the father of making human/ computer interaction possible. Turing based his test on a game played in the 1950s where a person in a group would not be able to see two people (one man, one woman) but they would have to try to guess which one was the man and which one was the women. The man would pretend to act like the women and vice versa so the person would not know who is who.
Turing’s experiment had a similar idea. He made a person try to guess the different between automated computer responses and an actual other human response. This type of computer programming or binary logic was dependent on female and male stereotypes and gender roles. The ironic thing, however, is that Allen Turing was gay and does not fit the “typical” (whatever that means) stereotype of the male gender role.
Unfortunately the government thought if a man loves a man he must be a woman, so they made him take estrogen pills to further portray what he desired ( mind you , this was against his will). He grew breasts because of this, and then died from eating a poisoned apple. He eventually died from eating a apple that was poisoned with synod.
Even though the government’s reaction to the gay community is shocking, another fact interested me even more. Ironically enough, Steve Jobs, was a hetersoxual white male who rose to the top of the computer science industry after Turings death. Steve Jobs invented the apple comuters which meant there was an apple with a bit out of it.
I find it so appalling how no matter what industry someone is in, the crème of the crop will somehow manage to be a heterosexual white male. “Deeper down than we are rich are poor, black or white, we are he or she. This is the last ditch of out socially prescribed identity…the one line of our psychic defense we dare not surrender” (Roszack in Eaklor 352). Or can we? America’s patriarchal society often views females as less significant than men. I hope that society can exceed there patriarchal standards and be open minded to other people than straight white males.

Read more!

Zara Feeney 803454305 - week 3- Political intervention in art

Zara Feeney
803454305
Desma 9
04/19/06

In this lecture we learned about how many things influenced the want to use robotics in art including the industrial revolution, Henry Ford’s idea of the assembly line, as well as the second industrial revolution which included electronics.
Throughout the history of Modernism, art has made many dramatic impacts on society. One of the most emphatic movements of Modernism was the Constructivist and De Stijl movement. Constructivist and De Stijl effected politics and social life of the early 20th century in a similar way to contemporary art today.
Constructivism was an especially political art movement in Russia, as it was pre-revolutionary and contributed to inciting political up rise among the proletariat. De Stijl in the Netherlands was political in the way that it expressed a desire for political and social change to achieve a more utopian order in society. Varvara Stepanova’s constructivist costume design is in my opinion the most intriguing example of avant-garde’s desire to bridge the gap between art and life. His rigid costume design was intended to make a uniform society whose ideals were all the same. Stepanova insisted that once art and life could become connected, this utopian ideal could be achieved. If Varvara’s theory was correct, this teaches us now that our society has come no closer to utopia than society of Varvara’s time. Constructivism remains as an example to current society of art’s power to invoke political and social change. In many ways, art today still serves the same purposes.
The Bauhaus group also wanted to reunite creativity with the industrial world by training mainly in industry and handicraft as opposed to drawing and painting, which the academy preferred. This group wanted to unify many different types of art. In his essay, “The Theory Organization of the Bauhaus movement,” Walter Gropius claims that“ the ultimate, if distant goal of the Bauhaus is the collective work of art—in which no barriers exist between the structural and the decorative arts” (311). An artist must know how to stray from traditional techniques and realize a groups potential by gaining new forms of expression. He, as well as others in the Bauhaus movement, believed in the power of a collective effort. He believes that “Only an apparent unity can be achieved if many helpers carry out the design of a single person” (313).
According to the Bauhauists, collaborative work is the most effective when a group agrees on the same ideas of expression. Everyone involved must understand the same principal theme intended for the piece. The group must work harmoniously so the collective effort can become stronger and can have more of an impact than an individuals work. Gropius feels that this group force or spirit “creates for itself a new life other than the life of nature”(313).
Also integrating art and life, Rivera, who led the mural movement in the 1920s and 30s, used mural art as a public, idealogic and didactic propaganda for the proletariat. In his mural Detroit Industry (1932-33), it is clear that Rivera is attempting to analyze mass product assembly, make a statement about the working class ( the worker and the work should be united, and not in an assembly line), give a public message about technology either being good or bad, and use past and present cosmology. This mural is divided horizontally into three sections, the top one medium size, the middle one very narrow and the bottom one the largest. The top section has two simple human forms lounging symmetrically in the foreground, and has five hands ( of different skin tones and ethnities) protruding our of a rock like form. In the next panel, there are a few of earths basic elements that represent the connection between past and present cosmology. Lastly, in the lowest and largest section, Rivera paints a assembly line and a factory using a compilation of angular forms and an endless line of restless workers. In this chaotic mess, there is only one point where thhe viewer can depict a small red car in the distance. There is a separation of the work from the worker, because in an assembly line, a worker can only see what they are making, but do not know what the end product is.

This Website provides a lot of information that explains what artists today are making. http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2002/03/51058

In society today, art serves the purpose of answering the question “what if?” Contemporary artists present new ideas to push the limits to shock, amaze, and otherwise make an impression on society. In a sense, art does and always has attempted to be beyond society in the way it tests the boundaries of what is acceptable and will eventually grow to be accepted.

Today, art is no different than the art of the early 20th century because artists have expressed and will continue to express their ideals about political society through their work. Using their craft as a venue to express certain political views, contemporary artists, for example, often show how changing political views affect our modern world. For instance, modern artist, Greg Kucera tends to represent the relation of freedom of expression and population control with the political perspectives of our era. Similarly, my personal artistic creations give a provocative and controversial perspective of rising political issues such as gay marriage and abortion.

Read more!

Zara Feeney 803454305 - week 2- Week 2 wonders

Zara Feeney
TA: Xarene
04-012-07
803454305


Desma 9- Week 2

Although we did not have reading for this week I will still discuss how interesting the lectures were. We talked about many things, including the derivation of zero, perspective drawing, dimensionality, fractals, and other math related topics that directly affect aesthetics. After I briefly discuss some aspects of the lectures, I will then talk about something that fascinated me the most—how the increase in software in art helps to provide visual relations to the patterns in nature.
Zero started in 700 BC in Mesopotamia which is now ironically south central Iraq. It was not used as a number but as a punctuation mark. After working its way through Greece, India, China and Islam, it finally came to the west in 1600 AD. Although zero has often been known as being simply nothing, it is now more considered to be infinitly everything. For example, when looking at philosopher Nische’s idea of “433 minutes of silence,” this could either mean 433 minutes of nothing at all or 433 minutes of everything at once.
Artists have contemplated idea of perspective line drawing throughout history, but the first note worthy attempt was by Duccio in the medieval times. Duccio did not quite get all his perspectives correct, and it was not until Brunelleschi formulated the idea of a vanishing point that perspective drawing truly portrayed the real world accurately. This discovering was a breakthrough in art during the medieval times and greatly contributed to the rise of the renaissance. Later, Da Vinci worked a lot with vanishing points and was a huge innovator for bringing math and art into one.
Another huge discovery in art was dimensionality. For example, M.C. Escher, who was greatly influenced by symmetry in Arabic mosaics, in Spain, and used his obsession with mathematics to slowly perfect his art. He made hundreds of intricate drawings that fooled gravity, time, space, and mainly the viewer. Also, Buckminster Fuller used dimensionality in his work. He felt like cubes are insufficient in nature and emphasize the beauty of making dome structures. Dimensionality definitely had an impact on later artists such as Cage, Albers, Snelsan, and others.
Continuously, Fractals had an amazing impact on how art influenced science and science influences art. Mandelbrot, discovered the idea of fractals and how when a large image is zoomed in on, it is the same as the initial image. These fractals are infinitely complex, they are like islands in a sea of chaos. Although it looks out of this world and very psychedelic, it is still based on simple principles.
I found the most interesting part of the lecture to be when Kasey Lees came to give a guest lecture. I found his artwork absolutely fascinating and I was speechless when he stopped talking. His work uses highly innovative software to create math based digital work. By figuring out a certain equations that apply to circles, lines and how they intersect, he ultimately creates something unfathomable and aesthetically moving. Like the patterns in nature, all thing is primarily based on simple equations. For instance if you look at a flower, there is perfect symmetry and geometry from the little micro organisms to the petals attached to the center. When viewing a flower, most people just see its imitiate visual beauty, but do not realize whats behind it. In Kasey’s work, the same idea occurs. Something at first merely aesthetically pleasing has simple equations that define it.
I searched “math and art” on google and I found interactive art and math websites that reminded me a little of Kasey’s website. http://www.math.ru.nl/knopen/art_gallery.html

For example, you can “build a rainbow” or change its lines by using different calculations.

Build a Rainbow
We follow a collection of parallel rays -- let's make them horizontal -- of sunlight striking the drop at various heights. The drop has radius 1, so heights can range from -1 to 1. (From symmetry, the sign of the height doesn't matter.)
For each ray, we report the angle through which it was bent (the angle between the scattered ray and the incoming sunlight).
Error! Not a valid embedded object.Error! Not a valid embedded object.Follow rays through two reflections
Ray at height Error! Not a valid embedded object.wavelength Error! Not a valid embedded object.nm bent by 144.2 and 94.2 degreesRay at height Error! Not a valid embedded object.wavelength Error! Not a valid embedded object.nm bent by 140.4 and 108 degreesRay at height Error! Not a valid embedded object.wavelength Error! Not a valid embedded object.nm bent by 139.6 and 118.8 degreesRay at height Error! Not a valid embedded object.wavelength Error! Not a valid embedded object.nmRay at height Error! Not a valid embedded object.wavelength Error! Not a valid embedded object.nm

Through this lecture, I realize how undeniably essential math is in art. Not even just art in a studio, but the art visuals in nature. By realizing the potential math and science can have when combined with art will continue to move us forward in our technologically advanced future.

Read more!

Zara Feeney 803454305 - week 1- Two Cultures in mind

Zara Feeney
04- 06-07
803454305
TA: Xarene

Blog- Desma 9- Week 1- Two cultures in mind

In the world of academics, a striking opposition exists between science and art.
During this weeks lecture, the idea of stereotypes and opposition in School systems, as well as religious organizations within art and science was presented. Scientists often see artists as either starving and desolate, or rich and pompous. Artists often see scientists as madmen who never stop working in their labs. A stereotype, however, is a fixed/generated pattern meant to control groups of people, and is many times proven false.
Instead of continuing the long held tradition of making science completely opposite to art; C.P. Snow presents the possibility for opposites to become one. He hopes everyone knows “the second law of thermodynamics” and has “read a play of Shakespeare.” Everyone, whether they are more artistic (north campus at UCLA) or more scientific (south campus at UCLA) should be equally acquainted with both sides of the academic world. C.P. Snow looks at artists who are using technology to cure world, and reversely scientist who are expressing physical/ experimental science to reach the metaphysical. By briding the gap between art and science, C.P. Snow forms sort of a third culture.
Well known scientists further explicate C.P. snows idea of a hybrid culture—something that is the grey between the black vs. white opposition of art and science—thorughout their carreers. For example, Feyeyaband, who presents the idea of a methodological paradigm( the “against method”) says that the structure of method is similar in art as well as science. Both science and art can prove something false to be true or vice versa. Feyerband notes that eventually every methodology can be proven wrong and ultimately “anything goes”. This idea is the only principal that does not inhibit progress.
Later on in lecture we discussed the controversial topic of science verses religion. One view is that science and religion are completely conflicting. Another view is that they can actually intertwine (ex- Galieo, Darwin). Christians feel that science is a threat to their faith, and scientists feel like religion is a threat to their scientific freedom. Unlike in the past, teachers just guide students in the write direction and do not tell them exactly how things are meant to be ( finally women can teach too!). Now as students in this generation, we can question authority, since thoughts and facts are always evolving.
Artist, Steve Kurtz, the guest speaker for this week, told his personal story of how authority affected his ability to integrate science into his art. He and his team “Haliflax” wanted to conduct experiments to test how much the government was altering the food Americans eat. When his wife of 27 years died unexpectedly of heart failure, the FBI searched his house, found petree dishes with unknown bacteria and immediately accused him of an attempted terrorist attack. Although his art may be absurd, authority is usually even more absurd.
As this class continues, the overlapping between science and art will become clearer. For example, the professor mentioned that with the invention of light bulbs and photography, painters started to paint less realistically. In all situations, it is evident or not, science affects are and reversely art affects science. By integrating art into life as well as life into art invoke political and social change becomes possible.

Read more!

Zara Feeney 803454305 - week 1- Two Cultures in mind

Zara Feeney
04- 06-07
803454305
TA: Xarene

Blog- Desma 9- Week 1- Two cultures in mind

In the world of academics, a striking opposition exists between science and art.
During this weeks lecture, the idea of stereotypes and opposition in School systems, as well as religious organizations within art and science was presented. Scientists often see artists as either starving and desolate, or rich and pompous. Artists often see scientists as madmen who never stop working in their labs. A stereotype, however, is a fixed/generated pattern meant to control groups of people, and is many times proven false.
Instead of continuing the long held tradition of making science completely opposite to art; C.P. Snow presents the possibility for opposites to become one. He hopes everyone knows “the second law of thermodynamics” and has “read a play of Shakespeare.” Everyone, whether they are more artistic (north campus at UCLA) or more scientific (south campus at UCLA) should be equally acquainted with both sides of the academic world. C.P. Snow looks at artists who are using technology to cure world, and reversely scientist who are expressing physical/ experimental science to reach the metaphysical. By briding the gap between art and science, C.P. Snow forms sort of a third culture.
Well known scientists further explicate C.P. snows idea of a hybrid culture—something that is the grey between the black vs. white opposition of art and science—thorughout their carreers. For example, Feyeyaband, who presents the idea of a methodological paradigm( the “against method”) says that the structure of method is similar in art as well as science. Both science and art can prove something false to be true or vice versa. Feyerband notes that eventually every methodology can be proven wrong and ultimately “anything goes”. This idea is the only principal that does not inhibit progress.
Later on in lecture we discussed the controversial topic of science verses religion. One view is that science and religion are completely conflicting. Another view is that they can actually intertwine (ex- Galieo, Darwin). Christians feel that science is a threat to their faith, and scientists feel like religion is a threat to their scientific freedom. Unlike in the past, teachers just guide students in the write direction and do not tell them exactly how things are meant to be ( finally women can teach too!). Now as students in this generation, we can question authority, since thoughts and facts are always evolving.
Artist, Steve Kurtz, the guest speaker for this week, told his personal story of how authority affected his ability to integrate science into his art. He and his team “Haliflax” wanted to conduct experiments to test how much the government was altering the food Americans eat. When his wife of 27 years died unexpectedly of heart failure, the FBI searched his house, found petree dishes with unknown bacteria and immediately accused him of an attempted terrorist attack. Although his art may be absurd, authority is usually even more absurd.
As this class continues, the overlapping between science and art will become clearer. For example, the professor mentioned that with the invention of light bulbs and photography, painters started to paint less realistically. In all situations, it is evident or not, science affects are and reversely art affects science. By integrating art into life as well as life into art invoke political and social change becomes possible.

Read more!

Michelle Baba, Week 4 - Stephen Wolfram

Though I thoroughly enjoy the things that we cover in this class, I am a little troubled by the small amount of things that we take the time to actually learn about and discuss. I think that so much material has been crammed into each week, we don’t really get a chance to think about all of the different works and artists that we are shown.

Anyways, this past week, self-organization caught my eye. I wanted to know more about it and how it was connected to the artist that was mentioned in class, Stephen Wolfram:
Self-organization is when something increases in complexity without being guided or told to do so. Some examples would be morphogenesis (when a living organism develops and grows), the creation of structures among social animals/insects, and flocking behavior among birds. According to http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SELFORG.html , it is basically a process of evolution where the effect of the environment is minimal and the development of new, complex structures takes place primarily in and through the system itself. Below is a mathematical construct that displays self-organization created using “Rule 30,” a program created by Stephen Wolfram.

Wolfram, a computer programmer (among many, many other things), studies simple computational systems and believes that they, rather than traditional mathematics, are needed to model and understand complexity in nature. He creates programs such as “Rule 30” to create his art of shapes and geometrical forms.

And to change the topic to computer programs such as Weisenbaum's ELIZA, I'm not even certain that I would consider that as having weak A.I. since it is programmed to give certain responses and ask certain questions in a particular order. I suppose it does fit the definition of weak A.I. since it does perform simple tasks, however, I feel that it do not, in fact, live up to the "intelligence" part of its name... just something to consider. Oh! And there's also the similar program that is contacted via AIM called "Smarterchild" that can be used as a seemingly personalized/intimate search engine.

Read more!

We're All Generative!

Science and art are definitely both generative. Can you tell the difference?





There were many topics covered in lecture and section last week that covered a wide range of topics: networks, natural systems, biology, generative art, artificial life. As we learned about all these different topics I am still somewhat lost on the connection of some of these topics to art. As for networks, the example of the first internet connection being between UCLA and Stanford was very interesting but I think I missed the point of how it relates to art. The same goes for artificial intelligence. It is really interesting to see the development of A.I. such as the evolvement of Eliza to Alice, but I think I need to see more examples to establish the connection to art. I hope that we can go over this more in discussion or again in lecture just to clarify some things.

It’s a little hard for me to agree with Philip Galanter that generative art is as old as art. The definition Galanter gives for generative art is that it “refers to any art practice where the artist uses a system, such as a set of natural language rules, a computer program, a machine, or other procedural invention, which is set into motion with some degree of autonomy contributing to or resulting in a completed work of art”. When thinking of classical pieces of artwork there doesn’t seem to be much autonomy. Back then paintings, portraits, and sculptures were very much in the control of the artist and not some external force. By definition generative art is very much about the process rather than the final piece of work and I feel that before many artworks were about the finished project. I feel like I can really relate generative art to my own science experience. In my chemistry lab we are required to keep a lab notebook. In this notebook we are to document every step, observation, resource, change, mistake, etc. With a carbon copy on the back and a ban on white out we can see our entire process from start to finish, mistakes and all. As our professor articulated at the beginning of the quarter, it is better to see where we have made mistakes in order to correct them rather than having a perfect final lab report and we know nothing about the experiment. Although I wouldn’t call this generative science, but writing in my lab notebook, in my opinion, is as generative as Philip Galanter’s Chaotic Conductor.

I definitely can agree with Jack Burnham, who said, “"Deep-rooted drives lasting several millennia are not erased from the human personality overnight. Yet there is abundant evidence that the modern era of artistic expression through sculptured objects is drawing to a close. Taking the path outlined up to now, it would be logical to speculate on the quasi-biological nature of future art...” Generative art seems the way to go these days. And from the works of Casey Reas, Hans Haacke and other artists, art does now seem to have a biological feel.



this piece is one of Casey Reas’s:

http://www.computergraphica.com/2005/03/16/casey-reas-updates/

And this is a picture of neuronal cells:

http://www.qbmcellscience.com/gallery/img10.html

Read more!

--- Section 2 --- Matt Ko ---

This week’s topic was on generative art and also artificial intelligence. There is debate over whether or not generative art is truly art or not. And I am not surprised that there is such a debate. There are different extents to how “free” the art is to develop. Some artists would generative art and totally just let the art make itself, and others would make it more of a precise process, almost leaving no freedom for the art. I personally like generative art that is more artist controlled than not, and I would say that such art should actually be considered art. But in the end, to me, whatever is appealing to the eye is art. So, if the generative art is left to run without the artist doing too much, and it makes something appealing to the eye, I wouldn’t give the credit to the “artist” but rather to whatever system used to create the piece. As strange as that may sound, I think that is the best way to consider such a case. I would be much more comfortable saying that nature made the work than a person who didn’t contribute. A great example of generative art where the artist has taken control of the production is our prior week’s guest, Casey Reas. He did all of the programming required for the art to be done. Hans Haacke’s Condensation Cube is a decent example of artist control. He came up with the idea to display condensation as art, building the cube, and placing it in an atmosphere where condensation would occur. However, this case is also a very hard case to distinguish. Since Haacke had minimal involvement in the process, some would say that his cube is not art. And it isn’t as though what is being created isn’t an everyday occurrence. So it’s very tough to decide. I am very close to not calling it art at all.

Artificial intelligence is another gray area for me. I don’t know how much AI is involved in art exactly, but either way, it’s really hard for me to decide what I think about it. AI is a promising idea, and I see many great uses for AI in our society. However, AI taken to the point of the movie I Robot scares me. If AI were ever really self aware, I would feel very strongly against it.

As we talked about in discussion, current AI is lacking in many respects. If you look at things like ELIZA, such an AI really needs to be able to respond freely, in creative ways. If ELIZA does not know how to respond, she tends to either rephrase the text that was inputted, or she will divert the question somehow. A real AI should have a creative response for any statement. However, the greatest struggle in the study of AI is that an AI will probably never be able to exhibit ethics and morality, and be able to sense feelings and express them, just as a human would. These features are what I would attach to the definition of intelligence, and without them, AI can never truly be intelligent.

Read more!

Claire Benson-Week 4-Objects and Systems

This week I found the topics we went into the most depth with to be by far the most engaging. Lately a few of the lectures have felt like a bit too much of not quite enough information, so I liked Edward Shanken’s response to Prof. Vesna’s talk because it provided a bit more focus and elaboration on certain subjects.

One remarkable collaboration that has been brought up a few times (although I still don’t feel like I necessarily have a good understanding of what they actually accomplished) is that of Rauschenberg’s and Kluver’s ‘Experiments in Art and Technology’. While the spotlight in the lectures has been on E.A.T.’s concern with “humanizing the environment,” it seems to be even more so about this concept in combination with their interest in advancing the second Industrial, or to be more specific, Technological, Revolution. In looking up their Statement of Purpose from 1967, (http://www.fondation-langlois.org/flash/e/index.php?NumPage=306) it becomes clear that their reasons for creating such a group lay in capitalizing on and appreciating the advancements in multiple arenas. The statement concludes with hopes of “avoid[ing] the waste of a cultural revolution,” and in acknowledging the societal implications of such developments, they also acknowledge the far reaching effects that such changes will have.

I also felt that Jack Burnham’s quote from the beginning of class was especially appropriate for the examinations of revolutions at large because advancements that are multifaceted and strong enough to attract the word ‘revolution,’ always include some sort of system restructuring. However, although many of the innovations of the initial Industrial Revolution also focused on how things were constructed, the product itself (as a sought after result) was still the goal in this era. To Burnham’s credit, it does seem fitting to recognize the shift on many scales and in many more arenas within the progress of the latter half of the twentieth century. As Mr. Shanken started to show us, there were many artists that began to prioritize the process rather than the outcome during this time period, and it therefore makes sense that performance art would emerge as an important force around this time as well.

Read more!

Christine Dang - Week 4 - Chaos and Order, Logic and Art

Each passing week it seems that we cover a different aspect of science, and yet, despite all of the inherent contradictions, it all somehow makes sense to relate these rigidly logical fields with the relaxed creativity of art. At first I had expected this course to focus more heavily on art and how technology can enhance it. I had hardly expected this intriguing paradox between logic and creativity. In this week’s reading, generative art was discussed, and this style even further increases the oddity of this amalgamation of art and science. Not only is there the mix between calculation and emotion, but there also exists the combination of both chaos and order. The pieces themselves are based on calculation, pattern, an ordered schematic of some sort. And yet from these static instructions arises random patterns and creations, many unexpected even to the writers themselves.

As mentioned in the description of the '99 Conference of Generative Art in Milan, Italy, "Generative Art allows us the possibility to perform our ideas as genetic code, and to realize, as the natural DNA does, always different and unpredictable series of events, pictures, objects, architectures, music, environment, all recognizable by our creative idea." Until I saw this statement, I hadn't even thought of relating the uniqueness of pieces of generative art to the creation of DNA strings. I truly could not make a better comparison. It could even be related to the "unexpected even to its creator" aspect of generative art, for when DNA is transcribed into RNA strands by the polymerase, every once in a while an unexpected error or change would occur, dubbed a mutation.

Examples of Generative Art, by Bogdan Soban

In the Fiat Lux seminar in Design | Media Arts that I took last quarter, we discussed this one program which detected the electric impulses sent to a plant’s roots upon touch and utilized these impulses as a method to control the growth and creation of various plants in a 3D garden. While the basis of the piece itself is a static program, no two gardens created through this system were identical. Thus, order creates chaos, and logic gives birth to artistic creativity. Furthermore, when this piece was on display in a gallery, a man in an electric wheelchair attempted it. The next day, the machine would no longer run. When the artist was called in and the program was fixed again, they discovered that somehow the electric impulses were affected by the presence of the wheelchair and had shorted the display. In this way, pieces sometimes yield results that are unexpected even to its creator.

Generative art also brings up the debate of intelligence. How intelligent does a program have to be before it is considered artificial intelligence? A program used for a piece of generative art is essentially self-reliant and can continue to create on its own, would this be deemed intelligent enough? Most people do not seem to think so. In last week's discussion session, we took another look at some of the earlier interactions with artificial intelligence. Many people looked at the simple text-based models as pointless and "dumb". However, those programs can and do interact with people on some semblance of intelligence, preprogrammed or otherwise. So what determines intelligence? Is it the ability to learn and change? Sentience, thought, feeling? Artificial intelligence is indeed an intriguing concept, especially when it appears that for the most part, people have not even yet defined intelligence itself.

Read more!

Claire Benson-Week 4-Objects and Systems

This week I found the topics we went into the most depth with to be by far the most engaging. Lately a few of the lectures have felt like a bit too much of not quite enough information, so I liked Edward Shanken’s response to Prof. Vesna’s talk because it provided a bit more focus and elaboration on certain subjects.

One remarkable collaboration that has been brought up a few times (although I still don’t feel like I necessarily have a good understanding of what they actually accomplished) is that of Rauschenberg’s and Kluver’s ‘Experiments in Art and Technology’. While the spotlight in the lectures has been on E.A.T.’s concern with “humanizing the environment,” it seems to be even more so about this concept in combination with their interest in advancing the second Industrial, or to be more specific, Technological, Revolution. In looking up their Statement of Purpose from 1967, (http://www.fondation-langlois.org/flash/e/index.php?NumPage=306) it becomes clear that their reasons for creating such a group lay in capitalizing on and appreciating the advancements in multiple arenas. The statement concludes with hopes of “avoid[ing] the waste of a cultural revolution,” and in acknowledging the societal implications of such developments, they also acknowledge the far reaching effects that such changes will have.

I also felt that Jack Burnham’s quote from the beginning of class was especially appropriate for the examinations of revolutions at large because advancements that are multifaceted and strong enough to attract the word ‘revolution,’ always include some sort of system restructuring. However, although many of the innovations of the initial Industrial Revolution also focused on how things were constructed, the product itself (as a sought after result) was still the goal in this era. To Burnham’s credit, it does seem fitting to recognize the shift on many scales and in many more arenas within the progress of the latter half of the twentieth century. As Mr. Shanken started to show us, there were many artists that began to prioritize the process rather than the outcome during this time period, and it therefore makes sense that performance art would emerge as an important force around this time as well.

Read more!

Section 3 week 4

I’m not going to lie; this week’s topics were way over my head. I was clueless through the first lecture and then the movie Brazil completely sent me over the edge into confusion. I didn’t really have a strong stance on what I thought artificial intelligence was before this topic was discussed during class, but I hate to say that the lectures and movies presented didn’t clarify my confusion any more. Before this week I thought that robots were associated with artificial life and that it also had to do with life created by humans like test tube babies.
Because I'm very naive when it comes to things like this I was completely in awe by the different topics discussed during class. I thought the program Eliza, created by Joseph Weizenbaum, was very interesting and I wanted to explore it more. I went to the website and started talking to her, and found her very frustrating. After trying to have a conversation with her I began to realize the pattern and process that she “thought” by. I started off with a topic that I thought most people would start off with. “ Hi, how are you?” However the response was not the predicted one. “ Does that question interest you?” Usually people answer with a “ good thank you” or something along those lines. However, I realized that the response is probably similar to many questions people ask and that is her backup answer for questions she can’t rhetorically answer with. Almost everything she responds with is a question, which makes the questioner very frustrated and annoyed. I don’t know if I would consider this art. It’s a very interesting creation and it provokes many feelings and thoughts, but I wouldn’t let it fall under the category of artistic.
Another program that reminded me of Eliza was a website called “ Peter Answers”. It’s a website that you go to where you ask it a question and it answers depending on if it “trusts” you or not. Basically it’s a computer magic trick that people use to confuse and baffle their friends, but I’m not quite sure how it works and was a first very scared by it. Here’s a website that completely describes how the “trick” works and its really fascinating to read about.
http://chriswondra.com/2007/02/21/peter-answers-the-secret/
While searching for more information about Peter Answers, I found a really interesting site that totally coincides with the artificial life topic of this week. The program discussed was where you could communicate with “god” and have a full on conversation with “someone.” It was almost exactly like Eliza, using predicted questions and answers, but it was still funny to read about how kids especially are fascinated with it. Here’s another website describing the “ Igod”.
http://chriswondra.com/2007/04/15/peter-answers-and-igod-logging-in-to-the-spirit-world/

Read more!

something more about bees

So I am sorry for this, but I really would like to continue harping on Sean Dockray’s lecture from week 3. However, he lectured on systems and I think that there are some very interesting ties between some of his pieces of art and some of the systems biology which we discussed on Tuesday in week 4.

On Tuesday we discussed for a little about populations and systems biology. I thought this discussion integrated very nicely with Sean Dockray’s art piece on the ants. I think that colonies in the wild like ants and bees are extremely fascinating. I find it amazing that a queen bee can reproduce parthenogenically in order to create males. These males are haploid and contain half the DNA compared to the mother. Then, when the females lay eggs which are fertilized by these males, all offspring are ¾ related. This is much greater than a normally sexually reproducing family where siblings have ½ genetic relationship. It is often thought that the colonial actions of these species are due to their unusual genetic relationship between the offspring. In this manner, these species are an extreme version of altruism because any particular ant or bee would be more genetically related to their sibling than their own offspring. Thus, they would not reproduce at all. However, this past week I was listening to some podcasts produced by the science journal Science about bees. The journal highlighted some new findings that have shown that the genetic relatedness is not in fact the only reason why bees and ants act this way. Scientist observed that the bees had a policing force. They saw that in fact the female worker bees did reproduce, however, other workers were designated as a police force and these bees went around and destroyed any eggs which were not the queens. In this way, the colonies were able to maintain a relationship of 3:1 females to males and keep the queen as the only reproducing body within the colony. The journal is in Science magazine and the article link is: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/307/5706/54 .

After reviewing this article and listening to the podcast I began to think a little bit more about Sean Dockray’s picture of the ant and also his fascination with how the government and police control society, specifically by controlling traffic. I felt that new meaning on his piece of the ants arose once I read this article. Before reading the article I just thought about his piece as being an interesting biological system where the ants were able to follow one another because they used chemical signals and they followed each other to bring food back to the colony. However, the more I think about it, the more who work on traffic lights and ants seem to become connected. In order for the ants to continue to act in a function colony, the article states that the ants must have to do extensive policing in order to rid themselves of any illegitimate offspring. In this way, the ants will function as a colony and a unit and thus they will walk in straight lines for food and bring food back to their queen and nest. Similar to ants, human society must be controlled by policing and traffic lights in order for us to maintain adequate conduct and order.

I thought that it was truly interesting how after gaining some further insight about ants and bees, unforeseen connections between different art works of Sean Dockray’s can be made. Although these connections may seem like a stretch, or something Sean was not trying to talk about in his art, I still think that this connection is fascinating. It is amazing to see that even bees police their colonies in order to maintain proper conduct, and while it might not be through photo-enforced lights, it is still a big brother watching over.

Read more!

Duy Phung -Week 4 -Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Technology has advanced quickly, especially in computer sciences. Prof. Vesna discussed many network and computer concepts and applications, which were new to me, in the modern world such as: the Turing test, artificial intelligence, swarm intelligence, and generative art. I don’t understand much about these things since my major is biochemistry. However, AI was an interesting topic that I’ve some knowledge, so I’m going to discuss about it today.
I’m sure we’re all familiar with the concept of AI. We’ve encountered it anywhere in our daily life, and fortunately it has developed well enough to serve human beings. Personally I have seen them most in video games industry. AI is my entertaining friend although frequently it appears as my smart and organized enemies in video games and often gave me hard times. Without it, video games are boring since they’re all filled with predictable enemies and repetitive battles.

People have been enjoying the benefits of AI, but they’re instinctively afraid of AI as it might evolve sophistically enough to overshadow humans and then rule the world. Many movies have come out to illustrate the idea and successfully added more fear to people. For example, the movie Brazil on Wednesday lecture captured our attention about human life in future. A man worked lonely with special machines to find himself often daydreaming about a girl he had never seen before. It was his only motivation to live. Even that in his dreams he wore robot-like outfit, flew with steel wings, and fought with machinery demons. After meeting the girl in real life something exploded in his mind and he continuously ran into troubles. The message was simple and clear: along with the development of technology, human social interaction becomes a major problem; therefore directly or indirectly under influence of AI, disasters will be inevitable.
Since John McCarthy coined the term Artificial Intelligence meaning “"the science and engineering of making intelligent machines" in 1955, AI has been well studied and applied widely in many fields, especially of computer sciences, engineering, and the rising neuroscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence for more information).
When the IBM Deep Blue was the first officially supercomputer using its AI to win the chess game against a reigning world champion, Garry Kasparov, under regular time controls after a six-game match in 1997, it was heralded as a major turning point in the continuing struggle between man and machine. The omen has turned out to be right as computers have developed strategies designers have never thought of in game AI and strategic planning fields.
It was interesting and amusing when Prof. Vesna introduced us ELIZA, the computer therapist. After chatting with her online for a few moments, we immediately knew she was a computer since she was evading to answer the questions directly but rather asked other questions back to us. I wasn’t surprised to know that in 1960’s many people thought her a woman because the field was new and people didn’t have the knowledge back then. Nor would I be surprised if my children laughed and told me the computers we’ve experienced now were dumb in the future. In conclusion, human and AI development has direct influences to one another, and it’s not exaggerated to say both will unify to become one in a near future.

Read more!

Tygue Luecke-Week 4- AI and such

First, I suppose I should say something about Brazil. What a bizarre movie that was! Still, it was a great example of science affecting art in a way we haven’t discussed in as much detail as in other cases. In Brazil, the art of movie making helps to make a social commentary about the growing presence of science and the potential problems it can cause. With all the machines going awry in the movie and the central and absolute control over the maintenance of the machines, it is clear that the movie was making a very anti-establishment statement laced with a clear warning about putting too much control into the hands of technology. It is interesting that we hear such strong anti-establishment, anti-technological arguments as well as anti-establishment, pro-technological arguments, such as the one made by Steve Kurtz.

I find it fascinating that the Difference Engine was created as early as 1822. That is incredibly impressive, especially considering that the sewing machine- a machine that seems much simpler by comparison- was invented in 1830. However, in researching this fact, I found that photography was also invented in 1822. Here’s the site I found that on:

http://www.anatine.co.uk/c19.htm

It also has a bunch of cool timelines and other related things. I suggest you check it out. I just spent about 10 minutes on it myself.

Being as impressed as I was with the invention of the Difference Machine, I was rather unimpressed by the fact that H.G. Wells was one of the first to conceptualize a pre-internet idea of information sharing. It seems that someone should have thought of such an idea much sooner. I mean, if a machine can actually be invented that performs mathematical calculations, it seems that someone could have merely published an idea about an information network.

An interesting concept came up in section- and that is that we humans discuss intelligence only in terms of human intelligence and therefore have a hard time conceiving of true artificial intelligence. The more I thought about this idea after section, the more I became fascinated by it, mostly because I cannot even imagine an intelligence that is not human. And if said inhuman intelligence did exist, I can’t decide whether or not it would fit under the current definition of intelligence. This, of course, brings me far away from my original considerations and leads me into questioning definitions, which is neither helpful nor relative to my discussion of this week’s material. So- back to the point- as for me, I’m not sure I will ever be able to accept the idea of artificial intelligence simply because I can’t wrap my brain around it; I would have to assume many people might encounter the same problem when they consider the same issues.

Here’s a link to the site for the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence:

http://www.aaai.org/home.html

I would like to ask these people why they find it so necessary to advance artificial intelligence. Why not focus on humans first? Shouldn’t we work on our own problems (social, medical, etc.) before creating a new institution with its own new set of potential problems? I personally think so.

Read more!

Week 4 - Section 3 - Ross Goldman

The thought and discussion of robotics and artificial intelligence bring up a number of questions that continue to be discussed. One of the simplest, though most important, is this: how accurate is our current understanding of the state of robotics and AI as they relate to the human experience?


Robotics and AI continue to permeate our culture as science fiction fantasies (or nightmares) much like those found in the move Brazil. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes apparent that small pieces of robotics and AI are more pervasive than we might think. Take, for example, the robot Roomba, created by the iRobot Corporation. This robot, which vacuum cleans floors by itself based on simple algorithms. Though not nearly as complex as R2D2 or Johnny 5 (http://www.jeffbots.com/johnny5.html), the Roomba could certainly deviate form its societally expected behavior, and cause all sorts of trouble with just a few simple software hacks.

Interestingly, the programming of Roomba follows the philosophy that robots should be like insects, "equipped with simple control mechanisms tuned to their environments," according to iRobot. Thus, the Roomba follows algorithms such as spiral cleaning, wall-following, and random-walk, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roomba).

Now, apply these "natural," insect-like algorithms to our concept of swarm intelligence. Imagine one hundred roombas contained within one room, each following, say, their pre-programmed random-walk behavior. The resulting swarm of collisions and path changes would most likely be spectacular, and not at all dissimilar from Casey Reas' work.

Now, finally consider taking the AI from ELIZA, the artifical therapist, and applying it to the software built into the Roomba, and into our swarm of 100 Roombas. The result, while not necessarily useful to our society at the moment, could certainly be the beginnings of an interesting piece of art. Hopefully, if nothing else, it can show that despite society's belief that robotics and AI are just science fiction, the technology is here. Robots and AI will be a part of our lives sooner than we think.

Read more!

jose fernandez, week 4, networks/systems/AI

This week’s lecture was on biology, networks, natural systems, and artificial life. I thought that I was going to enjoy this lecture because I am planning on majoring in biology. It was unfortunate that we only had class on Monday. We had to see a movie on Wednesday. The lecture dealt with things that are now widely recognized as important aspects of life. The first thing was the first network between two computer systems. It was predicted by H.G. Wells in 1937, which was similar to the internet, something ahead of its time. It began with two computers and then it spread out to a several other systems. Presently it is called the internet and has expanded globally. We were shown complex models of the various networks computers have established across time. I guess the networks were being compared to the web of life or the food chain. This was the biological aspect. I did not really understand this part. Then the lecture shifted to an interesting topic in artificial intelligence. I was seeing the movie I, Robot this Sunday and I found myself remembering what we had talked about regarding artificial intelligence. Robots are able to be constructed in a way that they can carry out tasks just like humans do. Yet their lack of emotion and sentiments is something that prevents them from actually being human like. I believe Joseph Weizenbaun was the man that stated that robots would never make intelligent decisions because they lacked human characteristics such as emotion. Many decisions come with that thought of what might happen and the consequences. A robot is just programmed to do tasks with out thinking about them. Another topic that was interesting was systems. We were shown several types of systems and how they function. These were self-assembly, which deals with the repair of a malfunction with out the help of an outside source. Similar to this is self-organization. There is a control system which regulates behaviors of systems. These can all be found in humans. There is the nervous system, the digestive system, and the heart. These were the thing that caught my attention of the whole lecture.
The movie on Wednesday was quite interesting. It was called Brazil and for the entire time I kept wondering why it was titled that way. Anyways the plot was wacky and very futuristic. When the professor said it had a connection to what we had been learning. For the most part I was able to recognize how the place where the main character worked as a system. Many people work as one to get the job done with the boss being the central part of the system. Apart from this I had a hard time connecting the lectures to what was going on in the movie. Unfortunately I had an appointment at 11 so I had to leave class early. I am sure I missed some of the connections the professor was talking about. Overall it was the worst week so far.

Read more!

Juliet Lee - week 4 - Artificial Life

Truthfully, after I leave class I often feel like I have left a foreign language lecture. The teacher talks and it is like the other students can follow and for the most part understand what is going on. What are the connections between the slides of the different artists? When we visit a website, it is like everyone can see where the next link is going to go and I cannot follow the train of thought, so I nod and act like I can see where the lecture is going. Hearing the guest lecturer on Monday was a nice change of pace. That day Professor Vesna went over numerous artists with examples of the types of works they do, and I am still having issues keeping them straight in my mind. But Edward Shanken took his time when elaborating on a few of the artists. He gave a back story and current situations about the artists; I guess you could say he talked in a more conventional manner that made it easier for me to comprehend what it was that these artists were doing. Shanken talked about the different groups too like the Experiments in Art Technology or EAT and it made it easier to understand where the artist was coming from. It would be nice if Professor Vesna could also slow down when she talks about artists and the styles of work that they are doing and to connect them with each other and not just to the topic at large for the week. I find it more difficult to relate to the artists and understand their work. Continuously every week I see more pictures and I wonder: why is this art? What qualifies a piece of technology into a piece of art? What is artificial intelligence in terms of art? I do not consider the scientific research or developments as artistic, so is it the form in which the artificial intelligence is portrayed in that is the art work? A.L.I.C.E for example responds to questions and sentences that you input into a computer program. I consider that the artistic portion of A.L.I.C.E. is the physical manifestation of the response program. When we talked about the artificial gardens that can be remotely controlled from the internet, or other games that a user can input characteristics into and watch them evolve, all that I could think about was my Tamagotchi from junior high school. Three buttons control the environment of these little blobs, and depending on the type of care you show it, they can turn into different creatures as adults. I wonder just how far we are going to be able to go in the research of artificial intelligence. For generations and generations, people have wanted to find a way to defeat death, and in my opinion, artificial intelligence is a method to beating this issue. But if all of this stayed in the lab, and people like Ken Feingold did not make artistic commentary about it, would it still be considered art?

This is an interesting link to the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis. There are quite a few projects on technology and it was fun to look through them.

http://blogs.walkerart.org/offcenter/category/technology/

Read more!

Grace Tang-Section 3-Week 4

[span class="full post"]This week Professor Vesna touched on subjects concerning Biology, Networks, Natural Systems and Artificial Life. It was a bit overwhelming fore me seeing that may things were covered and the lecture on Monday seemed kind of everywhere. The gust lecture afterwards by Edward Shanken did not do so much to expand and clarify on the topics covered earlier. Self-assembly seemed pretty clear to me and it is defined as independent subjects working to build a larger structure or to make a group achievement. This also related to what was called self organization, the internal organization of a system that increases complexity when continuing on. Sierpinski's Triangle brought me back to the fond memories of psychedelic fractals, only this time in simple two dimensional triangles. I can see how the triangle builds upon itself to make a larger structure. ELIZA the computer therapist and ALICE from the Artificial Intelligence Foundation just crack me up. The personalities added and the responses that can from them proves that artificial intelligence can be made into more complex processes. [/span]

Read more!

Annie Wu, Week 4- Generative Art

Something that really caught my interest this week is the topic of generative art. According to Philip Galanter in the assigned article for this week’s reading, generative art is “‘any art practice where the artist uses a system,’” and allows there to be “some degree of autonomy” to contribute to the artwork’s outcome. Galanter also said that generative art is like working with “experimental philosophy.” I really like this idea of “experimental philosophy,” because it just shows how effective art can be in revealing some kind of truths to viewers. It is like playing around with various systems, just so that one can have different results to study and to draw conclusions from. Learning new things is what will propel us into the future with new ideas and perspectives. Because of this aspect, generative art definitely seems to be something beneficial to our culture.

Generative art is more about the process of making art, rather than just the end product. By analyzing the process of something, people are more likely to realize something or learn something about the world than if they were just to stare at a painting hung on the wall. They would actually be participating with the artwork when watching the processes take place. Everyone would have their own experience and understanding of the art piece, meaning that they can all relate to it, in some way or another.



As we mentioned already in class, Casey Reas’ creations could be considered to be generative art because we were able to experience the processes they underwent. It really intrigues me how his art is created, because the product is a result of both his input and chance. Casey is the one who writes the codes, yet the images are created through random interactions and chance. Endless variations could be derived from the same codes and program.



Generative art is not only strictly restricted to computer programs. Generative art could also be created from natural systems, such as the condensation cube by Hans Haacke. It reveals a biological system, a system from the natural world, as it demonstrates the process of water inside a clear cube. Lisa Autogena and Joshua Portway's Black Shoals Stock Market Planetarium is another example of how generative art can be based on something other than just programmed algorithms. This work relies on a system of human processes, for the factors in the image are based on the world’s stock markets. Whenever people do anything in the stock market, such as trading stocks, the lights of the stars change.
http://www.artificial.dk/articles/generativespecial.htm

Basically, what attracts me to generative art is that the artist is not really the “sole creator” of the end result. There has to be some factor of change, of randomness, that plays into the piece. In essence, it is the artist and nature that are responsible for creating generative art. I think generative art really reflects how much nature plays a part in our lives, and that it is something we cannot really run away from.

Read more!

Week 4 Section 2 - Allen Wang - Are insects ruled by a grater mind?

http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/4/1/reviews/kluegl.html

It has been a great question whether insects, as a colony, have more intelligence than a single unit of the insect colony. Though the single ant worker would wander around aimlessly, even for life, without serving a purpose. Yet, as a colony, ants can achieve many great goals every day. Every day, food and found and collected with the help of the colony as a whole. With the work as a whole, ants can get much accomplished. Each by doing their part for the colony, ants can fight when in danger and collect when food is avaliable.
While forging, ants actually give off different scents for different types of food. Different smells tell the other ants that different foods are avaliable, therefore if different types of food is found, the ants would prioritize and go for the more important and nutrictious food first, then go to collect the latter of the food, if the food is still there.
While forging may be an important part of the ant life, there are other jobs avaliable too. Other jobs consists of caring for the larva or the storage of the incoming food. By working together, ants can make jobs efficient and faster. Though all the workers are almost identical in every way, they all play an important role in that ant colony as a whole. This delegation of tasks is just like that of a robot, in which a robot is each assigned a different job, such as, a refrigerator is only for storing food and a car is for transportation. By each working is important tasks, a society is created. If each ant diverges and works on different tasks, ineffieicny is created, such as if a car is used to cook food by heating up its engine, it may work but it'll be inefficient.
For ant colonies, there also exists the job to create new paths and repair broken ones. by coperating with one another, ants can survive. It is based ona trust system in which each ant, though identical, is programmed to perform different tasks. The insect colony is efficient on its own terms, but each individual worker does the work that is insignificant. If a few worker ants died, the ant colony would still survive, but is the colony died and the worker ants scattered, their survival rate would decrease drastically.
It is without doubt that insects require the ability of the colony to survive. As an individual, ants would be lost. And this insect colony represents both the human and robot society that exists today. Our jobs, to be blunt, is very insignificant to the human race as a whole, but together, we help advance the world. Though there are a few selected few, such as Bill Gates or Newton, that actually shape and advance the world individually, there are very few, compared to the size of the population as a whole, that have actually impacted the lives of colony as a whole.
Therefore, in a mattter of speaking, we are after all living in a colony, mindlessly. We have the abiliy to be significant though. The creative thinkers of the world help shape the world while others jsut walk about accepting whatever comes and do what others order them to do. We, as the human race, in a greater sense, are no more free from the colony than the ants of a ant colony are free.

Read more!

Week 4 - Christopher Flannery

I liked the interview with Philip Galanter because he made connections between art and music. Generative art seems to have a lot in common with music performance because it is a live process within guidelines, but the outcome is always different. Improvisation and randomization have always existed in music, however it has become more common with the development of jazz and use of technology. Music and art are unfolding and temporal entertainment for the audience. He describes generative art as “verbs” and not “nouns” and I think that this is a great description of music as well.
My music theory teacher used a metaphor to explain why many listeners don’t have the patience for modern music. Listening to an abstract composition is like looking at a giant mural only five inches at a time. Generative and process art can lose an audience in the same way if they don’t come with the correct mindset.
We briefly discussed John Cage’s use of I Ching as a system to randomly designate which notes are played when. Cage is responsible for the resurgence of what has been named “aleatory music” – music where some or all details are left to chance. The system for randomization is pre-determined by the composer however is virtually out of their control. There is evidence of musical “games” involving rolling dice to determine some aspects of the composition as far back as the 18th century. Aleatory music is as close to generative art as music comes. Wikipedia gives a better explanation and links to a number of examples. (the hotlink function is not working for me ...) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance_music
The most important point that I learned from the Philip Galanter interview is that generative art has always been around and that it is not restricted to only technology. Generative art has existed just as long as art. It is the use of systems and guidelines is what defines generative art, not the tools.
I liked the part of the lecture concerning swarm intelligence, but I was confused how it is any different than normal systems of information sharing. All operations of live need many parts to react and work locally for a larger goal. The human race does exactly that by recording history, collaboration, diplomacy, and professionalism or specialization. It seems to me that almost anything can be analyzed at this level if one steps back far enough. Along with self-assembly, it seems like it only one aspect of the larger concept of synergy which is the drive and original of life, or emergent properties.
Watching the movie Brazil in class, I was reminded of Steve Kurtz’s lecture focusing on the over-reaching power of the American government. Both present their message in a satirical manner of social commentary. On the other hand, I thought it was funny that we viewed the movie because I saw almost no examples of art in the film. The government apparently does not allow any forms of public expression, but the futuristic and bleak setting is shown through amazing imagery. The complicated and dark city-scape, dirty and futuristic electronics, and utilitarianism designs are iconic for government’s oppression of the people. The setting reminded me a lot of the new movie Children of Men, which is also set in the bleak future. In this film, the government has become even more oppressive because the social structure and responsibility has collapsed after every woman on the planet became infertile twenty years prior. It is obvious that film is now the most powerful method of social commentary.

Read more!

Section 4 Week 4

Okay, so this week we covered a lot of topics a handfull of which I thought were REALLY interesting. The first thing that caught my eye was the idea of generative art because it has an intrinsic relative nature to it. Upon first hearing the word generative art (with some understanding) we consider computer-based and organic systems like insects or computer algorithms that create intricate paths from which we can derive patterns or what we think are recurring paths. Using these things and robotic graphing systems we can create art and then the question "is that really art?" is realized. Randomized computer graphing, interactive art that grows as you touch it or walk near it or yell at it, what makes this art? For organic systems, it almost seems like a comedy that nature plays on us; we try to map it out and predict its next moves but then it pulls a quick one, making us realize we can't replicate what it has made. Math can't define nature, nature just defines math. People see it as a concrete idea but ultimately it is just as fluid and changing as the seasons. This is the beauty and artistic nature of our computations is that they're sometimes infinitely close but at the same time, close is not right. Also one of the things I think particularly plays into this relativity is that sometimes humans like to separate themselves from these systems when we are just as natural and just as mathematical as any. I believe that when 1,000 people are in the same place, they will interact almost the same as another thousand because there is an equal probability of random variety among them and as the saying says "places change but people don't." We are as easily mapped as ants or plant growth patterns or anything else. It is for this reason that I love the generative art that Philip Galanter does as it grows as people interact and is considered random and happens while the observer interacts with it while it is somewhat predictable and deviates only a bit.
The next topic of interest is artificial intelligence. I read an article in Popular Science about artificial intelligence from a nobel laureate in the field. Somebody asked the question 'is the development of artificial intelligence the equating of human consciousness into a computer?' to which he replied, very smartly and simply, "no." He explained that a human can walk into a room ten times and feel differently and interpret the room in ten different ways while a computer entering a room simply interprets it in one. Humans have the ability to discern an actual item from its symbolic counterpart. We can ascribe meaning and emotion into a song or thing or voice or view while a machine can only interpret what has been fed into it. Even if it learns from its environment, it will never understand the feelings something can hold even if it understands further the entire knowledge base that the internet contains. And so, it is to this extent that AI can reach. Interestingly enough, Wilson reflects in his article that the artistic nature of AI is in its goal to reach into human nature and fool a human into believing that it is itself a human. Being able to hold converstaions, reflect feeling and understanding are all part of being a human and it requires researchers to look both into the limitations of machinery and the far stretches of humanity to make AI a reality.
I actually found an interesting video on youtube.com about a robot from Cornell University that is able to map out itself. First it moves and then utilizes several sensors that allows it to interpret how much pressure is applied to different areas of its body and where it is spacially to determine what it looks like and how it works. Additionally, when it is injured, it repeats the learning process to find out what is wrong with it, and how it can move without that part. When you think about it, we kind of learn in this way. We move and say and do things to test how far we can go not only in physical measures but socially. I think this a huge step in moving toward AI. This is the link to one of their vids but I can't find the original video that I watched.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNdDsK_t1Vs

Read more!

Section 3

INSERT INTRO!!!

Since I have very little background in art, I didn’t really understand what generative art was when we talked about it in class. I had to do a little Wikipedia-ing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_art

INSERT BODY!!!I’m sure that everyone else in the class fully understands it, so I’m probably only writing this for my own benefit. I found that generative are also includes the ELIZA and ALICE that we studied in class. It includes anything that “generated, composed, or constructed in an algorithmic manner through the use of systems defined by computer software algorithms, or similar mathematical or mechanical or randomised autonomous processes” (Wikipedia). I feel as if the mathematical works we studied with the guest lecturer Professor Casey Reas would fall into this category. I did some research on other works in the generative art genre. I found a huge list of links of works. http://www.generative.net/links.cgi One that stood out to me was “Flash and Maths.” The work started out with a display of a bunch of math symbols. It then turned into a bunch of dots circling about in an almost psychedelic fashion. The work is composed to a piece of music called “Bucephalus Bouncing Ball” by Aphex Twin. The dots changed from colors to black and white and moved in different patterns depending upon the mood of the music. This would fall under the computer software algorithms. Computers decide what the dots do and their characteristics based on a set of mathematical algorithms.

I was also struck by our discussion of artificial intelligence. I found it interesting that we would cover such a topic in a design