[eu-gene] Re: Generative or not?

[aslemeur]

> interesting choice, why imagesavant?
> what about the electric sheep ?
good point !...

aren't they the same ?
same process ?
same result ?

using flock of bird (particle)
transparency and light (spiritual ?)
most of the time symetrical shapes (spiritual too ?)
same colors ?
same precision of detail
same black background ?

too systematic for me (though I confess I was stoned/fascinated at the
beginning)
Where/what are the artistic choices ? where is the freedom of the artist ?
What does an image express that the other one wouldn't have expressed ?

I would like to see the shapes in movement but whenever i had seen some I
was desappointed
too static
the system shouldn't be so much respected
but it is more difficult to make choices

main question : what are we expected of art ?

Anne Sarah
http://aslemeur.free.fr
http://aslemeur.free.fr/projets/oeil_eng.htm

Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: [eu-gene] Re: Generative or not?


>
> interesting choice, why imagesavant?
>
> what about the electric sheep?
>
>
> On Wed, 10 May 2006, aslemeur wrote:
>
> > I agree
> >
> > why and when do we chose to use random ?
> > to create variety, to avoid to chose ? (to fill a space-time ?)
> > but this random exists inside some preset 'personnal/subjective' rules
> > This is in these personnal/subjective rules that I am interested (with
> > computer or any other creation technics)
> > and how they show something about our own dreams/subconscious
> >
> > random without strong choses/rules doesn't mean anything
> > most of the times 'random art' is boring to me because it doesn't
express
> > anything about human
> > it is more technical than sensitive
> > most of the time anyone could do the same (having the same level of
> > technical knowledge)
> > for example :
> > http://imagesavant.com/
> > fascinating but not art ?
> >
> > what are we dreaming of  ?
> >
> > http://aslemeur.free.fr
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Paul Harrison" <pfh at logarithmic.net>
> > To: "Michael Gogins" <gogins at pipeline.com>; "generative art"
> > <eu-gene at generative.net>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 3:07 AM
> > Subject: Re: [eu-gene] Re: Generative or not?
> >
> >
> >> On 5/10/06, Michael Gogins <gogins at pipeline.com> wrote:
> >>> Quantum randomness is not a fact, it's part of a theory we use to
> > explain what appear to be random phenomena. So in your remark, if I take
> > "quantum randomness" to refer to the theory itself (than which we have
no
> > better), the theory POSTULATES true randomness. If I take "quantum
> > randomness" to refer to the phenomena themselves, your remark cannot
really
> > be evaluated as it stands; either the phenomena are satisfied by the
theory,
> > or they are not. If they are, then we must assume that the phenomena do
> > reflect a reality that is truly random. Theory, in physics, is what we
do
> > know as best as we CAN know. If they are not, then we have falsified
quantum
> > mechanics and we either have found a better theory, or we have proved
that
> > we simply do not understand what is going on. If we don't understand
what's
> > going on, anything we say about it is, by definition, meaningless. If we
> > have found a better theory, it could as easily be a slightly different
(but
> > still truly random) distributio!
> >> n, or it could be some pseudo-random process. I suppose this last
> > eventuality is what you were getting at?....
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'm saying there's no way we could ever distinguish between true
> >> randomness and sufficiently good pseudo-randomness (the requirements
> >> for which are quite modest [1]) in quantum physics. Therefore we
> >> should not postulate theories that distinguish between these two
> >> possibilites.
> >>
> >> What I think this means is that we should not attach great
> >> significance to true randomness. eg we should not use it to explain
> >> consciousness, or claim that art that uses it is ineffably better than
> >> art that uses discrete and repeatable pseudo-randomness.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dr. Paul Harrison
> >>
> >> [1] As Dave pointed out, pseudo-random number generators are usually
> >> very simple. Even cryptographically secure pseudo-random number
> >> generators are quite simple (if you're worried about the quality of
> >> your randomness, just use SHA or MD5...).
> >>
> >> http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh/
> >> pfh at logarithmic.net
> >> jabber pfh at jabber.org.au
> >> icq 298231643
> >>
> >> --
> >> 'Douglas Hofstadter believes he is a strange loop, and who am I to
> > disagree?'
> >> To unsubscribe from eu-gene visit
> >> http://www.generative.net/mailman/listinfo/eu-gene
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > 'Douglas Hofstadter believes he is a strange loop, and who am I to
disagree?'
> > To unsubscribe from eu-gene visit
> > http://www.generative.net/mailman/listinfo/eu-gene
> >
>
>