[eu-gene] Re: Generative or not?

[Michael Gogins]

I'm not making musical instruments, I'm making music. The randomization and other algorithms I use, or create to use, are simply tools of mine.

Of course the wind chime makers worry about the authorship of the sounds the chimes make. If the chimes consistently sound bad the wind chime maker has not done his or her job. Authorship is not just credit, it is also responsibility.

Regards,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
>From: Dave Griffiths <dave at pawfal.org>
>Sent: May 10, 2006 9:53 AM
>To: generative art <eu-gene at generative.net>
>Subject: Re: [eu-gene] Re: Generative or not?
>
>I don't see what the big deal is with authorship - the good stuff is all
>in the parameterisation. Do wind chime makers worry about the authorship
>of the music they make?
>
>> I wouldn't say I have a lot of garbage left over. But of course, out of a
>> set of N randomly generated sequences, one will sound better than the
>> others. This is a question of my personal taste as a composer. It
>> sometimes takes a good deal of repeated listening to finish the process.
>>
>> I do sometimes simply randomize pitch over time, but only rarely, and when
>> I do, the sequences are not terribly different in quality. More often, I
>> randomize a search for parameters that control a polynomial chaotic
>> dynamical system. A given set of parameters can produce sequences that are
>> VERY different from other parameters' sequences.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mike
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>>From: aslemeur <aslemeur at free.fr>
>>>Sent: May 10, 2006 9:16 AM
>>>To: generative art <eu-gene at generative.net>
>>>Subject: Re: [eu-gene] Re: Generative or not?
>>>
>>>so as Manfred Mohr, etc.
>>>you create variety with random and at the end you choose
>>>why do you have a lot of rubbage?/garbbage ? left over ?
>>>
>>>>throw most away, and
>>>> keep one which becomes the finished sequence.
>>>
>>>under what criteria do you choose ?
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Michael Gogins" <gogins at pipeline.com>
>>>To: "generative art" <eu-gene at generative.net>
>>>Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 2:26 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [eu-gene] Re: Generative or not?
>>>
>>>
>>>> I sometimes use randomness. In no case do I use it to problematise
>>>> authorship. I am the author. I use it because it delivers certain
>>>> effects
>>>> that I intend. I'm a composer, and randomly generated sequences just
>>>> sound
>>>> different. I make tape music, so I generate sequences, throw most away,
>>>and
>>>> keep one which becomes the finished sequence.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Simon Biggs" <simon at littlepig.org.uk>
>>>> To: <eu-gene at generative.net>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 6:57 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [eu-gene] Re: Generative or not?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >I also agree.
>>>> >
>>>> > The question as to why artists might wish to use random processes is
>>>> the
>>>> > key. I would argue that the main reason for employing such techniques
>>>> is
>>>> > not
>>>> > because of any potential value that might be found in any particular
>>>> set
>>>> > of
>>>> > numerical relationships, nor in any formal outcomes of the process,
>>>> but
>>>> > rather in how such an approach allows one to at least partially defer
>>>and
>>>> > thus problematise authorship. Random processes, along with other
>>>> similar
>>>> > techniques based on arbitrary systems, allow you to shift where the
>>>> > apparent
>>>> > origin of a work might be found and thus cause the receiver of the
>>>> work
>>>to
>>>> > also question their own relationship as interpreter and partial
>>>> author.
>>>> >
>>>> > Best
>>>> >
>>>> > Simon
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On 10.05.06 12:02, "aslemeur" <aslemeur at free.fr> 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  ?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Simon Biggs
>>>> >
>>>> > simon at littlepig.org.uk
>>>> > http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
>>>> >
>>>> > Professor of Digital Art, Sheffield Hallam University
>>>> >
>>>> > s.biggs at shu.ac.uk
>>>> > http://www.shu.ac.uk/schools/cs/cri/adrc/research2/
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > 'randomnumber = lastrandomnumber * 6364136223846793005 + 1'
>>>> > To unsubscribe from eu-gene visit
>>>> > http://www.generative.net/mailman/listinfo/eu-gene
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 'randomnumber = lastrandomnumber * 6364136223846793005 + 1'
>>>> To unsubscribe from eu-gene visit
>>>> http://www.generative.net/mailman/listinfo/eu-gene
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>'randomnumber = lastrandomnumber * 6364136223846793005 + 1'
>>>To unsubscribe from eu-gene visit
>>>http://www.generative.net/mailman/listinfo/eu-gene
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 'randomnumber = lastrandomnumber * 6364136223846793005 + 1'
>> To unsubscribe from eu-gene visit
>> http://www.generative.net/mailman/listinfo/eu-gene
>>
>
>
>-- 
>'randomnumber = lastrandomnumber * 6364136223846793005 + 1'
>To unsubscribe from eu-gene visit
>http://www.generative.net/mailman/listinfo/eu-gene