[eu-gene] Re: Generative or not?

[Taco Stolk]

art being concerned with what it is to be human, is as true as it is  
for science to be about the same. science provides us with an image  
of the universe which we can comprehend. understanding what it is to  
be human, hence ontology, lies at the bottom of that. art does the  
same, only approaching the question from aesthetical perception.  
western art idealised craftsmanship, individuality and communication  
because western science started excelling in viewing the universe as  
automated, universal and objective. this opposition in focus in our  
culture obscures the fact that both science and art are alternative  
ways of arranging the world around us - appealing to, respectively,  
the rational and the aesthetical capabilities of our brains. (while  
both ways of thinking are being used in conceiving scientific or  
artistic results, the choice of desired result decides which one is  
treated as the dominant model of coherence).

saying art is solely about being human is depriving aesthetics from a  
large part of its potential broadness. like we would say that science  
would only apply to objects on earth. it also creates an  
unabridgeable gap between art and the aesthetics we recognise in  
nature. ratio and aesthetics might be universal or the fruits of our  
brains, but nevertheless set (together with ethics) the boundaries of  
how we can think. authorship as a phenomenon has proven an important  
subject in western art, but is by no means a condition for it. at  
least, it has the same initial value as it has for scientific  
authorship. which is mainly a cultural one.

the incorporation of uncontrolled processes in art is, in my opinion,  
not a strategy to undermine the reader's expectation of the work any  
more than in any of the other techniques used to create interesting  
works of art. it is rather a method to try and reach new aesthetical  
insight that does not lie within the realm of controlled composition  
and conceptualisation. it shows us a different part of the aesthetic  
rendering of the universe. that being unexpected structures, and/or  
issues around who/what an 'author' is - i e what we define as a  
personality.

regards,
taco


On 2006 05 10, at 223253, Simon Biggs wrote:

> I would argue that authorship is the issue. Art is generally  
> concerned with
> issues around what it is to be human. Ontology, in short. The  
> reader's take
> on an artwork is heavily conditioned by, even primarily defined in  
> relation
> to, how they conceive of or identify the author. The artwork is  
> received
> with an expectation of expression, of somebody having intent to  
> communicate
> something. In Freudian terms, the author and reader are involved in
> something similar to a process of transference. They construct  
> themselves
> relative to one another.
>
> To problematise this through using compositional and conceptual  
> processes
> that are not directly under the control of the apparent author (random
> systems, for example) can allow the dynamics that underpin what it  
> is to
> make and intepret art to be unpacked. The reader's expectation of  
> the work
> is denied and in their confusion as to where it is coming from they  
> face
> potential desublimation and possible catharsis. Once rendered  
> uncertain and
> exposed to question the processes of making and reading can be  
> developed
> within a critical framework.
>
> Many artists in diverse mediums have used this strategy. It can be  
> found in,
> is even a defining trope of, current post-modern practice,  
> modernist work
> and even the pre-modern (famously Da Vinci's technique of randomly  
> applying
> dirty undercoat from which he would develop a composition suggested  
> by the
> underlying textures and structures). I will not run through a list of
> artists as the approach is so pervasive in practice that it would  
> be easier
> to list those (naïve artists) that have not used such processes of  
> authorial
> distantiation. What unites these artists is that they all concern  
> themselves
> with how self comes into being through the making and reading of art.
>
> Best
>
> Simon
>
>
> On 10.05.06 16:39, Pall Thayer wrote:
>
>> Also, regarding authorship - I don't think this is an issue at all if
>> the work can be successfully conceptualized. Authorship lies in the
>> concept.
>>
>> Pall Thayer
>
>
> 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
>