Flashback Autumn 2010

The last semester – autumn 2010 – was again a new kind experience as I decided to concentrate even more than before on building my personal study plan. Structuring the process was strongly supported by several courses which gave tasks to describe the process, to visualise the process, to evaluate the process.. of planning my studies. Now at the beginning of the next semester, I will look back and summarise the semester..

First, I chose all I found interesting, suitable and doable under my conditions from IMKE curriculum, then I chose courses according to the same criteria from Educational Technology curriculum and finally I searched the TLU course catalog to find any other interesting courses to fill in some gaps in the schedule. All together I chose 9 courses + 1 to visit just for listening during September and October.

The results:

* Satisfied with the collection of the courses – various and new fields.

* Suitable time table –  all courses that needed personal presence were at the beginning of the semester enabling me live abroad from November.

* Good planning and setting goals + personal deadlines enabled concentration on every course.

* Excellent grades with no exceptions :)

To summarise – I can highly recommend concentrating well on the process of selection, time management and planning as well as getting to know the proposed literature for the course and the background of the lecturer. Another important activity is to prioritise between the courses – on which to pay most attention and which mey be taken more loosly. And this semester I got acquinted to writing a learning contract with myself to plan a course (or the whole semester) which I migth use in the future.

Next step: Planning the beginning semester as well as the graduation and Master Thesis.. :)

Update to beginning semester shows that all courses I was planning to take assume quite a big percent of participating in person.. So, no courses this semester. I shall concentrate my thoughts on the thesis and also two web sites I have started building – my personal site and the site for a small company Koduköök producing bakery and culinary products.

Third Task – Connections between the concepts and projects

There were many many interesting generative art and literature projects – either visually, in their buildup or in the meaning – I browsed. Following two of them are chosen for some description and making connections to the theories and concepts studied earlier in our course.

Examples

“Poems in the Middle of the Road :: Streamflow Conditions” – Poems in the Middle of the Road by Rui Torres for Streamflow Conditions curated by Judd Morrissey for Subito Press. Poems of the readers posted via Twitter and WordPres.

The contents of the project are generated poems.

The visual of the project is a space which could be described as the ground and sky composed of text coming together at the horizon. There are some flying lines of text – the poems – in the middle and the user can change the viewpoint to the space. As far as I can understand there is one line that can be manipulated by clicking on the words which generates a new word on its place. When changing one word repeatedly, you get a total change of the sentence every time and when start changing another one in the sentence, the perspective and meaning have total change while you earlier just focused on one word. The user may also insert the generated poem to WordPress.

It is enjoyable play with sentences and meanings offering the user aesthetic pleasure via play of meaning and thoughts awaken by the variety of sentence constructions. One thing bothering me with this project is that I would like to read the other lines flying around but they change too fast to enable that.

There is another aspect to the project – an area that could be clicked on to change the main color. It works like the timemachine transporting the user from daylight to the evening or from ice glacier to the desert. In those two different zones different lines are offered for manipulation. As I understand it, the flying lines that one can not change are the ones posted earlier by other users. So the more users use the project and post, the more lines should be flying around.

Based on my readings – it is a work of generative poetry, but it is not generated just like that from a code. It is also interactive as it needs a user to manipulate the pre-programmed space to see some change – the line with certain words and a collection (database) of words behind it. It is therefore a cooperation between the artist who composed the “data collection” with the visual and rules for the system and the user who manipulates it and makes a decision to publish the outcome or not.

The play with words under some systematical control (in this case – which words can appear and which spots can be manipultaed) is seen as the art of language (Block and Torres, 2007). But it is also a way of visualising and giving linguistic shape to some code and technology. From another angle, theproject may also be interpreted as a collage while the substituted words come out of the context to a new place and in this respect present the “cut and paste” method used with collages.

 

“Love is patient” – 20 photographs by Kelly Castro are visualised through coding by Santiago Ortiz.

The collage project is based on Voronoi algorithm. As a result polygons are created from a list of points on the plane. Each polygon is defined by the set of points that are closer to a point in the list, the borderlines of polygon are situated at even distance from the points of both polygon. Each point is associated to a photo which is revealed more as the polygon gets larger while the point is situated further from other points. The movement is autonomous defined by a constant speed and an iterative random variation of direction. There is also the opportunity to lead the points manually – this is a nice possibility to discover the work personally.

The work is a piece of generative art. My understanding is based on the definition and explainations by Galanter (2008) – the control is ceded to a system (a computer-program working according to the algotithm) and results in a completed work of art. The work uses randomisation in composition, it changes in time based on the code written. In addition it is consisted of traditional works of art – the professional photographs.

Project “Love is Patient” is a collage technique – as described in Feuersteins’ article (1998), the collage takes pieces and places them into another context. In this project, portraits that in real life need to have all components in their real size and shape at right places to represent the person on it are now mixed up. Unexpected combinations of 20 different portraits are generated in time.

There is a continuos movement of the polycons, points and therefore the pieces we may see next to each other. In this respect the work is a continuum whereby we may not see a result in units, no stop scenes. It reminds the term “superintegration” from the above-mentioned article – the idea, the photos, the process, the code, the navigational opportunities, the choices left for the user or viewer, the time, the speed, the people on the portraits, new combinations of portraits and surely some more aspects we may think of.

Conclusion

I have bowsed through many interesting works, some better understood than others. Two projects – one of generative literature/poetry and other of generative art – were thought of and discussed in more detail. I have enjoyed the process. When concentraiting more deeply into the idea, technology and outcome (also experience it offers) one may discover so much more from the work than at the first or second glimpse. I always notice the visual effect firts, then think of the reason one may produse such a work, following I try to realize the system behind the production and then go on playing with it to enjoy the variety of versions generated either by reseting the project (in case of many works by Jared Tarbell’s works), manipulating it (in case of the two examples discussed above) or just creating something on my own (as I thought when playing with Jacson Pollocks’ painting style application).

As the task was to apply the readings, concepts and theory to the projects listed under resources, I did that and tried my best to express it in this post. I found it higly valuable as in any other topic or course – learn the theory, see the examples and make connections/try to explain. Reading over the articles and finding some possible explainations for the projects was a good way to understand better the subject field. In addition, it gave a better understanding for the project to be done during this course and some possible source code/technique/software to start with.

 

References:

Galanter, P., 2008. What is Complexism? Generative Art and the Cultures of Science and the Humanities. In GA2008, 11th Generative Art Conference, 151-167

Feuerstein, Penny L., 1998. Collage, Technology, and Creative Process. In Generative Art ‘98, 178-188

Block, F. and Torres, R., 2007. Poetic Transformations in(to) the Digital. In e-Poetry 2007. Paris

Second Task – Generative Art and Literature

Generative Art

My first perception of ‘generative art’ was that it must be related to technology – random selections, repetitions, generating from some given hints etc. After thinking about it a while, the next idea was.. but hey, it does not have to be in connection to the technology while human activity could be generative in many other ways with no technology as such related at all. In the following readings I got some answers as well as much more new information from totally new viewpoints.

I came to the question also raised in the article by Philip Galanter – why do we use the term ‘generative art’ when any art could be generative. What does the ‘generative’ refer to? According to Galanter, generative art has to do with autonomous system as a key element. The system means for example a set of natural language rules, a machine, a computer program or other procedural invention (2003), biological or chemical processes, self organizing materials or mathematical operations (added in 2008). Put in other words, Galanter states that “Generative Art is simply systems oriented art practice.” When the definition in 2003 stated that artist uses a system, then by 2008 he reached an adjustment saying that artist cedes control to a system. (Galanter, P., 2003; Galanter, P., 2008)

Generative art as such does not explain the idea or reason behind the work but the process or technique how it has been made. Galanter gives thorough explaination based on many examples and complexity theory that generative art has been existing as long as art generally and for sure one can not say that generative art would be a subset of computer art. I agree with this approach and find it to be a misunderstanding when considering generative art (and therefore also its history) bordered with the period of use of computers only. One may definitely create generative art using computer, but it existed long before computers – with use of dice or other pre-computer systems – and will probably have many more innovative systems beyond it to be used in the future.

Complexity science tries to offer a meeting ground for science and humanities, provide a synthesis for subsuming both modernity and post-modernity. Galanter uses generative art as a tool to introduce complexism. Within complexity science and theory one can situate generative art into the same context and explain it. The complexity science divides simple systems to be either ordered or disordered and more complex systems are situated in the middle of those two extremities. Ordered systems in natural systems are therefore crystals and minerals and in generative art systems for example fractals or tiling. Disordered examples would be athmospheric gases for natural and chaotic and random systems for generative art systems. The top complex systems would be natural life and artificial life respectively. (Galanter, P., 2008)

Chaotic and random systems are disordered systems, whereas they tend to be used interchangeably. This is not correct. The main difference between those two is that in case of random systems the elements are as they are by chance and all extremities are possible, there is no reason behind, chaotic systems on the other hand have a cause-and-effect connection even if they are difficult to predict and extermities are not often met. In this respect artificial chaotic systems are more like natural systems than artificial random systems. (Galanter, P., 2008)

Ihmels and Riedel explain the methodology of generative art through various examples form music (Mozart, John Cage etc) and fine arts (Max Bense, Manfred Mohr) from long before internet and later on from installation and internet art as well.  Methodology of generative art: “rigorous application of predefined principles of action for the intentional exclusion of, or substitution for, individual aesthetical decisions that sets in motion the generation of new artistic content out of material provided for that purpose.” (Ihmels, T., Riedel, J., 2010)

Ihmels aand Riedel make the same notice as Galanter that “generative” has nothing to do with the artistic concept, but is the method used that has spread through various artistic practice – literature, music, fine arts. In generative art process the aesthetic decision making by an artist is substituted with aleatoric, algorythmic or other systematic methods. The historical extent of generative art should be in my opinion considered as far back as the history of art, to the caves. Ihmels and Riedel only obsereved a shorter period, having an example of Mozarts’ work and others from the last century.

Literature

Balpes’ article aims at presenting characteristics of generative text and the conception of literature through it. He calls generative literature “a literature where the texts are produced through a computer by means of a set of formal rules, the use of any kind of algorithm, specific dictionaries and eventually knowledge representations.”  (Balpe, J.P., 2005.)

I would say that literature and poetry that has been generated following some pre-written rules could be described as a visualisation of these rules system through words. So I’d guess there is no reasonable story inside and it is ought to evoke thoughts and emotions of the reader from the experience only. As Balpe explains, there is probably no connection between different parts of the text, one is not (does not have to be) connected to the next or previous one and so on.. Which gets really unrealistic and I lose the track of trying to understand the deeper reason behind it than it is ought to offer emotional pleasure and evoke the aesthetics of human spirit.

To summarize Balpes’ vision of generative literature, he states that it is about fecundating power of language and the power of literary communication. He speaks of it only in the frame of technology, also stating that in the context of new mediation possibilities generative literature tries to be a “literarization” of technology. I agree with this partly while I find that as in fine arts there are also non-technological possibilities to generate literature on the basis of the rules as in the generative art.

Experimental literature (based on the poetry) as generative literature makes use of technology and especially computer programs. But in case of experimental literature even more media and technology is used to achieve the many experiences. They both aim at aesthetic cognition of the play with language. As far as I undrestood from the literature (Block, F., and Torres, R., 2007), the experimental poetry for example makes use of earlier texts and tries to remake them through technical applications whereas generative literature uses forexxample a pre-given dictionary and rules to generate the text from there.

Conclusion

Generative art and literature as well as various experimentations hint to the rapid changes in the world. When a piece of work is generated uniquely just once and never again, it can not be re-viewed or read once again as it was, it resembles much to other changing situations in the world. And when pointed to the aesthetics of human spirit and perception – which is unique for every person – it is clear that everyone has a different experience with a work of art. I guess it is so with any traditional work of art as well, but generative art and literature aim to push the boundaries and maybe also evoke greater discussion of the affect of art and literature to human mind and emoions.

 

References:

Galanter, P., 2003. What is generative art? Complexity theory as a context for art theory. GA2003–6th Generative Art Conference.

Galanter, P., 2008. What is Complexism? Generative Art and the Cultures of Science and the Humanities. GA2008, 11th Generative Art Conference.

Ihmels, T., Riedel, J., 2010. The Methodology of Generative Art. Media Art Net.

Balpe, J.P., 2005. Principles and Processes of Generative Literature. Dichtung-Digital.

Block, F., and Torres, R., 2007. Poetic Transformations in(to) the Digital. In e-Poetry 2007. Paris

 

First task – Review on Multimedia

In the year 2004 Rockwell and Mactavish have given an overview of the concept of multimedia. They discuss it from different perspectives and give a rather simplistic summaries for the definition, clustering of multimedia works and history. As the piece is published six years ago, at some points the developments seem to stop too early. Meaning that we have witnessed further developments and some solutions becoming better known and spread as they are given in the text. But that is inevitable.

A short compact definition for Multimedia is given and analyzed by its parts. Definition: “A multimedia work is a computer-based rhetorical artifact in which multiple media are integrated into an interactive whole.” It is delightful to meet such a compact wording, even though one has to read it several times and pay attention to the other concepts used. The authors explain every aspect – computer-based, rhetorical artifact, multiple media, integrating and interactivity – in more detail. Following their summaries are listed.

• A multimedia work is a digital work accessed through computer and all other traditional types are hereby excluded.
• A multimedia work is meant to convince, delight or instruct designed human expressions to communicate to humans.
• A multimedia work is combining all types of information (media).
• A multimedia work is integrating different media works into one artistic whole.
• In a multimedia work multiplicity is woven to one whole through interactivity.

The amount of various multimedia works is great, their initiations, methods, used technologies, distribution, goals and many other properties are varying. Therefore it is really challenging task to cluster the numerous examples of multimedia works into types. From many possible ways of classification (based on perceived use, means of distribution, used and combined media, technology of production etc.) the authors present the following types of multimedia:

• Web hypermedia – hypertext extending from linked text to sophisticated graphics and multiple media usage.
• Computer games with advanced graphics, audio, animation, video and artificial intelligence.
• Digital art including the web art as well as interactive installations exhibited in galleries and museums.
• Multimedia encyclopedia as an extension to traditional encyclopedias making use of the technology to present the audience also audio, video and more.

How should the history of such a new field as multimedia be presented? The definitions and perceptions of the field have been described in many ways and researchers have based their work on several starting points – be it computing, arts, human perception or some other. The history of multimedia is still being negotiated and includes the history of different media, the history of computing and the history of the critical theories applied to multimedia.

The authors give insight to the development of personal computers and their capabilities through the years. Beginning with numbers and text, the first commercial word processor was released in 1964 by IBM, fifteen years later one of the first commercially successful word processing programs for a personal computer was released by MiccroPro.

In 1984 Apple Macintosh, the first widely available computer with standard graphical capabilities, introduced a graphical user interface, the “paint” program, a mouse and WYSIWYG word processor. By 1986 the Macintosh was released with a group of programs making the desktop publishing accessible on the personal computer. Being a precursor to multimedia, desktop publishing made creating and editing of any traditional publication (newspapers, newsletters, reports, posters etc.) possible on the personal computer.

The next step further were authoring environments offering advanced working space for developing simple multimedia works that combined text, images, simple animations and simple interactivity. Today one may find variety of such programs for animations, HTML etc.

Sound capabilities developed from the mid-1980’s with 8-bit mono sound output, handling but not editing audio by 1990 to having the possibility of home recording studios by today. Managing the demanding medium of digital video became possible through release of digital video standards in the end of 1980’s. The next step incorporates all the devices for communication to virtual reality – head-tracking devices, data gloves, 3-D goggles etc.

In 2004, the main academic issues of multimedia researched were the best practices in multimedia production, game criticism and interactivity, theories and histories of multimedia. There are two ways of studying the best practices: learning to create multimedia works to study multimedia in applied programs and study digital media in theory without learning to make it. The field of game criticism has many angles: game as art, playful interaction, play of multimedia etc.

The theoretical tradition of multimedia has not been developed yet as it has been of the other diciplines. The chapter read has given another possible way of approaching the field as well as ways of systemating the many works and finding out the less researched subfields.

References:

Rockwell, G. and Mactavish, A., 2004. Multimedia. A Companion to Digital Humanities. Online