Neon Organic 0052 (sketch) from watz on Vimeo.

Here is an interview wih Marius Watz from Generator.x and Code&Form about Generative Art.

It is interesting for us because it is closely related to complexity, software and design as the generative system could follow genetic and evolutionary rules or using open source software or code (but consider that it does not happen always).

From Wikipedia:

Generative art is a system oriented art practice where the common denominator is the use of systems as a production method. To meet the definition of generative art, an artwork must be self-contained and operate with some degree of autonomy. The workings of systems in generative art might resemble, or rely on, various scientific theories such as Complexity science and Information theory. The systems of generative artworks have many similarities with systems found in various areas of science. Such systems may exhibit order and/or disorder, as well as a varying degree of complexity, making behavioral prediction difficult. However, such systems still contain a defined relationship between cause and effect. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s “Musikalisches Würfelspiel” (Musical Dice Game) 1757 is an early example of a generative system based on randomness. The structure was based on an element of order on one hand, and disorder on the other.

An artist or creator will usually set down certain ground-rules or formulae and/or templates materials, and will then set a random or semi-random process to work on those elements. The results will remain somewhat within set limits, but may also be subject to subtle or even startling mutations. The idea of putting the art making process in the place of a pre-generated artwork is a key feature in generative art, highlighting the process-orientation as an essential characteristic. Generative artists such as Hans Haacke have explored processes of physical and biological systems in artistic context.

Generative art describes a strategy for artistic practice, not a style or genre of work. The artist describes a rule-based system external to him/herself that either produces works of art or is itself a work of art.

Neon Organic from watz on Vimeo.

For the term generative art to have any meaning when applied to a given work, the aspect of generativity must be dominant in the work. Many computer-based art projects have generative elements, but are not concerned with generative systems as an end result.

You mention a friction between software art and generative art scenes. What do you think the reason is for this friction?
Well, they are often confused by the art world, and I think that’s a source of frustration for both groups. I think that has added to the need for software art and generative art to explicitly state their differences. But the philosophical frameworks are quite different, even though both deal with software as a material. Software artists are interested in software as a social and political construct, and often take an ironic or demagogic position. Many are involved in the Open Source movement as a part of their practice.

Generative artists focus on aesthetic systems, where the software is just an abstraction or tool used to create and display the work. Software art demands to see the code behind the systems ruling our world, while generative art is more often ‘out of this world’, unconcerned with social responsibility. Granted, the newer generation seems more hip to Open Source issues (and hence better at sharing their code), but they’re still far from being politically engaged in software.

Tags: Art, Generative system