Generative Art

Introduction
Generative art is sometimes difficult to define given the genre’s broad parameters and vague terminology. A definition for generative art could be derived from a clear definition of content that is generative as well as a form of art, which at a glance seems to encompass just about any form of creative work. Philip Galanter, in his essay titled “What is Generative Art? Complexity Theory as a Context for Art Theory,” argues a definition of generative art should: encompass past and present forms of generative art activity, allow for further expansion with the discovery of new mediums, exist as a subset or component of “art” as a larger genre, and be restrictive so that not all forms of art are generative. From these parameters, Galanter offers the definition: “Generative art refers to any art practice where the artist uses a system, such as a set of natural language rules, a computer program, a machine, or other procedural invention, which is set into motion with some degree of autonomy contributing to or resulting in a completed work of art" . This definition primarily reflects how the art is made, not why it is made or what the particular content is. Additionally, there are no specific parameters limiting the nature of the technology through which generative art can be presented. (Chris Allen)

A Brief History
Generative art, as an electronic art form, was actually conceived much earlier than the electronic age. In fact, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart can be credited with conceiving the musical concept in his piece, “Musikalisches Würfelspiel,” which took various random sections of songs and combined them. This style was further developed into a more literary form by Tristan Tzara, a Dadaist who wrote a poem by drawing random words out of a hat during an art fair in the 1920s. This gave rise to the “cut-up technique” of the 1950s and 1960s, which, prior to the information age, literally meant that authors would take clippings out of newspapers and other published sources, and piece them together into works that were their own because they were created at random. During the 1990s, the cut-up technique of writing was infused into computer programs which used algorithms and programs to produce randomized text and visuals with which the reader could interact. Currently, various software platforms are available for the general public to create their own works of generative art Unfortunately, the amount of sources for information on the history of Generative Art was very limited. Most of the sites found primarily dealt with different software types. (Tim Meehan)

Major Features of Generative Art
The most distinctive feature of generative art is that it is created with computers. An algorithm is designed by the artist, and computers then run the algorithm to create random displays that are often never the same twice. The term generative art can be used to refer to music, fine art, software, architecture, and literature. Generative art is generally split into ordered, disordered, and complex systems. Disordered systems typically use some form of randomizations, whereas ordered systems employ things like symmetry and number sequences, and complex systems are a combination of ordered and disordered. (Brian Decker)

Though generative art is an accepted art form, many incorrectly believe it is much different then most traditional artwork. Art theorist Philip Galanter disputes this claim, saying that generative art's use of symmetry, pattern and repetition is present in some of the world's first pieces of art. Generative art is similar to most art types in the way that it is made, but differs in the fact many do not know why it is made. In most works of arts it is clear the message the artist is attempting to portray, but in generative art, the works randomness can often lead to questioning the works authenticity, creativity and unique.  (Jack Walsh)

Make Your Own
What does it take to be a "Generative Artist"? conisder the simple app below. We constructed this app solely for this project, could the very limited pictures you can make by pointing and clicking be considered Generative Art? (Sam Wolfand)

Simple Gen Art Applet (Flash Required)

Invader Fractal (Chris Allen)
Invader Fractal is nothing more than a repeating pattern. In technical terms, the piece uses 15 bits, which are variable or computed quantities in computer programming which have more than one possible value, to create the various invaders that form the piece. Because just 15 bits of random values can generate more than 32,768 unique invaders, there is overwhelming room for variation in the presentation and positioning of each component. The piece is able to utilize such a small amount of data in the way each invader is horizontally symmetrical. The invaders occupy a 5x5 grid of blocks (25 bits), but only require 15 bits of information because the data is symmetrical from one side to the other. The piece’s name is derived from the algorithms on which it operates, as invaders are arranged by a recursive fractal method. The method is recursive in the way it is repeated over and over, and fractal in the way the pattern repeats at progressively smaller scales. As smaller invaders fill white space on the screen, the art becomes more wholesome and balanced, and it begins to look more like a finished product. Eventually, the invaders become indistinguishable from one another as they are produced at such small sizes.

The extensiveness of the piece’s variability is observed in how it is engaged by the viewer. At any point during the script’s execution, you can click on a particular invader and it will change to an entirely different form. This works not only for the largest invaders, but also the tiniest of invaders which are barely visible on the screen. This potential for variation within the script is evidence of how remarkable the program is given the small amount of data it utilizes (15 bits). The randomness of the generation also speaks the uniqueness and creativity that lies within the piece. While each variation might appear similar from afar, the intricacy of the piece at a micro level reinforces the incredible detail that can exist with generative art. However, while the invaders are entirely random, visually the art has a consistent style and form that makes it distinctly different from other pieces.



On a surface level, Invader Fractal is a work of art in its completed form, after the script is executed and the piece is complete. However, in looking closer, the piece also fits well within Philip Galanter’s defini tion of generative art. It satisfies the first condition of the definition in its application of a system, which in this case is a very simple computer program. It also satisfies the second condition as it is entirely autonomous and the process results in a completed work of art. The piece exemplifies the outstanding potential of electronic literature, and in particular generative art, in the way it is driven by simple code which is able to produce an elaborate and unique result with each execution. This speaks to the potential that lies within the genre as a longer script relying on more data and variation could potentially create an even more intricate and complex result. Invader Fractal only scratches the surface of generative art as a genre, and there are extensive possibilities for other artwork to be developed using similar methods of random variation.

Spirograph (Brian Decker)
G enerative art is known for combing real life systems such as chemistry, mathematics, and mechanics with computer software to create art. This practice can be seen in Matt Pearson’s piece, Spirograph.

A spirograph is a drawing toy that utilizes gears to create interesting shapes and patterns composed of a variety of curves.

In this piece of generative art, an artificial spirograph is created, allowing the images to be created extremely quickly. Pearson utilizes triangles in his version of the spirograph. The triangles appear in a rotating fashion, eventually creating a series of circles in the final piece. The inner edges of the large number of triangles create circles, a phenomenon that seems paradoxical. It is strange to think that a large number of straight edges can be combined to make a nearly perfect circle, but this is exactly what happens in this piece.



One of the most important, and difficult, aspects of generative art is the source code that is used to make it. The ability to create effective source code allows generative artists to create interesting pieces that change every time they are viewed through randomization. On Pearson’s website, Abandoned Art, the source code for many of the pieces can be easily accessed. The complexity of source code for these seemingly simple pieces makes me agree that writing code is an important and difficult part of the generative art form, and should be treated as art in itself.

This piece of art takes special meaning for me because of a tattoo that I drew and got done last year that is similar to Pearson’s piece. My tattoo signifies to me that when put in the right circumstances, things can change and adapt to different situations to become what they weren’t before. Spirograph is similar to my tattoo in this way. The fact that the triangles in Spirograph can be used together to create a circle indicates that when put together, seemingly one dimensional objects can create something much more.



This interpretation could be applied to either individuals or society as a whole. With an individual, this idea could represent that when combining a large variety of skills and abilities, the person as a whole becomes much more than the seperate parts. In the respect of society as a whole, this idea could represent the combination of individual people to create a large coalition that can achieve much more than the separate individual.

This interpretation could be applied to either individuals or society as a whole. With an individual, this idea could represent that when combining a large variety of skills and abilities, a person becomes much more than each individual part. In the respect of society as a whole, this idea could represent the combination of individual people to create a large coalition that can achieve much more than the separate individual.

As the piece continues to add more and more layers, the image as a whole becomes increasingly complex. The same holds true with the accumulation of a large group of people. For example, if a group of ten people joing together with a group of 30 people, who then join up with even more people, and so on and so forth, the large group that is eventually created will be much more complex and intricate than the original ten people. The same can be seen in Spirograph. When one small circle is combined with a larger circle, the overall image becomes more intricate and difficult to distinguish as seperate entities.

The aspect of randomness in generative art also plays into the idea of Spirograph representing the individual or society. Every time you refresh Spirograph, you are likely to get a completely different image than before, due to the randomization created by the algorithm used in the piece. The same holds true for individual people, as well as societal groups. In an individual person, differing combinations of skills, ideas, and experiences are going to produce a different product in the long run. Just as a different combination of triangles in Spirograph creates a unique piece, different human traits create unique individuals.

This also holds true in larger groups. Various combinations of different people into a large group will always create a completely unique group dynamic, due to variations in interaction between different people.

The use of a mathematical tool like a spirograph as a piece of art is representative of generative art as a whole. Generative art uses various real life systems combined with software to create unique works of art every time the piece is refreshed. Although Spirograph could undoubtedly be interpreted in a variety of ways, the piece has special meaning to me and has helped me to realize how generative art can create meanings that are not possible with static images.

Auto Illustrator (Jack Walsh)
Auto Illustrator is a software that is able to show the real goal of generative art. Rather then focusing on the image’s visual beauty, generative art focuses on the abstract code used to make the work as the true creative factor in this artwork. Auto Illustrator is a software that contains a sophisticated search engine allowing the user to select four topics or feelings, which allow the program to create illustrations, quotes, humorous jokes or teaching and public speeches. Though these tools are great, seeing speeches, illustrations, quotes and jokes is common for almost all people. Not everyone is able to create a complex algorithm that can produce up to 385,000 illustrations for its users. Art has gone through a transformation, in which unique visual art has not become the main goal, but rather a necessity to display the complex process in which the visual has been created. This transformation has led to new possibilities of art, in which generative art forms, like Auto Illustrator, have seen themselves bring art to public speakers in ministry, medicine, politics and even corporate America.

Through his generative art company, Signwave, Adrian Ward was able to release Auto Illustrator as a parody of Adobe Illustrator. Though the work is considered a parody, the software has been widely praised, winning the 2001 Transmediale software art award in Berlin. The artwork’s humorous ways actually add value to the creativity of the code of Auto Illustrator. This software has attested to the generative art belief that what we see in a piece of art isn’t what we see in real life. The art’s humorous and creative ways can hide behind the artwork presented, whether it is an image, speech, quote or joke. Generative art has become like a game to the viewer, having to decode the code used to make this work, in order to reveal the quality of the piece of art.

From viewing Auto Illustrator, I feel it is a quite unique form of artwork. Rather then being fully autonomous, this software gives the user control of the topic or feeling to pick, varying from husband, to humor and even humility. Based off this it is intriguing to see the many possibilities that this code gives the user to create and display the code on the computer screen. I really like the direction which generative art is taking art. Rather then just letting the viewer get a glimpse and opinion on a painting, generative art allows the user to have a hands on experience with the work. Being directly involved with the process of creating art allows the user to gain immediate interest and a sense of attachment to the work since they helped make it. Also, generative art's use of code creates a challenge for the user to identify this code and see how it differs compared to other forms of generative art. Personally I've never really been a fan of art, but I feel that the development of generative art and other forms of electronic art can largely increase the popularity of artwork during this technologically advanced generation.

Exploding Space Pentagon (Sam Wolfand)
Did you ever look at the old microsoft screensaver intersecting lines and think, "Well thats kind of cool". Okay, now did you ever look at that same screensaver and say, "I could turn this into art". Well it seems that is exactly what artist matt pearson did when he made Exploding Space Pentagon

In order to understand the inspiration behind Exploding Space Pentagon, some background is needed. Matt Pearson was introduced to Sutcliffe Pentagons by Alan Sutcliffe, who is a founding member of the Computer Arts Society. The Computer Arts Society is a group that encourages the use of computers in the arts, and has been around well before the emergence of generative art. After Pearson saw Sutclifffe's main piece of work, "Sutcliffe Pentagons" Pearson became obsessed. Pearson used Sutcliffe Pentagons, for inspiration on his website, abandonedart.org, in seven of his pieces, not including Exploding Space Pentagon(14: Angry Pencils, 16: Petri Dish, 17: Exploding Box, 19: Ghost Triangle and 23:Disco). He furthermore denotes a half chapter to Sutcliffe Pentagons in his book, appropriately titled "Generative Art". Finally, He finally decided to do one last piece with Sutcliffe Pentagons, claiming he just had to know what they looked like in 3D, and thus Exploding Space Pentagon was Born.

Focusing specifically on Exploding Space Pentagon, and looking at the code as a computer science major, I can tell that what Pearson did is not extremely difficult, but is extremely clever. He decided to take multiple pentagons, and use an infinite loop, taking a giant pentagon, of set coordinates, and filling it with those multiple pentagons.



This left him with a pentagon of pentagons. He then had, on a timer, each pentagon orient itself on a 4th axis, becoming 3 Dimensional within the frame of the largest pentagon. Finally, while the entire frame swings around, he has the pentagons shrink and expand towards the middle. However, if you look closely, you'll see the pentagons become triangles at certain points, in order to facilitate the shrinking. An interesting effect Pearson used was to use the mouse-click as a way of resetting or exploding the frame, depending on the progress of the shrinking and expanding.

The code reminds me in a very literal way of Frankenstein simply because through my programmer eyes, its essentially a recursive program, meaning its a program within a program within a program(or technically instructions, within a frame, within a wrapper). This reminds me of how Frankenstein was a narrative within a narrative within a narrative.

The unique thing about the code for generative art is it's open source availability. The code is essentially the brushstrokes of the painting, it comprises the heart of the Generative art piece. In fact for some artists, the code itself has became an art form all on its own.In today's world Artists are constantly struggling to protect, or market their art for personal gain. Musicians, are against pirating because it loses them money, painters create copies of their work because it gains them money. in both instances the Artist tries to use their art for personal gain. However, with Matt Pearson, the source code of all of his pieces is available by simply clicking on a link. Pearson simply lets the art speak for itself, and in doing so brings about the message that anyone with a computer can be an artist.

Brian Eno: Generative Art in Music (Tim Meehan)
As the term "generative art" is such a broad term, encompassing several otherwise separate genres, one must consider all art forms. Since this particular branch of electronic media can take on so many forms, one must also consider the music produced in this manner. Can a piece of electronic music that is created via computerized algorithms really be a work of art? The song, "An Ending (Ascent)," by Brain Eno, would prove that, yes, generative music is electronic art in a most engaging format.

Eno wrote the song in 1983, and was somewhat inspired to do so by the Apollo Space Missions. In fact, the album on which you would find "An Ending (Ascent)" is called ''Apollo - Atmospheres and Soundtracks. ''The ambient tones of the songs on this album, and song in particular, are very reflective of this inspiration, as they envoke a sense of wonder in the listener.

Since there are no lyrics in “An Ending (Ascent),” the song is meant to create pure emotions and feelings in the listener, one such feeling being an “other-worldly air;” it is meant to have a very ambient, mysterious sound, with each chord swelling in volume, and then flowing into the next. It creates the illusion in the listerner that he is floating in a space-like atmosphere. Musically speaking, he utilizes complex chords and creates slow, seemingly random progressions using them. This gives the song a very ethereal, floating feeling, which also produces a sense of relaxation for the listener. Another factor contributing to the effects that the song has on the listener is that Eno gradually fades the chords into one another, which makes the chord changes much less abrupt and deliberate, causing the listener to feel less tension from the piece. If this song were written using an acoustic instrument, or even a keyboard using a piano or organ sound setting, the chords would have much different tones, because of the fact that they would have had different attack, decay, and release patterns than the ones created by the particular synthesizer used by Eno.

In the context of electronic literature, then, one may be compelled to ignore this song and others like it. True, as a work of "literature," by dictionary definition, in which there are words and deeper meanings to the work, it may not qualify. However, in the context of literature as an art form, this piece more than fits the parameters, it conveys emotion in its audience - it is a work that you must experience, not just merely attempt to read its surface. The song actually envelops the listener in its ambiance and causes him to feel the music and experience it, and not just give it a passing listen without some form of contemplation

"An Ending (Ascent)" is one of several of Eno's songs that truly helped the genre of generative music take flight. Since the song was actually written prior to the advent of the Internet, one may wonder how exactly it facilitates such a piece of art. How does the Web contribute to the work? There are several ways in which the Internet contribute to this piece. For instance, this video actually was fan-created, and posted to YouTube for anyone in the world to access and experience. Essentially, the most profound way in which the Internet has facilitaed this song, and many others like it, is by providing far greater accessibilty to works of art such as "An Ending (Ascent)." Not that this genre of music would not exist without the Web, however, musicians have been creating generative music since the time of Mozart. The Internet acts as a catalyst for this particular branch of music, though: whereas prior to the Internet, one would have to search through several aisles of records to find an album such as Apollo - Atmospheres and Soundtracks, the Web provides a person who desires to listen to this music the immediacy of access necessary for this genre to be recognized as "legitimate," and not experimental. In fact, the Internet enables anyone to create his own works of generative music with different software platforms that can be downloaded. Currently there are several several different software platforms, such as SuperCollider

available to the public that can be used to create songs in this medium. This software is one of the more widely-used software types for creating generative music, primarily because of the fact that it can be downloaded for free to computers running Linux, Windows, or Mac OS's. Not only that, but several Apps for iPods and Androids have been created that mimic computer programs that are used to produce generative music.

While many may ignore generative music, as an art, it truly is, and Brian Eno's song, "An Ending (Ascent)," would certainly prove that it is. One merely has to listen to it with an open mind once before he can realize just how legitimate of an art this style of music is. ==References==