Generative Art:
First of all i will state the argument that i have made for my essay:
“Generative Art has changed the traditional ideas of what the term art object constitutes and opened up this term to a wider range of representation and tangibility among contemporary digital media.”
To explain and understand the reasoning for my argument i will use various case studys that have been vital in the development and understanding of Generative Art. So far these case studies consist of:
- A variety of Projects from the ‘GENERATOR‘ exhibitions. http://www.generative.net/generator/
Ideally these projects of ‘Self Generating‘ artworks will give me the insight i need to clearly prove or disprove my original argument.
Research……
About the ‘Art Object’
GENERATIVE ART: The system as art object:
All software is by its nature based on systems. It is not surprising then that much software-based art is concerned with the system itself as an object of investigation. Loosely grouped under the term Generative Art, this work goes beyond the simple desire to use code as a tool. Instead, algorithms and code structures become the framework and material for the work itself.
Historical art movements like Conceptual Art, Minimalism, Fluxus and Op Art, as well as artists like Bridget Riley and Sol LeWitt, can serve as a background for understanding this artistic practice. At the same time. the importance of new scientific theories like complexity theory, emergence and artificial life should not be ignored. Advances in contemporary electronic music is another influence, with several of the artists working with musicians to produce software-based performance systems for the synaesthetic combination of sound and image in a live context.
REFERENCE:
Unknown. (2006). Further Processing, pt #1: Generative art. Available: http://www.generatorx.no/20060922/further-processing-pt-1-generative-art/. Last accessed 09/01/2009.
