 |
Author |
Topic: Generative Art conference in Milan (Read 989 times) |
|
adrien
|
Generative Art conference in Milan
« on: Aug 4th, 2002, 12:47pm » |
|
This year in December there is the 5th Generative Art conference in Milan.
http://www.generativeart.com/
If anybody is in the region (Reas?) it was a lot of fun last year, a very diverse mix of programmers, artists, musicians, mathematicians, weirdos.
Deadline for submitting an abstract is in september.
What are some other interesting conferences to go to?
|
Signature: Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post...
|
|
|
Martin
    
|
Re: Generative Art conference in Milan
« Reply #1 on: Aug 5th, 2002, 1:45am » |
|
Other conferences = SIGGRAPH (www.siggraph.org)
|
|
|
|
|
REAS
|
Re: Generative Art conference in Milan
« Reply #2 on: Aug 5th, 2002, 3:37pm » |
|
I will probably attend the Generative Art conference this year. Has anyone else been before or planning to go this year? I'm actually very skeptical of the concept of generative art. I think it is often deriviative and inhumane.
|
|
|
|
|
tomek
|
Re: Generative Art conference in Milan
« Reply #3 on: Aug 5th, 2002, 8:02pm » |
|
OK, this is getting interesting. Casey, how do you define 'generative art'? I am asking because you said that you see it often as inhumane and I MIGHT disagree, but it is a pretty vague term so I would ask for your (or general) definition beforehand...
Moreover, I am interested in specific part of computational art/design that takes as input raw data (from somewhere) applies an algorithm to it and produces images (still or motion or interactive) as output. It can be thought as information visualization when viewed in context of practical designs or as information art in context of individual expression. Is that 'generative art' as well? And why inhumane?
|
|
|
|
|
forkinsocket
|
Re: Generative Art conference in Milan
« Reply #4 on: Aug 6th, 2002, 12:58am » |
|
i may attend, since i too will be in the area.
i honestly don't see the distinction between the basic concepts of generative art/design and computational art/design.
both terms stress the idea of creating custom software tools for making art. i feel that many of those who are taking part in the prerelease testing of proce55ing have an understanding of this.
the differences that i do see between generative and computational artists have to do with how the two groups approach the digital medium.
for instance, a common thread i've observed among the works of computational designers such as maeda, levin, and nakamura is a recognition of the relationship between viewer and artwork, and potential of custom software for exploring this relationship.
their work tends to be on the playful side, where subtle actions made by a viewer can alter and change a visual (or audio piece) in an engaging, interesting way. the interaction in these projects tends to be much fun, and often charming.
generative art, on the other hand, appears to focus mainly on the computation. it demonstrates that visual x can be constructed with algorithm y. but it often fails to ask the q, what makes this piece relevant in the context of art history? it often leaves the viewer out of the creative process. it is the interaction that lends relevance to a digital piece, because, as digital artists, we have the opportunity to define these interactions from scratch, hence evolving the relationships among viewer, artist, and artwork.
|
|
|
|
|
adrien
|
Re: Generative Art conference in Milan
« Reply #5 on: Aug 7th, 2002, 12:11pm » |
|
> I will probably attend the Generative Art conference this year. Has anyone else been before or planning to go this year? I'm actually very skeptical of the concept of generative art. I think it is often deriviative and inhumane.
Oh, I agree totally. It's SO inhumane of artists to ask computers to do all the work for us... 
That said, the GA conference isn't very "art" oriented as a whole; it's actually not --anything-- oriented, because it's a very very diverse group of people. A lot of archetecture, design, music, visual art, weird code experiments, visual theory and art history.
So if you show up, Casey, we will definately have to work this out over a beer, and you might even consider talking about it for 15 minutes to a bunch of strangers and writing some of it down to put in the catalog...
|
Signature: Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post...
|
|
|
adrien
|
Re: Generative Art conference in Milan
« Reply #6 on: Aug 7th, 2002, 12:13pm » |
|
Other conferences that might be interesting:
Lovebytes (march-ish in england)
Ars Electronica (september, in austria)
haven't been to either, anyone have any comments on these?
Siggraph would be fun, but I'm looking for stuff in europe...
|
Signature: Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post...
|
|
|
REAS
|
Re: Generative Art conference in Milan
« Reply #7 on: Aug 8th, 2002, 3:29am » |
|
my post was definately flawed in it's brevity (a trait of mine). i don't think inhumane is the correct word. to begin again, i'm interested in work that stresses the relationships between the viewer and the work. i have seen too much work termed "generative art" that stresses the algorithmic or mathematic aspect for its own sake that my opinion of the term has been tainted. regardless of the categories "computational" or "generative", i find work interesting and moving that has the presence of the creator in the foreground and that enables thoughtful interactions between the viewer/participant and the presence of the creator embodied in the work.
|
|
|
|
|
gll
|
Re: Generative Art conference in Milan
« Reply #8 on: Jun 8th, 2004, 5:14am » |
|
on Aug 8th, 2002, 3:29am, REAS wrote:| regardless of the categories "computational" or "generative", i find work interesting and moving that has the presence of the creator in the foreground and that enables thoughtful interactions between the viewer/participant and the presence of the creator embodied in the work. |
|
I had the same feeling when I saw a work of Karl Chu titled "Generative Art". The limit between the autonomy of a model and the implications of the artist seems to be blurred with the complexity of an algorithm. But those explored "Possible Wolrds" comes always from our minds, by the rules that we define through formal languages, tainted of all past experiences and cultural influences.
Culture is still the prime generator of autonomous agents.
|
guillaume LaBelle
|
|
|
|
