Presenters: Scott Seaward and Paul Asjes
Critic: Charles Edwards
Scribe: Charles Edwards
The presenters started with a brief summary of the topic, saying that Live Coding is concerned primarily with the manipulation of musical structures and the generation of music using these structures. Recent developments in hardware and software have made Live Coding more accessible. The medium is still very much in its infancy. That Live Coding is made up of a number of different disciplines, including (but not limited to) Algorithmic Composition, Statistics, Probabilistic Models,Music Theory and Music Technology. These disciplines are then tied together and explored using code.
They then discussed the many languages created specifically for Live Coding, which are ChucK, SuperColider, Impromptu, Flexus and OpenFrameworks + Python Wrapper. Also, they talked about the languages used before these specially designed ones came into existence, that being Forth and Lisp.
Next the presenters posed the question of whether Live Coding was Music or Performance or both. They pointed out that is was a new medium that was not in the mainstream conscious right now and the most dialogue on the subject focuses on the medium rather than the music.
They then talked about the visualisation involved during a Live Coding performance. That of the code being projected onto a screen for the audience to see. They pointed out the the code was a fundamental aspect of Live Coding and the being able to see the code lends the performance authenticity, but this is largely irrelevant. They also pointed out that the focus has shifted from the laptop jockey to the laptop screen. Yet, you still do watch the person in a sense, monitoring their compositional process, their alterations and mistakes.
Next they covered improvisation, asking if the concept of a “True” Live Coder – starting from nothing and building everything is comparable to the notion of a “True” guitarist. Considering that improvisation can be learned as a skill and a Live Coder is able to improvise within the boundaries of their pre-learnt and predefined functions.
Second to last topic was the extended mind and performance. They said that Live Coding environments employ the strengths computing and don't rely on the clichéd visual metaphors of real life instruments and effects. A problem with this is that this makes for an intimidating initial impression. And a benefit is the interface has no influence upon the performer's choice of structure or sound. In the end it treats the computer as an instrument.
In conclusion the presenter said that Live Coding is the answer to Electronic Music performance for two reasons:
1)Live Coding combines the “performance” of seeing the code being generated with an insight into the mind of the composer.
2)Live Coding treats the computer as an instrument in its own right and on its own terms.
They conceded that accessibility to Live Coding is not at an all time high right now.
Critic view
There were five parts to the critic's presentation: Comparing the Live Coder with other Musicians, What is the Instrument, Visuals: Help or Hindrance, and Is Live Coding Really Live And Coding.
When comparing the live coder with other musicians can a professional live coder ever be compared to a professional musician? Is it even fair to do so? From the Live Coding Practice document on the TOPLAP site it talks about a survey taken of the prominent Live Coders to see how many hours of practice, in total, they had done. It was found, on average, to be 100 hours. Now, comparing this to a prominent musician who spends on average 10,000 hours to get to professional level, it can be conclude that from the performers perspective, live coding is nothing more than a substandard and simple form of music generation.
Where is the instrument? Is it the laptop or whatever piece of hardware you are using? Is it the software? Is it the person ? Or all of the above ? We can see on the slide, some examples of more traditional music instruments. Each one built for a single purpose. Each one a thing of beauty, possessing its very own soul and able to be appreciated by its player and the audience alike. Then we have the computer. The soulless multi purpose product of Hades.
During the performance an image of the code being written is projected on a large screen for the audience to see. From the examples are the visuals helping the audience to appreciate the sounds the live coder is making? It seems that looking at examples of live performances, that the visuals are used to steer the audience's attention away from the din that the coder is making.
Finally the critic asked whether or not the Live Coding was really live and is it really coding. Is the live coder really coding in real time, and is it really programming. Considering that the code is prepared before it is run, then technically it is not live. Also, it seems that all the live coder is doing is changing parameter values, is that coding? And, it might be argued that to be classed as live coding you must code the compiler and operating system live in a performance.
In conclusion the critic pointed out that because Live Coding requires little work to achieve excellence in this art form unlike a traditional musician, and it makes use of devices that can hardly be classed as instruments in the same category as traditional instruments such as pianos, and that visuals are needed in order to make up for the otherwise poor performance, and the performance is not truly live because the code is prepared before the performance, that Live Coding is just a sham.
Scribe: Charles A Edwards
Saturday, 20 December 2008
Thursday, 13 November 2008
Seminar minutes, Week 6: Models of Creativity in Language and Music
Presenters : Scott Sheridan and Daniel Gauden
Topic: Computer as Composer?
Scott and Dan will be doing both the presentation and the critic parts.
Dan starts by introducing four areas of composition, stochastic, rule based, AI and NSAI. Dan explains that computer composition is not a new concept, in 1956 Hiller and Issacson created the Illiac Suite for String Quartet.
Scott explains the stochastic method of computer composition; a mathematical process which uses a list of data and weighted probabilities to create a composition. An example of this is Gendy 3 created in 1991 by Xenakis.
Rule based music was described by Scott as musical rules that are hard coded by programmers. This method has the ability to emulate particular styles and composers. Ebcioglu created a programmer which had 750 rules.
Scott goes on to talk about AI in music, the compositions can be created by algorithms, search processes and self evaluation. A controversial figure is David Cope who is a lecturer in music.
EMI is a large collection of music that is fragmented and recreated to form a new piece, the controversy is in whether the piece is just a copy.
Scott introduces some more recent programmes by Paul Hodges, Geraint Wiggins, Chris Thornton and Scott’s own BachBot which will be created by 2009. BachBot will use musical rules to randomly create melodies in the style of Bach, BachBot will take ‘signatures’ that characterise Bach’s style.
Dan provides a definition of music as a ‘pattern of sounds made by instruments, singing, computers’, or a combination of. Dan suggests that with this definition a computer can be a composer.
The question, ‘Does a computer have to be human?’ was raised, Scott argues computers can create patterns of music is ‘aware’ and can self evaluate. He goes on to argue that computers can create original music content.
Dan then raises the question ‘Are computers creating music for humans?’
Scott shows that a programme could take some data input and with constraints defined by humans create an output that is acceptable to humans. A video was then shown that took economic data and with no human constraints produces an output, which is a lot less aurally pleasing. Thor argues that there is some human constraints due to timing used in the composition.
The next question addressed is ‘Can Computers be creative?’
Dan describes creativity as connecting difference but viable ideas in unique and unexpected ways. Scott argues that this is computationally viable.
Dan thinks that the definition is too broad and too ambiguous to be modelled and it is hard to define creativity.
Different texts can be used to understand creativity, Rhodes and Boden were mentioned. Rhodes himself found over 40 definitions of creativity.
Rhodes breaks down creativity into four sections; creative person, product, process and press, and says if you can simulate these four things you can have computer creativity.
Scott asks if you can simulate a person and Dan believes that people are too complex to represent in a computer system.
Scott then asks if we can simulate the creative environment, Dan replies this is possible, although difficult.
The third question was can we simulate the creative process; Dan believes we cannot as we need to understand neural aspects of process that we currently cannot appreciate.
The final questions from Scott is can we simulate the creative product, Scott answers this himself by saying this has already been done.
Scott notes that the products are often very similar and sometimes unrecognisable from human made compositions but explains that although the product may be identical the process is not.
Scott also mentions that he does not believe a computer is ‘aware’ of what it is doing and has no desire or intention whereas a human programmer does.
The question ‘when will computers be creative’ was asked, it was agreed they are creative when the computer does processes the programmer does not know about.
The conclusions are as follows:
Scott believes computers have the potential to be composers.
Dan believes they cannot be composers until they mimic the creative persona and environment.
Scott believes computers are capable of producing original pieces and Dan believes creativity is too large and ambiguous to be modelled.
Both Dan and Scott agree that at the present time programmers are the composers.
The discussion was started off by Nick who questioned why the presenters used Rhode’s model. The presenters advised they could have used any model but chose this one due to personal preference.
Topic: Computer as Composer?
Scott and Dan will be doing both the presentation and the critic parts.
Dan starts by introducing four areas of composition, stochastic, rule based, AI and NSAI. Dan explains that computer composition is not a new concept, in 1956 Hiller and Issacson created the Illiac Suite for String Quartet.
Scott explains the stochastic method of computer composition; a mathematical process which uses a list of data and weighted probabilities to create a composition. An example of this is Gendy 3 created in 1991 by Xenakis.
Rule based music was described by Scott as musical rules that are hard coded by programmers. This method has the ability to emulate particular styles and composers. Ebcioglu created a programmer which had 750 rules.
Scott goes on to talk about AI in music, the compositions can be created by algorithms, search processes and self evaluation. A controversial figure is David Cope who is a lecturer in music.
EMI is a large collection of music that is fragmented and recreated to form a new piece, the controversy is in whether the piece is just a copy.
Scott introduces some more recent programmes by Paul Hodges, Geraint Wiggins, Chris Thornton and Scott’s own BachBot which will be created by 2009. BachBot will use musical rules to randomly create melodies in the style of Bach, BachBot will take ‘signatures’ that characterise Bach’s style.
Dan provides a definition of music as a ‘pattern of sounds made by instruments, singing, computers’, or a combination of. Dan suggests that with this definition a computer can be a composer.
The question, ‘Does a computer have to be human?’ was raised, Scott argues computers can create patterns of music is ‘aware’ and can self evaluate. He goes on to argue that computers can create original music content.
Dan then raises the question ‘Are computers creating music for humans?’
Scott shows that a programme could take some data input and with constraints defined by humans create an output that is acceptable to humans. A video was then shown that took economic data and with no human constraints produces an output, which is a lot less aurally pleasing. Thor argues that there is some human constraints due to timing used in the composition.
The next question addressed is ‘Can Computers be creative?’
Dan describes creativity as connecting difference but viable ideas in unique and unexpected ways. Scott argues that this is computationally viable.
Dan thinks that the definition is too broad and too ambiguous to be modelled and it is hard to define creativity.
Different texts can be used to understand creativity, Rhodes and Boden were mentioned. Rhodes himself found over 40 definitions of creativity.
Rhodes breaks down creativity into four sections; creative person, product, process and press, and says if you can simulate these four things you can have computer creativity.
Scott asks if you can simulate a person and Dan believes that people are too complex to represent in a computer system.
Scott then asks if we can simulate the creative environment, Dan replies this is possible, although difficult.
The third question was can we simulate the creative process; Dan believes we cannot as we need to understand neural aspects of process that we currently cannot appreciate.
The final questions from Scott is can we simulate the creative product, Scott answers this himself by saying this has already been done.
Scott notes that the products are often very similar and sometimes unrecognisable from human made compositions but explains that although the product may be identical the process is not.
Scott also mentions that he does not believe a computer is ‘aware’ of what it is doing and has no desire or intention whereas a human programmer does.
The question ‘when will computers be creative’ was asked, it was agreed they are creative when the computer does processes the programmer does not know about.
The conclusions are as follows:
Scott believes computers have the potential to be composers.
Dan believes they cannot be composers until they mimic the creative persona and environment.
Scott believes computers are capable of producing original pieces and Dan believes creativity is too large and ambiguous to be modelled.
Both Dan and Scott agree that at the present time programmers are the composers.
The discussion was started off by Nick who questioned why the presenters used Rhode’s model. The presenters advised they could have used any model but chose this one due to personal preference.
Monday, 10 November 2008
Seminar minutes- Week 5: Global Communications
Presenters: Max Harlow and Charlotte Hutchison
The presenters began by discussing the Fluxus movement that attempted to prioritize the participation of the audience in the artwork. These techniques were used to attempt to blur the boundaries between the artist and the audience. An example of this they cited was John Cage's 4'33”.
They then went on to discuss Nam June Pail's Magnet TV, in which the viewer could move a magnet which would affect what was displayed on a television screen. This is an early example of art employing communication technologies to explore the artist / audience relationship. This example also highlights how art can evolve and alter depending on present technologies.
The presenters then discussed the notion of telepresence, which was described as the appearance of being in two discrete locations at the same time. An example of this was the Hole in Space installation (1977). This work recorded people live from two locations (New York and L.A) and relayed the footage live via satellite to the other location giving the impression of the two locations being in the same room. This installation may seem outdated compared to modern technology (such as webcams) but at the time it was incredibly innovative and technologically advanced.
Another piece of work discussed was Telesculpture 3, which features a piece of train track on a conveyer belt, which is linked to motors, which are connected to the telephone network. This conveyer belt was moved by people making telephone calls, until the train track smashed through a TV. This work uses the communication medium of telephones to control the artwork, whilst the artwork was breaking out of it's spatial boundaries, crushing another communication medium. Paul Sermons Telematic Dreaming was then discussed, whose work is on a similar theme. This work used camera's to create an image of people who were in discrete locations being on the same bed.
The presentation then moved onto look at collaborative authorship and the idea that the internet can allow each person to become a broadcaster. This was said to raise questions of the author-reader relationships with the examples of Wikipedia and Weblogs being discussed.
The specific example of the One Million Penguins project was used to highlight these issues. In this project people came together from all over the globe to create a collaborative novel. Another example was the Worlds First Collaborative Sentence, which has been running since 1994. These ideas raise debates over who is the artist in such works, whether it is the artist who creates the frame, or whether each person who writes a word is the artist. The other question raised was over which element we consider the artwork to be, is it the final object, or is it the process of collaboration.
The concept of Open Source software was discussed and the collaborative elements involved in authoring computer programs. This led onto the question of whether we can view programming as art. It was stated that although the topic is open to debate, there are clear arguments for why programming can be considered an artistic practise (e.g Processing)
The presentation then discussed the notion of Locative Art. Artwork that attempts ro reverse the 'placelessness of digitization'. These works typically employ wireless and mobile technologies to create site-specific artworks and fall into three areas, Mapping, Geo-annotation and Ambulant.
The example of Mapping given was Amsterdam Real Time, in which people were issued with GPS and then tracked in real time. This data was then used to create maps that differed depending on what peoples actions were.
Geo-Annotation was described as being notes or information that are layered on top of the environment that are accessed using mobile devices. The concept was illustrated using the idea of someone going to a museum, writing a blog entry about that museum, and then when someone else comes to the museum, they would be able to access the information that was linked to the physical environment.
The next example of Locative Art was Uncle Roy's All Around You by Blast Theory. In this game people online and on the internet interact to achieve their goals, asking each other for help. The presenters used this example to demonstrate the difficulty in assessing what counts as the work of art in projects that utilise real-time events and global communication technologies. Can we consider the documentary artefacts art?
The presenters then discussed Telectroscope (which can be considered a modernized version of Hole in Space) and Park Bench TV. In Park Bench TV digitized information was tied to specific location which could be accessed only from that place, utilizing Wi-Fi technology.
Critic: Francine Thompson
Francine began by discussing the proliferation of mobile devices for sending and receiving information. She highlighted the examples of MP3 Players, Mobile computers and GPS systems all as good examples of our ability to communicate or share music across space from any location.
The presentation then talked about how the internet can now be accessed almost anywhere, including outside. Wi-Fi hotspots and mobile broadband allow us to connect to the internet anywhere and anytime.
Francine then looked at Computer Network Music Systems with regard to the work of Chris Brown. It was noted that CNMS and Sonic Art often overlap. The presenter then discussed the Jam-O-World multi-user interactive musical device that focuses upon collaborative gaming and music authoring for novices through means of intuitive interfaces that make composition easier.
The quote “Global positioning technology, mobile devices can respond to the users surroundings, situating interaction within everyday settings” raised issues about how physical and virtual envrionments interact.
The presentation went on to look at virtual gaming worlds where players from discrete locations interact online. We looked specifically at The World of Warcraft where you and other peoples avatars inhabit this virtual space in which you can communicate with each other. This is an example of people existing and co-operating in virtual worlds form distant locations across the globe, allowing two people many miles apart to interact via the internet.
The presentation concluded by saying the internet had made a huge impact on the way we communicate with each other, but is it possible to describe Networked collaborations as a real or productive mode of collaboration. Performance with someone over a network or in a different time will never be the same as real collaboration in the here and now sense as many subtle elements of interaction are neglected.
The discussion afterwards touched on an array of subjects. We discussed the use of technology by artists and the extent to which they should push the technological sides of their work at the risk of diluting the artists concept. By keeping things minimalist and the technology not too vast the artists can maintain control over their work and focus on the content of the piece.
The discussion then moved back to the notion of Geo-Annotation and developing an idea of leaving virtual marks in the space we traverse whilst not altering the physical space. We then discussed the blurring of the virtual world with the real world, e.g buying thing in virtual worlds for our avatars with money earned in the real world and the ideas of studying network viruses to understand how pandemics in the physical world might spread.
Conversation then moved round to the question of whether it is art that pushes technology forward, whether it is visa-versa or perhaps whether we can consider them to have a dialectical or symbiotic relationship. The discussion continued developing the themes of collective authorship and which mediums were best suited to extending technological innovations.
The presenters began by discussing the Fluxus movement that attempted to prioritize the participation of the audience in the artwork. These techniques were used to attempt to blur the boundaries between the artist and the audience. An example of this they cited was John Cage's 4'33”.
They then went on to discuss Nam June Pail's Magnet TV, in which the viewer could move a magnet which would affect what was displayed on a television screen. This is an early example of art employing communication technologies to explore the artist / audience relationship. This example also highlights how art can evolve and alter depending on present technologies.
The presenters then discussed the notion of telepresence, which was described as the appearance of being in two discrete locations at the same time. An example of this was the Hole in Space installation (1977). This work recorded people live from two locations (New York and L.A) and relayed the footage live via satellite to the other location giving the impression of the two locations being in the same room. This installation may seem outdated compared to modern technology (such as webcams) but at the time it was incredibly innovative and technologically advanced.
Another piece of work discussed was Telesculpture 3, which features a piece of train track on a conveyer belt, which is linked to motors, which are connected to the telephone network. This conveyer belt was moved by people making telephone calls, until the train track smashed through a TV. This work uses the communication medium of telephones to control the artwork, whilst the artwork was breaking out of it's spatial boundaries, crushing another communication medium. Paul Sermons Telematic Dreaming was then discussed, whose work is on a similar theme. This work used camera's to create an image of people who were in discrete locations being on the same bed.
The presentation then moved onto look at collaborative authorship and the idea that the internet can allow each person to become a broadcaster. This was said to raise questions of the author-reader relationships with the examples of Wikipedia and Weblogs being discussed.
The specific example of the One Million Penguins project was used to highlight these issues. In this project people came together from all over the globe to create a collaborative novel. Another example was the Worlds First Collaborative Sentence, which has been running since 1994. These ideas raise debates over who is the artist in such works, whether it is the artist who creates the frame, or whether each person who writes a word is the artist. The other question raised was over which element we consider the artwork to be, is it the final object, or is it the process of collaboration.
The concept of Open Source software was discussed and the collaborative elements involved in authoring computer programs. This led onto the question of whether we can view programming as art. It was stated that although the topic is open to debate, there are clear arguments for why programming can be considered an artistic practise (e.g Processing)
The presentation then discussed the notion of Locative Art. Artwork that attempts ro reverse the 'placelessness of digitization'. These works typically employ wireless and mobile technologies to create site-specific artworks and fall into three areas, Mapping, Geo-annotation and Ambulant.
The example of Mapping given was Amsterdam Real Time, in which people were issued with GPS and then tracked in real time. This data was then used to create maps that differed depending on what peoples actions were.
Geo-Annotation was described as being notes or information that are layered on top of the environment that are accessed using mobile devices. The concept was illustrated using the idea of someone going to a museum, writing a blog entry about that museum, and then when someone else comes to the museum, they would be able to access the information that was linked to the physical environment.
The next example of Locative Art was Uncle Roy's All Around You by Blast Theory. In this game people online and on the internet interact to achieve their goals, asking each other for help. The presenters used this example to demonstrate the difficulty in assessing what counts as the work of art in projects that utilise real-time events and global communication technologies. Can we consider the documentary artefacts art?
The presenters then discussed Telectroscope (which can be considered a modernized version of Hole in Space) and Park Bench TV. In Park Bench TV digitized information was tied to specific location which could be accessed only from that place, utilizing Wi-Fi technology.
Critic: Francine Thompson
Francine began by discussing the proliferation of mobile devices for sending and receiving information. She highlighted the examples of MP3 Players, Mobile computers and GPS systems all as good examples of our ability to communicate or share music across space from any location.
The presentation then talked about how the internet can now be accessed almost anywhere, including outside. Wi-Fi hotspots and mobile broadband allow us to connect to the internet anywhere and anytime.
Francine then looked at Computer Network Music Systems with regard to the work of Chris Brown. It was noted that CNMS and Sonic Art often overlap. The presenter then discussed the Jam-O-World multi-user interactive musical device that focuses upon collaborative gaming and music authoring for novices through means of intuitive interfaces that make composition easier.
The quote “Global positioning technology, mobile devices can respond to the users surroundings, situating interaction within everyday settings” raised issues about how physical and virtual envrionments interact.
The presentation went on to look at virtual gaming worlds where players from discrete locations interact online. We looked specifically at The World of Warcraft where you and other peoples avatars inhabit this virtual space in which you can communicate with each other. This is an example of people existing and co-operating in virtual worlds form distant locations across the globe, allowing two people many miles apart to interact via the internet.
The presentation concluded by saying the internet had made a huge impact on the way we communicate with each other, but is it possible to describe Networked collaborations as a real or productive mode of collaboration. Performance with someone over a network or in a different time will never be the same as real collaboration in the here and now sense as many subtle elements of interaction are neglected.
The discussion afterwards touched on an array of subjects. We discussed the use of technology by artists and the extent to which they should push the technological sides of their work at the risk of diluting the artists concept. By keeping things minimalist and the technology not too vast the artists can maintain control over their work and focus on the content of the piece.
The discussion then moved back to the notion of Geo-Annotation and developing an idea of leaving virtual marks in the space we traverse whilst not altering the physical space. We then discussed the blurring of the virtual world with the real world, e.g buying thing in virtual worlds for our avatars with money earned in the real world and the ideas of studying network viruses to understand how pandemics in the physical world might spread.
Conversation then moved round to the question of whether it is art that pushes technology forward, whether it is visa-versa or perhaps whether we can consider them to have a dialectical or symbiotic relationship. The discussion continued developing the themes of collective authorship and which mediums were best suited to extending technological innovations.
Monday, 3 November 2008
Seminar Minutes, Week 4: Our Extended Mind
Presenter: Paul McConnellCritic: Josh Gimenez
Scribe: Scott Seaward
Related Info
Paul's Links
- Take a V.A.R.K Test- Teaching and Learning in Further Eduction (Google Book Preview)
- Digital McLuhan: A Guide to the Information Millenium (Google Book Preview)
Josh's Links
- The Khronos Projector- Video Ergo Sum - Manipulating Bodily Self-Consciousness (requires uni login info)
- The Experimental Induction of Out-of-Body Experiences (requires uni login info)
This weeks discussion centred around "The Extended Mind" by Clarke & Chalmers.
Paul began by giving a brief synopsis of the text. "The Extended Mind" attempts to explain the notions of extended cognition and active externalism - that is, the way objects in the real world become extensions of the mind because of the way we use them to achieve ends which could not be achieved without them. In exploring these topics, the essay covers concepts as diverse as perception, belief, conscious thought, human experience, cognitive evolution and memory.
The presentation then went on to look at the role of environment and the way in which it can affect the cognitive process. Clark and Chalmers claim that people perform some operations using their brains but also offload operations onto external media. Therefore, they conclude, "...part of the world [..] is part of the cognitive process."
Paul then moved on to Active Externalism - the notion that when people use tools they create a "coupled system that can be seen a cognitive system in it's own right."
Next, the presentation covered active and passive externalism. Beliefs are used as an example here, those based on history which Clark and Chalmers define as passive and those based on present experience which they define as active. Beliefs, they say, are constituted by features of the environment.
Paul then went on to discuss educational theory, particularly that of David Kolb, and suggested that the ideas presented by Clark and Chalmers underpin Kolb's Learning Cycle and the VARK test.
Marshall McLuhan's theories of Media and the way they affects humans and their communities also offers interesting parallels. McLuhan, writing in 1964, discussed the idea of humans using technology as a means of extending their central nervous systems. He then went on to talk of extensions also acting as amputations - by developing the technology of gunpowder and firearms, humans also lost or forgot the skill of archery. Paul then discussed McLuhan's theories of A Global Village and drew parallels with internet culture.
Finally, the presentation concluded with Clark and Chalmers' view of language as a central means for extending cognitive processes into the world. They posit that language plays a large role in helping us extend our cognitive resources "within actively coupled systems."
Josh then took up the role of the critic, attempting to find fault with Clark and Chalmers' work.
The main crux of the criticism stemmed from what were described as linguistically misleading and semantically inaccurate terms. Particularly, the use of the term active.
The idea of a coupled system was also challenged. The suggestion was that coupling, although possibly preferred in some instances, was not actually a necessary requirement. Humans may well use tools in order to offload cognitive process but they are capable of working without them as well. The same is not true in reverse. The process itself may be active but the external component is not.
The example of a poet writing poems in his mind was used as a prime example of the external component not being necessary, another was Beethoven's deafness not stopping him from writing music.
Josh then went on to discuss Embodiment and the Cyborg's Dilemma.
The Cyborg's Dilemma questions whether technology and computers are necessarily unnatural - do they not, in fact, represent an extension of the human in their reflection of our language, motor movements and cognition and, therefore, are we not naturally intended to be cyborgs?
Clarke suggests in another essay (Memento's Revenge: The Extended Mind, Extended) that the human mind is actually "predisposed to seep out into the world" and therefore, Josh argues, we have to question where the self begins and ends.
Josh posited that perhaps the role of technology in the creative process is not a neutral one. But the question still remains of whether the role is therefore positive or negative. To discuss this issues, ideas devised by Andrew Feenburg and Jacque Ellul were presented. Feenburg suggests that technology has two modes - instrumental and substantive. Instrumental implies a sort of neutrality best summed up by the phrase, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." The idea of substantive technology, meanwhile, suggests that it has a profound effect on our lives. Finally, Jacque Ellul suggests that technology is neither good nor bad but instead suggested we were totally immersed in it, that it has total control over us, and therefore it defies our judgement.
Friday, 31 October 2008
Seminar minutes, week 3 - BioArt
Jenna Pitcher and Alex Barron started out by identifying Adam Zaretsky’s five areas where art meets biology, which includes BioArt, EcoArt, and Gastronomical/Edible Art. They will be concentrating on the first, BioArt.
Jenna pointed out that Leonardo Da Vinci was both a notable scientist and artist – so at one point art and science as they seen today were as one. Alex mentioned that tattoos could be interpreted as being art, and one example given was a woman who was paid £10,000 to have a company logo tattooed on her forehead. One early example of BioArt is given as the use of differently coloured Green Fluorescent Protein to create a sunset scene on a plate of agar in San Diago. This artwork went on to win the creators the Nobel prize in the 1990s. Another example is ‘Victimless Leather’, an artwork depicting the growth of tissue in a coat-like shape, although the irony is in the fact that it takes the death of more animals to produce the materials used to grow the coat than would have been required for a typical leather jacket.
“Art, like any aspect of society, must continually change or risk becoming stagnant and irrelevant to it’s culture” – Eric Spalding, bioethics.com
Why BioArt? Jenna gave the example of one artist who graffitied words on a wall, but using moss, though the medium of yogurt. There was a short discussion about whether graffiti is art. The use of animals is notable, and their research found that parts of the pig are used in 187 different commercial products, including bread, bubble-gum, and shampoo. One reason for BioArt was given as being to introduce science to people that wouldn’t look at it otherwise. A good example of this was an artist that used Caddis worms. Before he used them in his artworks, these worms were unknown to the art world. There is also the example of the death row inmate who nominated an artist to have his body if his appeal is unsuccessful, which will then be frozen and fed to fish by the public.
The difference between science and art – unlike scientists; artists who use science (or scientific tools) as the substrate of their work are not constrained by accuracy. Artists are not limited to using their work as a means of explanation; their creations are not designed to support a specific theory. Alex said that if an artwork has a scientific aspect, this could promote or develop an interest in art from people who may not be otherwise exposed to it.
Criticism
The class was asked who thought that BioArt was aesthetically valid – everyone said they thought it was. However, the question was raised about whether these BioArt pieces were genuine collaborations, or either art or science ‘using’ the other? Art can been seen as having to continually change in order to remain relevant. The criticism moved on to communication, and Nick stated that in order for something to be considered communication, it must be two-way. This can be linked with Anna’s example of her experiments with normal flora in the soil.
The main point of the presentation was given as the question of what the role of communication is in art. BioArt is often shocking, and art could be said to be about questioning and raising issues, so there is an obvious link. However the reaction produced by the artwork should not be used to identify something as being BioArt. Thor said that he considered BioArt to be another canvas, and the ethical and moral questions that it raises are interesting, but it is not always a question of whether something is science or not. This moved on to the further subdivision of the term ‘BioArt’, and the debate of how the example of Evaristti’s goldfish in a blender artwork could be considered BioArt or not, and whether it is typical of BioArt.
Discussion
Nick started by stating that we are all biological systems, so it is only right that we would want to explore our own environment, and we should use other biological systems to create artworks. This links with Anna’s use of hormones – it was said that the question we should be asking is how something works, not how we can use something in order to create an artwork.
Thor showed a video of a robot being controlled by a cockroach that had been created by one artist (or scientist). A robot that doesn’t crash into walls is seen as being a basic but important part of robotics. This artwork achieved this by using an organism – the artist merely created an interface that uses lights and a trackball (alike that used in a mouse) so the cockroach’s actions are amplified to control the robot. This raised questions over the definition of BioArt – could cave paintings made in animal blood be considered to be BioArt? Thor defined BioArt as the use of living systems as part of a work, but added that a work can be more interesting if it is an artistic collaboration with science.
Nick suggested that the taxonomy should be different – there should be two separate terms – ‘BioSciArt’ and ‘BioMediumArt’. ‘BioSciArt’ would be used to define artworks that have a heavy scientific aspect, whilst ‘BioMediumArt’ could be used to pigeonhole artworks that use biological materials as a canvas, but are not scientific collaborations.
The issue of Anna’s work was raised again, specifically her artwork with soil flora. It was suggested that this work was a good example of a positive fusion of art and science because of it’s educational aspects. This led on to the question of whether an artwork is about the process of the work or the presentation of the final results. This again fed into a discussion of whether an artwork that includes a biological organism (such as a human in Stelarc’s work) that is being controlled over the Internet – since the presentation to the public is the online interface, not the actual process, should it be considered BioArt?
Nick put forward that there is no such thing as a true collaboration – either art or science will always ‘hijack’ the other for it’s own purposes. Thor added that it is often science that hijacks art – the scientist has the knowledge, the art has to work on top this knowledge, so an unbalanced relationship forms. This is shown in scientific laboratories, which normally have an artist-in-residence for the sole purpose of taking scientific results and ‘making them look good’ to garner interest in the research being carried out there. Nick added that NASA space photography is actually taken in black and white – it is not possible to take colour photographs in space – the colour is then added in on computers before distribution to make them more attractive. Jenna made the point that there was no harm in this since it provokes interest in people where it may not otherwise – somewhat alike to children and the Christmas story.
Thor then showed two videos made by Semiconductor Films – an organisation that takes scientific data or concepts, and then creates artwork relating to it. One example shown NASA data on quasars to create a musical piece. Another was a visualisation of what a certain type of magnetic wave might look like if it was visible to the human eye.
The point was then raised that we all view the world through rose-tinted glasses, and NASA’s space imagery is a good example of this. The discussion then moved back to the definition of the term BioArt, and it was asked whether an artwork created by mapping biological data to an image should be considered BioArt. Thor didn’t think it was; he thought that the biological aspect would have to be more central in order for it to be considered BioArt. This could be better exemplified with the example of hanging up a harp by a window with a stick that will hit it with the wind. Is it BioArt? Thor’s definition would say it was not, but this depends on the definition being used.
Nick again mentioned his own definitions for different types of BioArt, but Thor pointed out that such a taxonomy is only useful if people know to use such terms. Another point raised was that any artistic taxonomy should aim to be generalised, as there will always be pieces that ‘spill out of the box’. One idea arose that all art could be considered BioArt with a loose enough definition – it is only appreciated by humans; we are an essential component; so all art has a biological element; therefore all art is BioArt. It was then suggested that the term ‘BioArt’ has only been created to cause discussion about a certain group of artworks, and the shock element seen in many pieces is being used as a tool by the artists to raise an awareness of their biological canvas. Another BioArt definition was given – that a part of the artistic process must be handed over to biology in order for it to be considered – not just the use of biological material. This is similar to Nick’s taxonomy that was discussed earlier.
The discussion then diverged to other forms of art. Should makeup be considered art? Nick attempted to show how the embalming of corpses could be considered to be art. The limit of what is considered art could be seen as being the difference between being artistic and creating art – the main purpose of the work is what is important. In addition, we seem to have created art-forms for some senses, but not for others. We don’t have art for taste or for smell – cooking and perfume would not be seen as art by most. Food could be argued to have utility – it’s main purpose is to taste good, so it should not be seen as art.
Jenna pointed out that Leonardo Da Vinci was both a notable scientist and artist – so at one point art and science as they seen today were as one. Alex mentioned that tattoos could be interpreted as being art, and one example given was a woman who was paid £10,000 to have a company logo tattooed on her forehead. One early example of BioArt is given as the use of differently coloured Green Fluorescent Protein to create a sunset scene on a plate of agar in San Diago. This artwork went on to win the creators the Nobel prize in the 1990s. Another example is ‘Victimless Leather’, an artwork depicting the growth of tissue in a coat-like shape, although the irony is in the fact that it takes the death of more animals to produce the materials used to grow the coat than would have been required for a typical leather jacket.
“Art, like any aspect of society, must continually change or risk becoming stagnant and irrelevant to it’s culture” – Eric Spalding, bioethics.com
Why BioArt? Jenna gave the example of one artist who graffitied words on a wall, but using moss, though the medium of yogurt. There was a short discussion about whether graffiti is art. The use of animals is notable, and their research found that parts of the pig are used in 187 different commercial products, including bread, bubble-gum, and shampoo. One reason for BioArt was given as being to introduce science to people that wouldn’t look at it otherwise. A good example of this was an artist that used Caddis worms. Before he used them in his artworks, these worms were unknown to the art world. There is also the example of the death row inmate who nominated an artist to have his body if his appeal is unsuccessful, which will then be frozen and fed to fish by the public.
The difference between science and art – unlike scientists; artists who use science (or scientific tools) as the substrate of their work are not constrained by accuracy. Artists are not limited to using their work as a means of explanation; their creations are not designed to support a specific theory. Alex said that if an artwork has a scientific aspect, this could promote or develop an interest in art from people who may not be otherwise exposed to it.
Criticism
The class was asked who thought that BioArt was aesthetically valid – everyone said they thought it was. However, the question was raised about whether these BioArt pieces were genuine collaborations, or either art or science ‘using’ the other? Art can been seen as having to continually change in order to remain relevant. The criticism moved on to communication, and Nick stated that in order for something to be considered communication, it must be two-way. This can be linked with Anna’s example of her experiments with normal flora in the soil.
The main point of the presentation was given as the question of what the role of communication is in art. BioArt is often shocking, and art could be said to be about questioning and raising issues, so there is an obvious link. However the reaction produced by the artwork should not be used to identify something as being BioArt. Thor said that he considered BioArt to be another canvas, and the ethical and moral questions that it raises are interesting, but it is not always a question of whether something is science or not. This moved on to the further subdivision of the term ‘BioArt’, and the debate of how the example of Evaristti’s goldfish in a blender artwork could be considered BioArt or not, and whether it is typical of BioArt.
Discussion
Nick started by stating that we are all biological systems, so it is only right that we would want to explore our own environment, and we should use other biological systems to create artworks. This links with Anna’s use of hormones – it was said that the question we should be asking is how something works, not how we can use something in order to create an artwork.
Thor showed a video of a robot being controlled by a cockroach that had been created by one artist (or scientist). A robot that doesn’t crash into walls is seen as being a basic but important part of robotics. This artwork achieved this by using an organism – the artist merely created an interface that uses lights and a trackball (alike that used in a mouse) so the cockroach’s actions are amplified to control the robot. This raised questions over the definition of BioArt – could cave paintings made in animal blood be considered to be BioArt? Thor defined BioArt as the use of living systems as part of a work, but added that a work can be more interesting if it is an artistic collaboration with science.
Nick suggested that the taxonomy should be different – there should be two separate terms – ‘BioSciArt’ and ‘BioMediumArt’. ‘BioSciArt’ would be used to define artworks that have a heavy scientific aspect, whilst ‘BioMediumArt’ could be used to pigeonhole artworks that use biological materials as a canvas, but are not scientific collaborations.
The issue of Anna’s work was raised again, specifically her artwork with soil flora. It was suggested that this work was a good example of a positive fusion of art and science because of it’s educational aspects. This led on to the question of whether an artwork is about the process of the work or the presentation of the final results. This again fed into a discussion of whether an artwork that includes a biological organism (such as a human in Stelarc’s work) that is being controlled over the Internet – since the presentation to the public is the online interface, not the actual process, should it be considered BioArt?
Nick put forward that there is no such thing as a true collaboration – either art or science will always ‘hijack’ the other for it’s own purposes. Thor added that it is often science that hijacks art – the scientist has the knowledge, the art has to work on top this knowledge, so an unbalanced relationship forms. This is shown in scientific laboratories, which normally have an artist-in-residence for the sole purpose of taking scientific results and ‘making them look good’ to garner interest in the research being carried out there. Nick added that NASA space photography is actually taken in black and white – it is not possible to take colour photographs in space – the colour is then added in on computers before distribution to make them more attractive. Jenna made the point that there was no harm in this since it provokes interest in people where it may not otherwise – somewhat alike to children and the Christmas story.
Thor then showed two videos made by Semiconductor Films – an organisation that takes scientific data or concepts, and then creates artwork relating to it. One example shown NASA data on quasars to create a musical piece. Another was a visualisation of what a certain type of magnetic wave might look like if it was visible to the human eye.
The point was then raised that we all view the world through rose-tinted glasses, and NASA’s space imagery is a good example of this. The discussion then moved back to the definition of the term BioArt, and it was asked whether an artwork created by mapping biological data to an image should be considered BioArt. Thor didn’t think it was; he thought that the biological aspect would have to be more central in order for it to be considered BioArt. This could be better exemplified with the example of hanging up a harp by a window with a stick that will hit it with the wind. Is it BioArt? Thor’s definition would say it was not, but this depends on the definition being used.
Nick again mentioned his own definitions for different types of BioArt, but Thor pointed out that such a taxonomy is only useful if people know to use such terms. Another point raised was that any artistic taxonomy should aim to be generalised, as there will always be pieces that ‘spill out of the box’. One idea arose that all art could be considered BioArt with a loose enough definition – it is only appreciated by humans; we are an essential component; so all art has a biological element; therefore all art is BioArt. It was then suggested that the term ‘BioArt’ has only been created to cause discussion about a certain group of artworks, and the shock element seen in many pieces is being used as a tool by the artists to raise an awareness of their biological canvas. Another BioArt definition was given – that a part of the artistic process must be handed over to biology in order for it to be considered – not just the use of biological material. This is similar to Nick’s taxonomy that was discussed earlier.
The discussion then diverged to other forms of art. Should makeup be considered art? Nick attempted to show how the embalming of corpses could be considered to be art. The limit of what is considered art could be seen as being the difference between being artistic and creating art – the main purpose of the work is what is important. In addition, we seem to have created art-forms for some senses, but not for others. We don’t have art for taste or for smell – cooking and perfume would not be seen as art by most. Food could be argued to have utility – it’s main purpose is to taste good, so it should not be seen as art.
Tuesday, 21 October 2008
Seminar minutes, week 2 - Creativity in Binary: The Evolution of Computer Art
Presenter: Nicholas Turnbull
Critic: Paul McConnell
Scribe: Paul Asjes
Critic: Paul McConnell
Scribe: Paul Asjes
Creativity in Binary: The Evolution of Computer Art
Nicholas Turnbull began by stating that he would not be giving a general history of computer art, as Paul Brown had already done an excellent job of just that the lecture before. Instead Nicholas focused on arguing his main points: that computer art is a unique and new art form and that computers can be creative.
Based on Boden & Edmonds' paper, Nicholas created his own synthesis and identified 4 properties of technology art. The 4th and final being Computer Art, which his presentation focused on. All technical art can be classified as “Assisted” or “Generated”, the former being an example of a computer being used as a tool to create an art piece (e.g. by using photoshop) and the latter a computer using evolutionary AI techniques to create art. These in turn can be sorted under three behaviour groups: Static, Dynamic and Interactive. The first is a work which is printed and immutable, the second a work which has the capability to mutate and change form, the third is a work which exists in communication with observers.
The argument is made that because art can be computer assisted or generated, it has the potential to be a as of yet unseen art form which is independent of the human artist's value judgement. Nicholas is of the opinion that dynamic and interactive art creates new possibilities of creativity that up until now were considered to be restricted by the tools available.
In computer-assisted art, the computer is used as a tool and an extension of the artist's creativity. Here the computer is considered no more unique than a paintbrush, as it is a means of creating. It is in computer-generated art where the uniqueness occurs. For the first time the computer is given the task to create art by its own, regardless of the human's value judgement or taste in art. From here the difficult question is asked: can computers be creative? Nicholas quotes Brewster Ghiselin's definition on creativity: “the process of change, of development, of evolution, in the organisation of subjective life”. Computer-generated art satisfies this particular definition of creativity: the generative AI can change, develop and evolve itself and the art it is producing.
The next point made is the difference between product-focus and process-focus. Computer science is a field that generally concerns itself more with the process rather than the outcome, the opposite is true for artists, who work with a product-focus approach. Nicholas states that computer art is usually very product-focussed, as the human artist using the computer has a specific goal in mind. Generative art is an interesting bridge between the two approaches, it satisfies both the curiosity of a computer scientist writing the algorithms and the artist's desire to eventually create a piece of art.
In conclusion, Nicholas summarised that computer art is unconstrained by the factors that usually influence other forms of art (physics, materials etc.) and that generative art especially has the ability to step outside of psychological and cognitive constraints. These factors contribute to the statement that computer art is a new and unique form of art. As Nicholas says in his notes: “In short, computer-generated art is distinct because it does not need a human mind to be created; it shares this property with art generated using systems influenced by nature and random probability, except it brings with this attribute the ability for selection and decision-making. Computer art, computer-generated or computer-assisted, does not require boundaries of physics and human ability to be maintained.”
Paul McConnell started his critic's presentation by agreeing with Nicholas on the statement 'Generative art is a prospect but not yet a reality'. This is a viewpoint that Paul would adopt frequently during his presentation, as his opinion is that computer art cannot be considered a new form of art.
He gave a brief history of art in the Renaissance and explained the importance of it: art used to be a high endeavour, it was only commissioned by the rich and an artist could only be considered an artist after many years of training. Paul argues that it is important for us to know the past before we can understand the present. From this he leads on to Walter Benjamin's “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, stating that the reproduction of art can lead to the loss of the work's 'aura'. When Benjamin wrote this in 1936 he was referring to the emerging art of photography, however his writings still hold true to more modern forms of art. Paul's key point to be extracted from Benjamin is that the function of art changes from a ritual or cult status to one of exhibition, meaning that 'the work meets the beholder half way'.
Paul continues with a brief history of modernism, beginning with Dada and ending with Sensationalism. This takes us to his point: “The ideas of the artist are primary and the materials & process' used are secondary – Working in service to realise them.”
From here Paul directly addresses the core arguments concerning generative art: does the programmer/artist not define possibilities? What of fitness functions that involve the artist? And finally, do programmes have the ability to perform analogously?
Generative art is limited by its programming and lack of analogical thinking, the programmer defines what is creative based on his own definition of creativity. In short, Paul argues that computers should be considered a tool and not an art work. Generative art, although impressive, cannot be defined as art. Whereas the idea of computer-assisted art that Nicholas mentioned can be considered art.
This concluded the excellent presentations given by Nicholas and Paul. Once discussion was started there was some confusion on the definitions of generative and computational art. Some argued against Nicholas that artists can be process focussed too where others disagreed with Paul on his views of whether generative art can be considered art or not. A long discussion followed which eventually came down to people's own private definitions of 'creativity'. As Thor eloquently phrased it: “[...] sometimes people argue the same points, just worded differently”.
Sunday, 5 October 2008
Welcome to Models of Creativity - Autumn 2008
Hi all.
As an extension of our seminars we have this online discussion forum/blog to post minutes of our seminars and to discuss them post-hoc.
Also, please post interesting links to articles, websites, youtube videos, blogs, wikis or whatever that is relevant to this course. The more information available and shared by all of us, the better our discussion becomes.
Looking forward to this term's seminars.
Thor
As an extension of our seminars we have this online discussion forum/blog to post minutes of our seminars and to discuss them post-hoc.
Also, please post interesting links to articles, websites, youtube videos, blogs, wikis or whatever that is relevant to this course. The more information available and shared by all of us, the better our discussion becomes.
Looking forward to this term's seminars.
Thor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
