There is often a debate about how the universe works. Are we really in control of what decisions we make, or has some otherworldly being already written them for us? Is destiny real? Are the things we deem unpredictable actually predictable, and when people say they’re unpredictable… are they really?
These same questions can be made about artwork. Older (“traditional”) artwork was very methodical; we could fit artwork into different “eras,” find commonalities within artworks in certain eras, understand a very specific technique that artists would follow during a certain period of time or in a certain geographical area. However, now with our unlimited access to the internet and the rise of globalization, art has branched out significantly. We have shifted from order to chaos – we have people raising questions about which artwork is better (the usual digital versus traditional artwork battle), who decides what art is, and whether that shovel in the corner can actually even be considered artwork! (For this one, we’ll have to ask Duchamp himself.)
I found this talk interesting and I found that many arguments linked to my conversations in other classes. In Understanding Interactive Media, we discussed procedural art; art that is more focused on the process, and not the end product itself. One example I want to discuss in relation to this video is Sol Lewitt’s “Wall Painting”. In this artwork, the same set of instructions are given to everyone – draw 50 points anywhere on a continuous stretch of wall, and then draw lines connecting these dots. Yet, every artwork that comes from these instructions come out differently – super random! The reason I bring this up is because I feel that in this video, we discuss whether there is true randomness in artwork. Randomness allows you to remove your own egos and “preconceived notions” from creative processes (or at least, that’s what artists like John Cage and Marcel Duchamp believe). Randomness is a jumping-off point to get outside your own ideas of correctness.
The thing with algorithms, however, is that even when you code something to be random, there may eventually be a point that the code reaches where it stops being random, especially in generative art. Depending on the complexity of the code, it may become the same earlier, or may take a very long time, but Reas discovered that it eventually will reach homogeneity. Humans cannot replicate the same drawing the exact same ever, but computers can eventually. Hence, how random really is randomness? You can add some randomness to keep a system homeostatic, to keep it consistent but also remain dynamic, but even then, this is still a confusing concept to me. Even with the example of Mondrian explaining that the grid can still be used to represent pure feeling, through his physical brushstrokes being visible, that made me wonder about the difference in human and computer artwork.
In regards to making my own generative artwork, I made it before watching the video completely. Even when making it, I knew that no two artworks would be the same at the beginning, but eventually, at some point (whether it be in a thousand runs or even millions), there will be a moment where my artwork will be the same as another iteration earlier. Thus, maybe we can also acknowledge randomness depending on scale and complexity. Maybe the art we code doesn’t have to be 100% random, because maybe we will never be able to reach that certain percentage. However, within the percentages we can reach, we can play around with them and have fun.