Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Two programs will be citizens first class in the third narration: Harold Cohen's
AARON
stands out as one of the most ambitious and successful artistic software
development projects of all time. It is an absolutely exceptional event in the art
world. Hardly known at all is a program Frieder Nake wrote in 1968/69. He boldly
called it
Generative Art I
. The two programs are creative productions, and they
were used for creative productions. Their approaches constitute opposite ends of a
spectrum.
The chapter comes to its close with a fourth narration: on creativity. The first
three ramblings lead up to this one. Is there a conclusion? There is a conclusion
insofar as it brings this chapter to a physical end. It is no conclusion insofar as our
stories cannot end. As Peter Lunenfeld has told us, digital media are caught in an
aesthetics of the
unfinish
(Lunenfeld
1999
,p.7).Iliketosaythesameindifferent
words: the art in a work of digital art is to be found in the infinite class of works a
program may generate, and not in the individual pieces that only
represent
the class.
I must warn the reader, but only very gently. There may occasionally be a formula
from mathematics. Don't give up when you see it. Rather read around it, if you like.
These creatures are as important as they are hard to understand, and they are as
beautiful as any piece of art. People say, Mona Lisa's smile remains a riddle. What is
different, then, between this painting and a formula from probability theory? Please,
dear reader, enter postmodern times! We will be with you.
3.2 The First Narration: On Random Polygons
Polygons are often boringly simple figures when it comes to the generation of aes-
thetic, or even artistic objects. Nevertheless, they played an important role in the first
days of computer art. Those days must be considered high days of creativity. Some-
thing great was happening then, something took on shape. Not many had the guts to
clearly say this. It was happening at different places within a short time, and the ac-
tivists were not aware of each other. Yet, what they did, was of the same kind. They
surprised gallery owners who, of course, did not really like the art because, how
could they possibly make money with it? With the computer in the background, this
was mass production.
If the early pioneers themselves did not really understand the revolution they
were causing, they left art critics puzzling even more. “Is it or is it not art?” was
their typical shallow question, and: “Who (or what!) is the creator? The human, the
computer, or the drawing automaton?” The simplest of those first creations were
governed by polygons. Polygons became the signature of earliest algorithmic art.
This is why I tell their story.
In mathematics, a
polygon
is a sequence of points (in the simplest case, in the
plane). Polygons also exist in spaces of higher dimensions. As a sequence of points,
the polygon is a purely mental construct. In particular and against common belief,
you cannot
see
the polygon. As a polygon, it is invisible. It shares this fate with all
of geometry. This is so because the objects of geometry—points, lines, planes—are
pure. You describe them in formulae, and you prove theorems about them.
