Other Ideas for the structure of this course.
After writing my last blog entry I decided to compile a short list of ideas which might improve this course the next time it is taught.
Systems v. Machines
I still think a more carefully differentiation between the term “system” and the concept of a “machine.” And placing more emphasis earlier in the course that they are in fact one and the same in natural occurrence without our help and should be the same in the projects for the course.
One day in class projects
One of the projects that I thought was very successful for the entire class was the one day in class project which we all had different parts of. I think this project might have been a good introduction to generative art for the first day of class. It could have also functioned as an amazing ice breaker.
The other thing that the single day in class project did was forced me to work with people that I was not experienced with working with. I am used to sticking with other Design and Production majors because I know them and know how to work with them. I stayed with my friends to stay in my comfort zone… But in all honesty I have worked with those people constantly for the last two and a half years. It is easy for me to spot paying attention to the prossece while I work with them because I am used to it. I didn’t notice how fascinating it was to work with new people during this project, but during the 3rd project when I participated in the robotics group project. It amazed me how we all brought different useful skills to the table that helped us finally build a beetle robot. Even though people might not be aware of the usefulness of collaborating with new people when it happened in the class I think it was defiantly important and a great opportunity for everyone involved. As most of us at the beginning of the term said were drawn the class to learn about different work processes because we are becoming jaded by the monotonous one’s taught by out professors… This is the perfect opportunity to learn others ways of working from each other.
Perhaps more suggested reading, chaos theory?
I liked the fact that there wasn’t a lot of reading during the entire class, but I think more material about Chaos theory might be interesting and significant to the rest of the material in the course.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Systems v. Machines
Systems v. Machines
The more I think about class today the more I realize that I do not agree that the term “system” and the term “machine” can be easily interchanged wily nilly. With the loose definition of a machine every machine could be considered a system, however I doubt that every system is a Machine. One very well could make the argument, however I think that many people would consider this to be the case. Next time Dean Wilcox and Bob king teach the course I really think that to eliminate confuction the ue of the term “machine” should be limited. Not that I think the course should be completely free from confusion, I just don’t think that this confusion is advantageous to people not being constrained to limmits of the assignment that are not really there. Something that could be interesting would be the first assignment being defined as a “System” and the second or third being the same rules except it is referd to as a machine. What would people do? Would that wise up and not make any changes?
The more I think about class today the more I realize that I do not agree that the term “system” and the term “machine” can be easily interchanged wily nilly. With the loose definition of a machine every machine could be considered a system, however I doubt that every system is a Machine. One very well could make the argument, however I think that many people would consider this to be the case. Next time Dean Wilcox and Bob king teach the course I really think that to eliminate confuction the ue of the term “machine” should be limited. Not that I think the course should be completely free from confusion, I just don’t think that this confusion is advantageous to people not being constrained to limmits of the assignment that are not really there. Something that could be interesting would be the first assignment being defined as a “System” and the second or third being the same rules except it is referd to as a machine. What would people do? Would that wise up and not make any changes?
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Beetle robot society
With the Beetle mimicking a simple insect or animal system of input and responses to input, we were interested in making the one simple single system more complicated. We were interested to make many of these interacting with each other. Would they play bumper cars with each other? Or would they get caught in eachother’s horns and bundle up in the center or a corner where they couldn’t move. This would be a simple social experiment of a society that we created, but can not necessarily predict the outcome.
This form of distributed intelligence would an adaptation of the simple game of life. Life (designed by --- in in the nineteen seventies) is a simple game of interacting, and reproducing cells. This a simple system of motion and interacting. The cells react depending on how many other cells are around them. To many cells or units to close together in the system will not all survive because of starvation. Too few will die of loneliness or lack of survival skills being alone since these simple one cell organisms mush be pack animals. If there is just the right density of population in an area then the cells get it on, reproduction takes place, and they miracle we call life is formed. These are the extreamly simple rules of the game of life, to an extent the beetle robots follow very simple rules as well. Every interval of time they move a distance forward. If something bumps their right censor, their left motor reverses direction. If something bumps their Left censor then their right motor reverses direction causeing them to spin the other way. In addition to this, they follow the simple physical rules of this universe.
Even though these rules seem predicable enough, obviously the system would never be that simple. They would immediately clash and become tangles because the laws of the physical world are infinitely more complicated then the small amount of binary digits that the cells on the game of life are defined as.
This would have been an ideal project for the 3rd project, they system of motion project. I am very curious not wether or not they would get caught, but wether or not they could free themselves. Would they get caught with no traction with their motors just franticly spinning away not able to move them in the direction that they are spinning, or will the chaos of there being so many of them be able to dislodge them, and let they free to scurry about their pen. Or would it be possible for them to eventually reach a stopping pattern or static position… this is completely possible with many Games of Life systems. They often reach a holding pattern, or a static look that they will never have a reaction to. This could happen in the first couple seconds of motion, or the beetles could suddenly reach this after a couple hours. The beetles could reach that static position years from now when their theoretical battery life had long since run out…
This project, while very interesting is not practical with the current restraints of time and money. I would still like to attempt this with Bob King at some point in the next year and a half that I will still be attending NC School of the Arts. I think this would be an interesting insalation piece for the hall, or the classroom. An idea to let these run their course somehow would be to make them somehow rechargeable, perhaps by adding solar receptors on their backs that would recharge them during the day, or under an artificial light source. This would have the added bonus of making them very environmentally friendly, and making them very green.
Beetle robot society, also known as:
beetle robot culture
beetle robot societal construct!
This form of distributed intelligence would an adaptation of the simple game of life. Life (designed by --- in in the nineteen seventies) is a simple game of interacting, and reproducing cells. This a simple system of motion and interacting. The cells react depending on how many other cells are around them. To many cells or units to close together in the system will not all survive because of starvation. Too few will die of loneliness or lack of survival skills being alone since these simple one cell organisms mush be pack animals. If there is just the right density of population in an area then the cells get it on, reproduction takes place, and they miracle we call life is formed. These are the extreamly simple rules of the game of life, to an extent the beetle robots follow very simple rules as well. Every interval of time they move a distance forward. If something bumps their right censor, their left motor reverses direction. If something bumps their Left censor then their right motor reverses direction causeing them to spin the other way. In addition to this, they follow the simple physical rules of this universe.
Even though these rules seem predicable enough, obviously the system would never be that simple. They would immediately clash and become tangles because the laws of the physical world are infinitely more complicated then the small amount of binary digits that the cells on the game of life are defined as.
This would have been an ideal project for the 3rd project, they system of motion project. I am very curious not wether or not they would get caught, but wether or not they could free themselves. Would they get caught with no traction with their motors just franticly spinning away not able to move them in the direction that they are spinning, or will the chaos of there being so many of them be able to dislodge them, and let they free to scurry about their pen. Or would it be possible for them to eventually reach a stopping pattern or static position… this is completely possible with many Games of Life systems. They often reach a holding pattern, or a static look that they will never have a reaction to. This could happen in the first couple seconds of motion, or the beetles could suddenly reach this after a couple hours. The beetles could reach that static position years from now when their theoretical battery life had long since run out…
This project, while very interesting is not practical with the current restraints of time and money. I would still like to attempt this with Bob King at some point in the next year and a half that I will still be attending NC School of the Arts. I think this would be an interesting insalation piece for the hall, or the classroom. An idea to let these run their course somehow would be to make them somehow rechargeable, perhaps by adding solar receptors on their backs that would recharge them during the day, or under an artificial light source. This would have the added bonus of making them very environmentally friendly, and making them very green.
Beetle robot society, also known as:
beetle robot culture
beetle robot societal construct!
Monday, March 2, 2009
Beatle Robot!!
Instead of further exploring a chaos theory by the means of a gravity powered pendulum, I decided to start my work with the Robotics Group with Bob King, Rob and Eric Brown. For Our First project together we wanted to explore the analog robotics of Mark Tilden. Even though
Our Robot we Chose to make was much simpler. Instead of using resonating capacitors in a feedback loop, we made a simple feedback system with a small beetle that only had the capacity to back away from something that obstructed it’s path. Mark Tilden’s beetles had the ability to problem solve by trial and error. If one of it’s legs stopped working efficiently (like it being caught in a roll of tape) it was able to send random impulses to the leg to try and get in unstuck, learning for a temporary amount of time it learns how it solved that problem, and it continued to try that when encountering the same problem. It could also adapt and walk forward even after it’s legs where bent and broken.
We made a beetle robot that we found plans for in the internet
http://www.gorobotics.net/Articles/Robots/How-to-Build-a-Simple-Robot-%11-Beetle-Robot
Instead of a central nervous system which Mark Tilden’s robots seem to have, it had a lower brain and spinal cord instinctual reactions. It something touched one antenna it immediately jerked back until nothing was in contact with it anymore. It reacts to stimulus, in a way that will continue it’s well being. It has no way to try different things or adapt to a change in stimulus such as Mark Tilden’s Robots, it has no thought in that capacity. It only reacts to stimulus in the way that it was designed to, and we had no way of designing it to think to itself to problem solve, or capacity for learning.
The plans called for a two motors mounted on the sides of a AA battery holder, and two antenna mounted on the top and front that triggered two STDP switches when triggered. The direction of the motor was reversed then the antanna was pressed because the Robot. This could be seen at the robot having a form of perception, even instinctual perception… But it’s still perception. It scences, then makes a decision of what to do, even though it is mechanical. It might not have sensiounce, but it still possesses instinctual decision making capabilities.
Domma Origato Beetle Roboto!
Our Robot we Chose to make was much simpler. Instead of using resonating capacitors in a feedback loop, we made a simple feedback system with a small beetle that only had the capacity to back away from something that obstructed it’s path. Mark Tilden’s beetles had the ability to problem solve by trial and error. If one of it’s legs stopped working efficiently (like it being caught in a roll of tape) it was able to send random impulses to the leg to try and get in unstuck, learning for a temporary amount of time it learns how it solved that problem, and it continued to try that when encountering the same problem. It could also adapt and walk forward even after it’s legs where bent and broken.
We made a beetle robot that we found plans for in the internet
http://www.gorobotics.net/Articles/Robots/How-to-Build-a-Simple-Robot-%11-Beetle-Robot
Instead of a central nervous system which Mark Tilden’s robots seem to have, it had a lower brain and spinal cord instinctual reactions. It something touched one antenna it immediately jerked back until nothing was in contact with it anymore. It reacts to stimulus, in a way that will continue it’s well being. It has no way to try different things or adapt to a change in stimulus such as Mark Tilden’s Robots, it has no thought in that capacity. It only reacts to stimulus in the way that it was designed to, and we had no way of designing it to think to itself to problem solve, or capacity for learning.
The plans called for a two motors mounted on the sides of a AA battery holder, and two antenna mounted on the top and front that triggered two STDP switches when triggered. The direction of the motor was reversed then the antanna was pressed because the Robot. This could be seen at the robot having a form of perception, even instinctual perception… But it’s still perception. It scences, then makes a decision of what to do, even though it is mechanical. It might not have sensiounce, but it still possesses instinctual decision making capabilities.
Domma Origato Beetle Roboto!
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Defining Generative Art.
Defining Generative Art
For class we all submitted our definitions of Generative art, then used a program to make a collage of the most used words in our definitions.
The definitions where posted here : http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pyJVUWmv2G10ePngeMwJdXQ
My definition was:
Generative art is the product of a process which is an autonomous system created by the artiest. The extent of the artist's responsibility is to either have a part creating the system, or recognizing that an already existing system is creating something which could have beauty. The product of the system could easily be just the the motion of they system, and could be art by the aesthetic beauty of the motion.
After reading through some of the other definitions here are some other ideas that jumped out at me…
Alex Fogel said that it was an artist that relishes in randomness. This I don’t entirely agree with, since a lot of generative art is created by simple algorithms creating immensely complex system it could be that it is entirely predictable. This is generative art as seen in Choas theory. This distinction dates back to the discussion on the first day of class whether there is no such thing as randomness or only randomness. Only definition that Alex Fogel did give Generative Art was “Once removed artistry.” I really liked this and thought it was an exhalant summation of the idea of Generative art. It brings attention to the concept of the removal of the artist from the creation of it, and the final product of system is once removed from the creator.
This Idea of art once removed reminds me of Plato’s theory of art, that it is a corrupt imitation of reality. Since it is removed even further from the artist it is removed even further from the reality that it imitates… Interesting…
Larry Johnson defined Generative Art as “the nexus of improvisation.” I can agree with this, with the same reservation I did with Alex Fogel’s definition. It is partially improvised, but the end result can theoretically be discerned by the rules of the system (physics) meaning that they are predetermined, but unpredictable because the computation and production necessary to predict it. Again bringing the idea of chaos theory into art.
Wikipedia’s very specific definition of Generative Art is:
“Generative art refers to art that has been generated, composed, or constructed in an algorithmic manner through the use of systems defined by computer software algorithms, or similar mathematical or mechanical or randomized autonomous processes.”
In important connection that can be made with all of these definitions in the idea of a “mathematical or mechanical or randomized autonomous process.” Created by a computerized system or any autonomous process. Whether or not it is theoretically predictable isn’t really important considering that the best way to see the end result is to let the system run, and view it.
“Generative Art refers to any art practice where the artist uses a system, such as a set of natural language rules a computer program, a machine, or other procedural invention, which is then set into motion with some degree of autonomy to or resulting in a complex work of art.” (Philip Galanter).
For class we all submitted our definitions of Generative art, then used a program to make a collage of the most used words in our definitions.
The definitions where posted here : http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pyJVUWmv2G10ePngeMwJdXQ
My definition was:
Generative art is the product of a process which is an autonomous system created by the artiest. The extent of the artist's responsibility is to either have a part creating the system, or recognizing that an already existing system is creating something which could have beauty. The product of the system could easily be just the the motion of they system, and could be art by the aesthetic beauty of the motion.
After reading through some of the other definitions here are some other ideas that jumped out at me…
Alex Fogel said that it was an artist that relishes in randomness. This I don’t entirely agree with, since a lot of generative art is created by simple algorithms creating immensely complex system it could be that it is entirely predictable. This is generative art as seen in Choas theory. This distinction dates back to the discussion on the first day of class whether there is no such thing as randomness or only randomness. Only definition that Alex Fogel did give Generative Art was “Once removed artistry.” I really liked this and thought it was an exhalant summation of the idea of Generative art. It brings attention to the concept of the removal of the artist from the creation of it, and the final product of system is once removed from the creator.
This Idea of art once removed reminds me of Plato’s theory of art, that it is a corrupt imitation of reality. Since it is removed even further from the artist it is removed even further from the reality that it imitates… Interesting…
Larry Johnson defined Generative Art as “the nexus of improvisation.” I can agree with this, with the same reservation I did with Alex Fogel’s definition. It is partially improvised, but the end result can theoretically be discerned by the rules of the system (physics) meaning that they are predetermined, but unpredictable because the computation and production necessary to predict it. Again bringing the idea of chaos theory into art.
Wikipedia’s very specific definition of Generative Art is:
“Generative art refers to art that has been generated, composed, or constructed in an algorithmic manner through the use of systems defined by computer software algorithms, or similar mathematical or mechanical or randomized autonomous processes.”
In important connection that can be made with all of these definitions in the idea of a “mathematical or mechanical or randomized autonomous process.” Created by a computerized system or any autonomous process. Whether or not it is theoretically predictable isn’t really important considering that the best way to see the end result is to let the system run, and view it.
“Generative Art refers to any art practice where the artist uses a system, such as a set of natural language rules a computer program, a machine, or other procedural invention, which is then set into motion with some degree of autonomy to or resulting in a complex work of art.” (Philip Galanter).
Friday, February 27, 2009
Graphiti
For the second project I initially wanted to try and play with audience participation which I thought the more successful earlier ones have. For example the project that caused a visceral reaction of someone wanted to stop or interfere with the process. One Idea was to make a mark and that actually be the start of the process and the audience reaction be the actual interesting bit, or "teh art."
One way I thought causing a reaction in the audience was to do something destructive in front of the entire class and vandalizing something. For example taking out spray paint and starting to tag something on the wall or the floor. What would have people done? Would they have stopped me or guessed that I knew what I was doing and let me continue.
What if I treid some less conventional form of Vandalism, like taking out kindling and trying to set fire to one of the pianos. Eventually someone would have stopped me, but how far would the class let me go in the name of art, or in the name of trust.
While I ended up taking the opposite direction to this, partially out of cowardice of authority, I still managed to put a majority of the class on edge and build up some stress before my piece began. While I was setting up my 10lb. wight pendumn suspended from the second floor balcony right next to a very large window, I shared my desire to destroy something in front of everyone with Dean Wilcox. He told me that it would really depend on what I chose to destroy, an I exclaimed that I wanted to vandalizes a significant part of the building. Immediately his mind jumped to the fact that I had a fairly heavy weight suspended right next to a large expensive looking pane of glass. He said "Like that window right there?" To which I responded "Mabye..."
By the time that I actually presented people where standing back and refusing to get close to my project. Once I started it, a lot of people made sounds of surprise as the brush slowly scraped across the canvas.
One way I thought causing a reaction in the audience was to do something destructive in front of the entire class and vandalizing something. For example taking out spray paint and starting to tag something on the wall or the floor. What would have people done? Would they have stopped me or guessed that I knew what I was doing and let me continue.
What if I treid some less conventional form of Vandalism, like taking out kindling and trying to set fire to one of the pianos. Eventually someone would have stopped me, but how far would the class let me go in the name of art, or in the name of trust.
While I ended up taking the opposite direction to this, partially out of cowardice of authority, I still managed to put a majority of the class on edge and build up some stress before my piece began. While I was setting up my 10lb. wight pendumn suspended from the second floor balcony right next to a very large window, I shared my desire to destroy something in front of everyone with Dean Wilcox. He told me that it would really depend on what I chose to destroy, an I exclaimed that I wanted to vandalizes a significant part of the building. Immediately his mind jumped to the fact that I had a fairly heavy weight suspended right next to a large expensive looking pane of glass. He said "Like that window right there?" To which I responded "Mabye..."
By the time that I actually presented people where standing back and refusing to get close to my project. Once I started it, a lot of people made sounds of surprise as the brush slowly scraped across the canvas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)