C[omp]ute

From: andrew cooke <andrew@...>

Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 09:52:32 -0300

If you watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8DMEHxOLQE then you'll see
typical Processing art - beautiful, without a doubt.  But also very clearly
the product of *that* software.

Why?

Why does art produced with Processing look, so often, like art produced with
Processing?

 * Perhaps I am just looking at a biased sample?

 * Perhaps that style is so "good" that others have copied it instead of
   exploring the full space of possibilities?

 * Perhaps the software implicitly or explicitly embodies the aesthetic of its
   creator?

My money tends to be on the last of these.  I suspect that different software
would produce different results.

OK.

But maybe writing "different" software is not enough?

Maybe good art software *needs* to embody a certain aesthetic?  Without that,
pehaps it cannot truly produce great art - perhaps it becomes a jack of all
trades and a master of none?

In that case, what alternatives *could* exist?  What alternative aesthetics
could be embodied in software?

I was thinking these thoughts while looking at the latest exhibition at the
Centro Cultural La Moneda yesterday -
http://www.ccplm.cl/sitio/2015/arte-islamico-coleccion-museo-de-arte-del-condado-de-los-angeles/

Ilamic art uses line, symmetry and (flat) colour.  It is a *very* different
aesthetic to Processing.

Can something like that be embodied in software?  What would it look like?
Can symmetry be expressed in a type system?  As a grammar?  What about line?
And the balance of line with space?

Andrew