At The Mountains Of Madness
Taking the New Aesthetic to the cleaners
Bruce Sterling just posted a new article about the hotly-debated topic of the New Aesthetic, somewhat flatteringly taking the text I wrote for Creators Project as a departure point (or angle of attack, depending on how you see it.) Go read it: Generation Generator (New Aesthetic).
I’d qualify it as only “somewhat” flattering, though, as his text does take the form of a serious critique of some of the positions I’ve argued over the last year or so regarding computational aesthetics. Notably, he refers to my Eyeo talk and the Algorithm Thought Police provocation. It’s nice to see that someone was paying attention.
But despite Sterling’s calling me a “generative apologist” I would tend to agree with several of his points. And even when I don’t it’s still a pleasure to see some real critical thinking on the subject for once.
I guess the only thing to do now is to write a response to the response to the response.
Makerbot test prints done at Generator.x 3.0
During the recent Generator.x 3.0 workshop I did some Makerbot prints that ought to push the limits of what’s printable, i.e. with high surface detail, overhangs, “bridges” etc. Strangely enough the finer detail of a MK7 stepstruder didn’t necessarily help, although to be fair our MK7 machine was plagued by a non-level print platform.
Still, I had some interesting results pointing to new possibilities provided models take into account the limitations of the extrusion process. Lattice forms are definitely possible, just look at Frederik Vanhoutte’s models.
Mark Making at Mediaruimte, Brussels
Mark Making, solo show at Mediaruimte, Brussels, Feb 29-March 31, 2012
Mark Making is a summary of recent works using mechanical machine processes to explore drawing in physical media (metal, styrene and MDF). Pieces on display include a new Wall Exploder tape drawing, Arc Drawing 1+2 and three CircGrid pieces on anodized aluminum as well as a new series of drawings on MDF titled ArcSurf.
The show is organized in connection with the Generator.x 3.0: Code to Atoms workshop at iMAL. My thanks to Yves Bernard and Lab[au] for making these two events possible.
The Algorithm Thought Police
Update: Jesse Rosenberg from Nervous System has posted a response on their blog, essentially arguing a more purist approach. It’s recommended reading as a counterpoint to my thoughts below, particularly since Jesse is an actual algorithm master whereas I am just a self-taught hack with an unconventional sense of color.
Earlier today I made an off-hand quip on Twitter in response to Jer Thorp tweeting a link to 3D Voronoi code (incidentally written by the excellent Frederik Vanhoutte.) The following snowball chain went as follows:
- @blprnt We talked about this. Voronoi is off limits until 2015, it got used waaay too much by architects in 2011.
- Temporarily banned algorithms: Circle packing, subdivisions, L-systems, Voronoi, the list goes on. Unless you make it ROCK, stay away.
- (And if you don’t think an algorithm can rock, we have nothing to talk about.)
Inevitably, this generated a certain amount of retweets and responses, both positive and critical. So before anyone starts thinking of me as the Algorithm Thought Police, I’d like to clarify my statements in more nuance than 140 characters will allow. So let me restate my point.
Yes, heavy use of standard algorithms is bad for you. That is, it is if you wish to consider yourself a computational creative capable of coming up with interesting work. If you’re a computer scientist or an engineer standard algorithms are your bread and butter, and you should go right ahead and use them.
Upon “discovering” an elegant algorithm that yields compelling visual results (say, circle packing or reaction-diffusion) there is a strong temptation to exploit it as is, crank out a hundred good-looking images and post them all over your Flickr, your blogs, what have you. I’ve done this. If you’re reading this you’ve probably done it too, and you know what happens next. Suddenly you find that the dude/dudette next door “discovered” the exact same algorithm and made a hundred images just like yours. And there’s egg all over your face.
Given this situation (which also applies to hardware, by the way) some people have the gall to proceed to try to beat up on the other creative simply they did their work the week after you did yours. To say that this is foolishness is to understate the problem, which is:
You cannot lay claim to “owning” any given algorithm (or hardware configuration), unless you have added significant extra value to it. To do so is at best ignorant.
Besides the problem of ownership, there is the even more serious issue of cliche. Most powerful algorithms have been used to death already, and you don’t need to add to your labor by having to distinguish your work from every mediocre computational creative who took a shortcut and published a Voronoi diagram as is. Yet surprisingly many people make exactly the same mistake time after time. Try watching the Generator.x Flickr group for a while and you will see the same classics paraded past you once a week.
This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t experiment with great algorithms. After all, they are great and much excellent work is made using them. But you should learn to be mature in your field the way that any other creative is: By learning to recognize the canon and creating your own niche within it (or, if you’re feeling rebellious, in opposition to it.) Being taken for ignorant or immature is just not a good way to establish your bona fides.
What do I propose as an alternative? Roll your own. Not as in come up with your own Voronoi alternative, but as in make sure you add your own creative signature to the work. Modify, remix and modulate. Check your work for algorithmic laziness. It’s oh-so-very tempting but it never pays off. If any CS student on the planet could walk into a lab and code the exact same result in an hour you’re just not trying hard enough.
PS. I would have liked to take the time to go through some of the “worst offenders”, but I figure most of them should be fairly obvious. For instance, I tend to name the oh-so-wonderful Voronoi because a horde of “parametric architects” have given it a dirty name and thought they were clever while doing so. And before you throw the first rock at me, here is some lovely circle packing I did back in 2007.
PPS. Jer Thorp should not be considered in any way to be an advocate of algo-cliche, despite being the genesis of this rant. Jer’s work is an excellent example of mixing known solutions with brilliant personal touches.
Call: Generator.x 3.0 - from Code to Atoms
The call for participants to the Generator.x 3.0 - from Code to Atoms workshop at iMAL in Brussels next month is still open. We’ll have Makerbots, a laser cutter and a CNC mill on site to play with so if you’re interested in digital fabrication and parametric systems this should be of interest to you.
Full text and entry form can be found at:
http://www.imal.org/en/activity/generatorx3
Cellular automata as pattern generator
Working on pattern generation using cellular automata. I haven’t played with CA since 1998, so it feels pretty old school. The rulesets are hard to control, but some of the more regular ones have potential when overlaid. Adding crazy colors gives bonus points.
Clarification: These images were made by manually layering several separate runs of my CA, they’re not the result of a single complex CA system. There is no actual interaction between the colored layers in the simulation.
Death and the J2ME applet (NTLSys 1-3)
I recently posted on Flickr some images of NTLSys 1-3, a J2ME app piece I did for Nokia Trend Labs in 2007. They had been lying around on my hard drive, and even though this is hardly a major work (I do still think it’s somewhat charming) I still thought they were worth archiving permanently.
Then it struck me: This piece will be gone forever in just a year or two. I can still run it on a couple of old Nokia phones I have lying around, but most likely even those will be dead soon. And what is the likelyhood of a J2ME app being supported by smartphones in, say, 2015?
Not that media obsolescence is a surprise, in preparing software artworks for gallery sales I have certainly considered how they may be preserved. But this might be my first full-on collision with the issue. After all, I still have Java applets written in 1996 hanging around with perfectly valid bytecode that will run in any Java-enabled browser. But for this piece and others like it death will most likely come rather soon with the death of J2ME, with the exception of running them in emulators (which might also become extinct soon enough.)
Perhaps I should go out and buy a mint J2ME-capable phone just for the sake of preserving this piece? Or should I be content to just let it die, the same way most of my compiled executables likely will given enough time? Of course, I always archive the source code and so can recreate it at will, that will always be the fallback option for any software art work. Hardware is not long for this world, but code is forever.
NTLSys 1-3 is still available for download, just point your J2ME phone at www.unlekker.net/ntlsys.jad.
