Using algorithmic programming code as art to create art. The software art movement finally was given a title late 1990's/early 2000's, despite being around for quite sometime. Though the programming or code behind the art is often looked past, in software art both the algorithms and the creation are both conceived as art. Not being able to be as separate from one another, the input and the out put are both equally art.
SCOTT DRAVES: software artist
These three captured images from Scott Draves work, Electric Sheep (Generation 247), is a great and still active example of software art. Scott Draves goal was to create an artificial human brain or thought process. However he would both use computer and humans in order to run the full system. With 450,000 different computers coming together as one super computer to generate animations/images based off of Draves' Flame algorithm, each individual piece is called a sheep. Which is then sent to the viewers set up as family trees. So that the participants from around the world may help decide which family tree continues, and which ones no longer do. The ones above are from a large collection of some of people's favorite ones from the most recent flock of sheep.
The Electric Sheep software art is amazing because it lets not only human participants to help become a 'part' of the program. But also uses participating computers to work together to create larger pieces based off the Flame code. I believe this to be great work where to algorithmic programming code and the beautiful output cannot be separated or seen without the one another. The whole process of the coding, programming, passing of information, and communicating between men and computers is all apart of the art, not just the individual sheep.
Thinking back upon Florian Crammer's ideas about digital art not being new, but instead being taken from and changed based upon new culture perspectives of programming. One can see how both the programming and what it produces are both equally art, and one should not be looked over by the other. Crammer compares many algorithms that are programmed to sheets of music made by composers. That without those written sheets, you would not have those beautiful or experimental sounds. However when it comes to music both the input and the output are both equally awarded, but the composer or writer still might get more attention or praise than an instrument or musician. So should it be fair and practical that also the code and the output of that code also be equally praised, or even the coder being recognized for giving the artist its playing field. However it is so common to look at the giant umbrella that is digital art and forget the frameworks and skeletons that help create and produce these 'new' and exciting art pieces that one sees on screen. Though digital art cannot be considered new because of all the old algorithms and predictions found before its creation. I think these new adaption though making the viewers ignorant to how these images were brought to their screen, still has a strong impact on their minds.
Comments