That last image is of Brian now
post pictures your computer has generated ( algorithmic art )
woops
is not like other people
just reading about him on wikipedia:
He took LSD as a young man, describing it in 2007 as a drug "for people of my age. It's wonderful. The one thing you could not do, however, was drip it into your eyeballs. It sent you absolutely bonkers."
In a 2009 BBC documentary about the UK's so-called North-South divide, presented by ex-Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, Sewell caused controversy by declaring that the solution to the divide was to send a pox or a plague upon the North so that the people there could all just die quietly.
Corpsey
bandz ahoy
Computers can generate interesting art that a human might be incapable of creating but that the interest around that work of art is always going to be that a computer generated it. Could a computer invest meaning in something it created?
Perhaps the locus of meaning would belong to the programmer of the algorithm at that point. Or with the viewer? But with a work of art, is it a condition of investing meaning in it that it was created by a person who you assume had some sort of meaning in mind?
The potential I see (perhaps in a rather conservative way) is for human artists to take what the computer has generated and incorporate those ideas into their own work.
Incidentally, Bacon (who is being cybernetically imitated throughout this thread) was a big fan of the influence of chance on his paintings and often let "mistakes" stand.
Perhaps the locus of meaning would belong to the programmer of the algorithm at that point. Or with the viewer? But with a work of art, is it a condition of investing meaning in it that it was created by a person who you assume had some sort of meaning in mind?
The potential I see (perhaps in a rather conservative way) is for human artists to take what the computer has generated and incorporate those ideas into their own work.
Incidentally, Bacon (who is being cybernetically imitated throughout this thread) was a big fan of the influence of chance on his paintings and often let "mistakes" stand.
version
Well-known member
Did anyone ever say this about electronic music?
woops
is not like other people
false parallel totally different techniques involved
Corpsey
bandz ahoy
I should think they'd say it about electronic music generated entirely by a machine.
(That music must exist, right? Feed 500 acid house tunes into a computer and get it to create one itself.)
To bring in my paltry experience producing here and assume it speaks for the common man, there's a big element of chance in making music with computers – you're just twiddling knobs and flicking switches and seeing what happens. You ultimately are in charge and guide things, but the computer is doing a lot of the work for you.
(That music must exist, right? Feed 500 acid house tunes into a computer and get it to create one itself.)
To bring in my paltry experience producing here and assume it speaks for the common man, there's a big element of chance in making music with computers – you're just twiddling knobs and flicking switches and seeing what happens. You ultimately are in charge and guide things, but the computer is doing a lot of the work for you.
woops
is not like other people
hmm dunno about that but i once read an interesting article about a bloke who wrote a computer program to generate bach-like music, it became his life's work and fooled all the experts much to their embarrassment, but i've not been able to find the article again @version
version
Well-known member
Autechre have some sort of machine they've built that generates their stuff. They talk about it their RA interview,
Sean Booth: It's like gaming sometimes, trying to guide it. There's some very basic AI in there—I mean only using "if" statements, conditionals, if-the-situation-is-this-then-do-that type things. It's as basic as a game AI, if you look at the AI for the characters in a game, it's just a chain of "if" statements, basically. It's very much on a level to that, really. So playing music on it is about as fun as playing Grand Theft Auto, doing random shit with pedestrians, seeing if you can get someone to run up a wall or whatever. If I can get the musical equivalent of that, I'm generally quite happy.
Rob Brown: Make the cars float. Transparent cars that float. That's what we aim for.
version
Well-known member
Sean Booth: But it's not another mind at work in our stuff. It's just our habits, transcribed.
It's a weird thing. I was talking to [Richard D. James] about this, and he's got like ten different studios, which he leaves set up all in different ways. That setup in itself is something that only he would come up with, each one is a unique instrument. With programming it's exactly the same thing, you've created an instruction set, and that's defined by what you wanted to achieve, so there's an element of your personality and wishes that exists in code terms now. I think all programmers feel like that when they make something: that a little bit of themselves is out there doing its thing.
You're leaving ghosts and psychic residue everywhere.
Sean Booth: Yeah! I don't want to call that AI, because that's a really loose definition. But there is this slight element of personalities being split up and lost into the world. And that is interesting. I'm not about legacy or anything, but it's cool when I switch my computer on and it can just be me... even if it's just a little bit.
Rob Brown: Yeah, it is just a kind of mimicry, but even if it is just traits, people do see personality, like you say. And if they see bit of a person in it, then that's as far as you need to go sometimes.
It's a weird thing. I was talking to [Richard D. James] about this, and he's got like ten different studios, which he leaves set up all in different ways. That setup in itself is something that only he would come up with, each one is a unique instrument. With programming it's exactly the same thing, you've created an instruction set, and that's defined by what you wanted to achieve, so there's an element of your personality and wishes that exists in code terms now. I think all programmers feel like that when they make something: that a little bit of themselves is out there doing its thing.
You're leaving ghosts and psychic residue everywhere.
Sean Booth: Yeah! I don't want to call that AI, because that's a really loose definition. But there is this slight element of personalities being split up and lost into the world. And that is interesting. I'm not about legacy or anything, but it's cool when I switch my computer on and it can just be me... even if it's just a little bit.
Rob Brown: Yeah, it is just a kind of mimicry, but even if it is just traits, people do see personality, like you say. And if they see bit of a person in it, then that's as far as you need to go sometimes.
woops
is not like other people
"generative" music is a bit of a buzzword in my opinion. you set out some rules and the system makes music according to those rules, it's quite difficult to get the system to rewrite or change those rules. in other words, if you set your generative patch going and go out for a few hours, when you come back it will still be recognisably playing the same piece. so what's been generated? maybe autechre are that gifted though i dunno.
woops
is not like other people
interviewed by the man of the hour!
william_kent
Well-known member
I've posted this in another thread - but..
The Endless Acid Banger
generative acid house - I've had minutes of fun with this
The Endless Acid Banger
generative acid house - I've had minutes of fun with this
william_kent
Well-known member
I'm pleased to see that some people hate this stuff! I was hoping we could get some sort of discussion on the value of it, whether it could be considered "art", what the potential is ( I'm envisioning plug-ins for photoshop and GIMP to "aid" the creative process, etc., )
It's really in the early stages, it's only been the last few months where we've moved on from the "deep dream" animal faces superimposed on existing pictures, but I'm wondering how fast this stuff will date - will it be the equivalent of a "trippy fractal rave flyer" or a 90s DnB record cover in few years?
Is this the visual equivalent of 12-tone, Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, or John Cage?
It's really in the early stages, it's only been the last few months where we've moved on from the "deep dream" animal faces superimposed on existing pictures, but I'm wondering how fast this stuff will date - will it be the equivalent of a "trippy fractal rave flyer" or a 90s DnB record cover in few years?
Is this the visual equivalent of 12-tone, Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, or John Cage?
william_kent
Well-known member
people are working on it - jukebox & musenet
older attempts:
neural network generated folk music
neural network generated black metal & math rock
william_kent
Well-known member
I can see that the next stage in the evolution of this style will be the ability to intervene in the generation - at the moment there is an art to the choice of phrasing used when providing the prompt and with tweaking the parameters, but then you start if off and it just runs and does its own thing - but I can see that being able to direct the AI while it is drawing will be the next big step