Biography

        Domov
      

 O AVTORJU
  zivljenjepis
  koncept
  curriculum
  razvoj
  likovne kritike

GENERATIVE ART
  generative art
  avtorstvo
  ustvarjanje

GALERIJE
  galerije vse
  novejsa dela
  mozaik
  kras
  prvi zacetki

DEMO PROGRAMI
  visual basic pr.
  java programi
  kratki VB6 prg.

OSTALO
  voscilo
  portreti

KONTAKT
  kontakt





KONEC

 


















  

LINKI
GA konference
 GA linki
Drugi linki
 
 
 
OBISKOVALCI
ste obiskovalec
 št.:  251886
od okt/2002















   
 
 
 
  AVTORSTVO GENERATIVNO USTVARJENIH DEL

The concept of value is traditionally bestowed on a work of art when it is seen to be unique and irreproducible , thereby granting it authenticity. Think of a famous painting: only the original canvas commands genuinely prices. Digital artwork is not valued in the same way. It can be copied infinitely and there is therefore a corresponding crisis of value. It has been argued that under these conditions of the dematerialized artwork, it is process that becomes valued. In this way, the process of creation and creativity is valued in place of authenticity, undermining conventional notions of authorship. (Taken from the paper "The Authorship of Generative Art" written by Adrian Ward and Geoff Cox).

For the beginning I have to say something about the definition of the authorship. The most frequent and the shortest is: “authorship is the act of creating something”. There are two very important key words used: “the act of creating”. Using IT terminology “the act of creating“ could correspond with “the process”. The basic model of generative art is composed of four phases: idea, program code, process, selection of results. The autonomy degree of the process is the key of the authorship of the result. Next question about the process is: does the input could make the process more or less generative?

Writing about the authorship of generative art is very thankless task. Nearly everyone has his own view, his own explanation about the matter. My opinion is that the real generative process couldn’t have any input. It has to be dependent only on the code and the time. The authorship of such a process or results from my point of view is not only human. The least of all I can say that it is undefined. With a little bit of boldness I can put a credit to the system “time-code”. If there is an input is necessary to valuate it if it belongs from stochastic process or from a willful human action. In the first case I think the input has no any effect to the authorship. In the second case the effect to the authorship depends on the construction of program algorithm, that could permit or not any control action from outside of the process. For the real generative program there is not any difference if someone is the author of the code or is only the person who sets in motion the process using the program code of an other. The result has to be dependent exclusively on the “gene” created in the beginning of the process. The comparison with the human conception could be very useful.

I want to accent that the programming concept has the main influence to the authorship of the final result. There are two basic concept of developing programs: pragmatic and algorithmic approach. For example: let take a simple program that draw red colored square 100 per 100 pixels in the middle of the screen. Every time we run such a program we get the same image. We can compare this with the use of Photoshop and draw the mentioned square. The next step is to develop the program that could draw a great number of squares (different dimension, different colors and different position – all element chosen by program). We are still drawing squares but the composition of the image is always different. In the pragmatic concept the great part of the authorship we can put to program author’s credit.

Algorithmic approach opens serious questions about the authorship. All parameters of the result are based exclusively on mathematical formula, algorithmic paths and gene’s combination. No one, neither author of the program could predict the way that the actual process could take. So the result is absolutely unpredictable from all possible points of view. Neither the author of the program nor the other person who triggers the process have nothing to do with authorship. From my point of view the authorship depends of the system “code-time” composed of “code as the creation of human being and time as the creation of God”.