From: Gina Miller (nanogirl@halcyon.com)
Date: Fri Jun 11 1999 - 13:42:41 MDT
Nanogirls art at
http://www.homestead.com/nanogirlpix/moreart.html
>The problem here is likely how you define art, and that is of course messy.
>
>> The hundreds of choices a person makes at each step leads to a very
>> expressive image of that persons' cumulative choices. Give two people the
>> same seed images and their end results will be completely different.
>> It also takes some skill to evolve really good images. Some people just
>> can't seem to get the hang of it. Since these images are generated by
>> individual expression and intention, and requires an element of skill,
AND
>> are often damned pretty, why would it not be art?
>
>Exactly. I would say art (as opposed to "just" beauty) comes from the
>application of a selective process (not necessarily by humans, but at
>least by some kind of thinking system). Of course, evolutionary art is
>in many ways the purest for of art in that respect since it relies on
>minimal control and only works by selection :-)
>
>One complaint against much electronic art I have heard is that it
>doesn't relate to the human. I don't see that as a problem since I
>think there can be great art relating to non/trans/posthuman stuff. It
>is just that humans can more easily relate to human stuff (but that is
>just bias, of course).
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
>asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/
>GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:08 MST