1

ATAXONOMYOFCOMPUTERART*MargaretA.Boden*Thisisbasedonalongerpaper,co‐authoredwithErnestEdmonds:M.A.BodenandE.A.Edmonds(2009),'WhatisGenerativeArt?',DigitalCreativity,20(1‐2):21‐46.Abstract:Therearevariousformsofcomputerart.Thispaperdistinguishesthemajorcategories,andaskswhethertheappropriateaestheticcriteria‐‐andthelocusofcreativity‐‐arethesameineachcase.I:IntroductionSincethelate‐1950s,anever‐diversifyingsetofnovelartpracticeshasarisenwhicharestilllittleknownordiscussedinaestheticsandarttheory.(Forawidevarietyofexamples,see:Krueger1991;Wilson2002;CandyandEdmonds2002;Whitelaw2004;Woolf2004;Popper2007.)AsJonMcCormack,oneoftheartistsconcerned,hasputit,"[Muchoftheinnovationtodayisnotachievedwithinthepreciousbubbleoffineart,butbythosewhoworkintheindustriesofpopularculture‐‐computergraphics,film,musicvideos,games,roboticsandtheInternet"(McCormack2003:5).The"preciousbubble"offineartisa(shifting)sociallyacceptednorm.Butartistsoftenworkoutsidethenormoftheirday,asfamouslyillustratedbyMarcelDuchampandhisreadymadesorJohnCage'suseofsilence.Andsometimes,thebubbleeventuallyexpandssoastoengulfthepreviouslymaverickefforts.TheImpressionists,forinstance,nolongerhaveanyneedforaSalondesRefuses.Theydon'tevenneedasalon:theirimagesassailuseverydayoncalendarsandchocolateboxes.WhethertheinnovationsmentionedbyMcCormackwillonedaybeincludedintheexpandingbubbleremainstobeseen.Theirfate,inthisregard,dependspartlyonhowpeople‐‐bothcuratorsandthegeneralpublic‐‐respondtothecontroversialaestheticandphilosophicalquestionsraisedinSectionIV.Thenovelapproachesinvolvedherearecloselyinter‐related,boththeoreticallyandmethodologically.Somuchso,indeed,thattheyareoftenalllumpedtogetherunderonelabel:"computerart","electronicart","processart",or"generativeart".Thispaperaimstoclarifyhowtheycanbedistinguished.

2

II:OriginsandInter‐relationsFromthetheoreticalpointofview,thisnewartoriginatedincyberneticsandgeneralsystemstheory.TheyoungpainterRoyAscott,latertobehighlyinfluentialinthefield,identifiedthenovelactivityas"acyberneticvision"(1966/67;seealsoMason2008:ch.4).AndtheexceptionallycreativecyberneticianGordonPaskwasakeyinfluence.Forbesidesproducingand/orimaginingsomeofthefirstartworksofthisgeneraltype(inthe1950s),heprovidedmuchofthetheoreticalimpetusthatinspiredthemorephilosophicallymindedartistsinthefield(Boden2006:4.v.e;Mason2008:ch.2).Verysoon,the"cyberneticvision"wasbolsteredbyideasaboutstructureandprocessdrawnfromcomputerscience.ErnestEdmonds,forinstance,turnedfrompaintbrushandeaseltothecomputerinthe1960s:hethoughthecouldproducemoreinterestingartinthatway(seeBodenandEdmonds2009:sectn.iii).Atmuchthesametime,musicandvisualartwasproducedwhichreflectedAI'scomputationaltheoriesofmind.Indeed,HaroldCohen,arenownedabstractpainterin1960sLondon,desertedhispreviousworkingpracticeslargelybecausehefeltthatdoingcomputerartwouldhelphimtounderstandhisowncreativeprocessesbetter(McCorduck1991;Boden2004:150‐166,314f.).Overthepasttwentyyears,thisartisticfieldhasbeeninspiredalsobyideasaboutemergence,evolution,embodiment,andself‐organization.Theseconceptsareborrowedfromvariousareasofcognitivescience,andinparticularfromartificiallife(A‐Life).However,thetheoreticalroots(andthepioneeringexperiments)ofA‐Lifereachbacktomid‐centurycyberneticsandautomatatheory(Boden2006:4.v.e,15.iv‐v).Inshort,thetheoreticalwheelhasturnedfullcircle.Themethodologicalwheel,meanwhile,hasclimbedanascendingspiral.Fortheartpracticesoutsidethefine‐artbubblearegroundedintechnologiesforcommunicationandinformationprocessingwhosepowerandvarietyhaveburgeonedoverthelasthalf‐century.(Often,thismeansthatthecustomaryloneartistisreplacedbyateam,someofwhosemembersmaybecomputerscientistsand/ortele‐engineers.)Mostofthemrelyheavilyondigitalcomputing,andinparticularonmethodsdrawnfromAIandA‐Life.Specifically,theyhaveemployedbothsymbolicandconnectionistcomputation,and‐‐morerecently‐‐cellularautomata,L‐systems,andevolutionaryprogrammingtoo.Thisisanascendingspiral,notalinearascent,becausetwoofthose"recent"methodswereforeseen(byJohnvonNeumann)in1950scybernetics,andallthreehadbeenmathematicallydefinedbythe1960s(Boden2006:15.v‐vi).Butnonecouldbefruitfullyexplored,byartistsorbyscientists,untilpowerfulcomputersbecameavailablemuchlater.Theresultingartworksarehighlydiverse.Theyincludemusic,sonics,thevisualarts,videoart,multimediainstallations,virtualreality,kineticsculpture,robotics,performanceart,andtext.Andwhereassomeoftheseoutside‐the‐bubbleactivities

3

placeinkorpaintontoasurface,othersinvolvedesk‐topVDUsorroom‐scalevideo‐projection.Yetotherseschewthevirtualityofcyberspace,constructingmovingphysicalmachinesinstead.Thelabelsattachedtothesenewartformsvary,andhavenotyetsettleddownintoagenerallyacceptedtaxonomy.Thenamespreferredbytheartistsinvolvedinclude:generativeart,computerart,digitalart,computationalart,process‐basedart,electronicart,softwareart,technologicalart,andtelematics.Allofthosetermsarecommonlyusedtodenotetheentirefield‐‐and(althoughdistinctionsaresometimesdrawn)theyareoftentreatedassynonyms.Withrespecttothelabels"computerart"and"generativeart",thatwastruerightfromthestart.Thesetermshavebeenusedintandem,andmoreorlessinterchangeably,sincetheveryearliestdays.Thefirstexhibitionofcomputerart,heldinStuttgartinFebruary1965,wascalled"GenerativeComputergraphik"(Nake2005).ItshowedtheworkofGeorgNees,whowrotethefirstPhDthesisoncomputerart,givingitthesametitleastheexhibition(Nees1969).Thatthesiswaswidelyconsultedbythesmallbutgrowingcommunity,soharnessingthewordsgenerativeandcomputertogetherinitsreaders'minds.Theirnear‐equivalencewasreinforcedinNovember1965,whenanexhibition(again,inStuttgart)includedbothNees'workandtheearlycomputergraphicsofFriederNake.Bothmenappliedtheterm"Generative"totheirownwork—andusedthiswordtoidentifyartthatwasproducedfromacomputerprogramand,hence,wasatleastinpartproducedautomatically.OtherswhowerepioneeringtheactivitiesoutsideMcCormack'sbubblealsoadoptedtheterm.Forexample,whenManfredMohrstartedproducingdrawingswithacomputerprogramin1968hetermedit"generativeart".AndthephilosopherMaxBense‐‐whohadcomposedthemanifestofortheoriginalStuttgartexhibitonof1965‐‐waswritingaboutwhathecalled"generativeaesthetics"(Nake1998).Today,thelabel"GenerativeArt"isstillcurrentwithintherelevantartisticcommunity.Since1998aseriesofconferenceshavebeenheldinMilanwiththattitle(Generativeart.com),andBrianEnohasbeeninfluentialinpromotingandusinggenerativeartmethods(Eno,1996).Theuseofthetermhasnowconvergedonworkthathasbeenproducedbytheactivationofasetofrules(determinedbytheartist)andwheretheartistletsacomputersystemtakeoveratleastsomeofthedecision‐making.WiththerecentappearanceofartusingmethodsdrawnfromA‐Life(forexamples,seeWhitelaw2004;Tofts2003;2005:80‐103;Popper2007:118‐129),thelabel"generativeart",asusedinthecommunityconcerned,hasacquiredbiologicalovertones.Inbiology,thekeywordiscommonindiscussionsofmorphologicaldevelopmentandgrowthinplantsandanimals,andinreferencestoreproduction.Oneorbothofthosemeaningsis/aresometimesexplicitlystressedbyself‐styledgenerativeartistswhoseworkfocussesonemergence,self‐organization,and/or

4

evolution.McCormackhimselfisonesuchexample(e.g.DorinandMcCormack2001;McCormacketal.2004).Evenso,theformal‐mathematicalsenseremainsacoreaspectofthelabel'smeaning.(Despitethecontinuingassimilationoftheterms"generative"and"computer"art,oneshouldn'tassumethattheseareexactlythesamething.Accordingtothetaxonomygivenbelow,notallgenerativeartinvolvescomputers.Tothecontrary,thegenerativeprocessesinvolvedvarywidelyintype‐‐someofwhichwerealreadyusedbyartistshundredsofyearsago:seeSectionIII.)Eveninthe1960s,however,alternativetagsforthisgeneralareawerealreadybeingoffered(and,asremarkedabove,morehavebeensuggestedsincethen).AninfluentialdiscussionbythearthistorianJackBurnham(1968),forinstance,identifiedthenewwork,overall,as"processart"‐‐alabelthat'sstillinusefiftyyearslater.SinceBurnham'sdiscussion,the"processes"involvedhavediversifiedhugely.Asaresult,andinadditiontoavarietyoflabelsfortheentireextra‐bubblefield,therearetodaymanynamesforsubfields.Thesemorediscriminatingcategoriesincludeinteractiveart,evolutionaryart,videoart,media(andnew‐mediaandmultimedia)art,holographicart,laserart,virtualart,cyborgart,roboticart,telerobotics,netart...andmore.Again,however,theextensionoftheselabels(thescopeofthevarioussubfields)isnotalwaysclear.It'spartlyforthatreasonthat"asatisfactorycriticalframeworkofnewformsinarttechnologyhasyettobedeveloped"(CandyandEdmonds2002:266).Thedistinctionsmadeinthispapershouldhelptowardssuchaframework.There'sacaveat,however.Thedefinitionsgivenhere(inSectionIII)‐‐forinstance,ofcomputerart,generativeart,evolutionaryart,roboticart,andinteractiveart‐‐usewordsthatarealreadybeingusedbytheartistsinquestion.Indeed,thisanalysismayhelpreaderstointerprettheseartists'discussionsoftheirownwork.Buttheaimisnottoofferareportofcommonusage:asremarkedabove,suchusageisnotconsistent.Rather,thisnewtaxonomyisintendedasatheoreticaltoolwithwhichtohighlightcertaindistinctionsthathaveaestheticand/orphilosophicalinterest.Aswe'llsee(inSectionIV),judgmentsconcerningcreativity,authorialresponsibility,agency,autonomy,authenticity,and(sometimes)ontologyareevenmoreproblematicoutsidethepreciousbubblethaninsideit.

5

III:ThetaxonomyThirteentypesofartaredistinguishedinthetaxonomygivenhere.TheyarecalledEle‐art,C‐art,D‐art,CA‐art,G‐art,CG‐art,Evo‐art,R‐art,N‐art,I‐art,CI‐art,VR‐art,andLC‐art.(Table1listssomeexamplesofartworksthatfallundertheseterms,whicharedefinedbelow.).Someoftheseactivities,havingbeenlocatedwithintheclassification,arethenignored.Inotherwords,therearecertaintypesofcomputerartwhichareidentifiedinthetaxonomybutnotfurtherdiscussedinthispaper‐‐nor,forthatmatter,elsewhereinthisbook.MostoftheattentionispaidtothevariousformsofCG‐art,becausetheseraisethemostinterestingphilosophicalissues.This"taxonomy"isadecidedlynon‐Linnaeanstructure.Foronething,thedefinitionsgivenbelow,likemostdefinitions,admitborderlinecases—andevenanomalouscounter‐examples.Andforanother,there'snoneatandtidyhierarchyofgenusandspecieswithinwhichthesethirteentypescanbelocated.Althoughtherearesomepart‐wholerelationshere,therearealsountidyoverlappings.Onetypeofoverlappingconcernslinkswithmoretraditional,orfamiliar,categoriesofart.Mostcasesofsuchartdonotfallunderthisnewclassificationatall.Butsomeoftheclassifierconcepts‐‐namely:G‐art,I‐art,Evo‐art,andR‐art‐‐coverartworksbothinsideandoutsideMcCormack's"preciousbubble".Admittedly,thosewhichlieinsidethebubblearerelativelymaverickexamples,aswe'llsee.Indeed,someofthem(producedbythe'conceptual'artists)werespecificallyintendedtounderminethecommonlyacceptednotionof"fineart"intermsofwhichthebubbleisdefined.InMcCormack'susage,however,allexamplesofnon‐computerartarelocatedinsidethebubble.AsummarylistoftherelevantdefinitionsisgivenattheendofthisSection.Meanwhile,theywillbeintroducedonebyone,withillustrativeexamplesofeachcategory.Letusstartwithelectronicart,orEle‐art.Thiswideconceptcovers(df.)anyartworkwhoseproductioninvolveselectricalengineeringand/orelectronictechnology.Soitrangesfromsimpleanaloguedevicesofthe1950sand1960ssuchasPask's"Musicolour"and"Colloquy"(Pask1971;Mallen2005)andEdwardIhnatowicz'skineticsculptureSAM(Zivanovic2005:103)‐‐allpioneeringexamplesofinteractiveart,orI‐art‐‐tothehighlysophisticatedman‐robotintegrationsrecentlyembodiedbytheperformanceartistStelarc(Smith2005).Andalongtheway,itcoversthewholeofcomputerartandmediaart,includingthoseexampleswhichexploittheadvancedcomputationaltechniquesofvirtualreality.Ele‐artdoesnotincludeartthat'sproducedonlybyhumansbutpublishedbyelectronicmeans.SoitexcludesJapan'sKeitainovels,forinstance.Thesearestoriespublishedonline,anddownloadedfrommobilephones.(Sometimes,theyareso

6

popular‐‐morethantwomillioncopiesmaybedownloadedinthefirstweek‐‐thattheyareveryquicklyboughtbytraditionalpublishers,tobeissuedinbookform.In2007,halfofJapan'stoptenfictionbestsellersoriginatedinthisway.)Bycontrast,someoftheManga‐artcomicsnowbeingpublishedformobilephonesdocountasEle‐art:namely,thosewhichinvolveanimatedgraphicsand/orinteractivity.Insomecases,thereisabuzzfromthephonewhenthereadercomestoatensemomentintheactiondepictedonthescreen.AKeitainovelcouldofcoursebeadornedwithsuchbuzzes,sowouldthencountasamarginalexampleofEle‐art‐‐only"marginal",becausethesebuzzesaremerelysuperficial,andtheirloss(ifthetextwerelaterpublishedinbook‐form)wouldalterthereader'sexperienceonlyminimally.Unlikemechanicalart,suchasLeonardodaVinci'smetallion(who"afterhehadawhilewalkedvpanddowne,stoodestillopeninghisbreast,whichwasallfullofLilliesandotherflowersofdiuerssortes"‐‐Marr2003:n.66),electronicartcouldnotappearuntilthemid‐twentiethcentury.But,asthepreviousparagraphimplies,thetechnologiesconcernedhavediversifiedrichlysincethen.Accordingly,thehighlyinclusivelabelEle‐artisnotveryinterestingforourpurposes.Surprisingly,perhaps,neitheristheconceptofcomputerart,orC‐art.ByC‐art,Imean(df.)artinwhoseproductiveprocesscomputersareinvolved.Thisconceptisaptforgeneralart‐historicalpurposes,becauseitcoverseveryexamplethatanyonemightwanttocallcomputerart‐‐includingmanythatarecommonlygivenotherlabels.It'slessusefulforushere,however,fortworeasons.First,itincludesanalogueaswellasdigitalcomputers.SomeoftheearliestC‐artworkcombineddigitalmethodswithspecially‐builtanaloguedevices.Ihnatowicz'giraffe‐likekineticsculptureSensterisacaseinpoint(Zivanovic2005;Mason2008:ch.5).Asforanaloguecomputersassuch,thesewereusedintheearlydays.Forexample,invisualartsbyBenLaposky'sworkofthe1950s(Laposky1969),andinthegrowthofelectronicmusicatthesametime,famouslyencouragedbytheinventionoftheMoogsynthesizer(PinchandTrocco2002).Today,afewcomputerartistssometimesemployanalogueprocesses,namelylectrochemicalreactionslikethosepioneeredbyPask.Someoftheirwork,includingPask‐inspired'sculptures'byRichardBrown(2001,2006)andAndyWebster(2006‐ongoing),featuredina2007Edinburghexhibitionon"GordonPaskandhisMaverickMachines".(Inaddition,avideoonthisthemecalled"TuningPask'sEar"hasbeenshowninseveralEuropeanartgalleries:WebsterandBird2002.)Butanaloguecomputersareanothermatter‐‐andareveryrarelyusedbyartiststoday.Becauseofthehugeflexibilitythatisaffordedbythegeneral‐purposenatureofdigitalcomputers,itisthosemachineswhichunderliemostC‐art.Indeed,tospeakofcomputerartistypicallytoassumethatdigitalcomputersarebeingused.Inotherwords,computerartis(usually)tacitlyclassedasdigitalart,orD‐art.D‐art(df.)usesdigitalelectronictechnologyofsomesort.Itincludesnotonlyartworksgeneratedbycomputersbutalsodigitallymanipulable(buthuman‐produced)music

7

andvideo.Commonusagesometimestreats"digitalart"and"computerart"asnear‐synonyms.Inthistaxonomy,however,theyareanalyticallydistinct‐‐withmost,butnotquiteall,C‐artbeingincludedwithinD‐art.(Iftheword"electronic"wereremovedfromourdefinition,thenineteenth‐centuryPointillisteswouldcountasD‐artists;fortheirpictureswerecomposednotofcontinuousbrush‐strokesorcolour‐washesbutofmyriadindividualspotsofpaint.)D‐artismorewide‐rangingthanmayappearatfirstsight.Forinstance,someC‐artistsusevisualsoftwarethatisintuitivelyanalogue,andsorelatively'natural'toworkwith.(Oneexampleiscontinuousvector‐mapping,usedinsteadofpixel‐editing:Leggett2000.)Buttheyarerelyingonmethods/hardwarethataredigitalatbase.Infact,mostpeoplewhosaidtodaythattheyareusingananaloguemethod(i.e.ananaloguevirtualmachine)wouldactuallybeworkingonadigitalcomputer,usedtosimulateananaloguecomputer.Similarly,most'neuralnetworks'orconnectionistsystems,whetherusedbycognitivescientistsorbycomputerartists,areactuallysimulatedonvonNeumannmachines.That'strue,forinstance,ofRichardBrown'sinteractiveMimeticStarfish,amillennialversionoftheSensterthatwaslaterexhibitedaroundtheworld,andwasdescribedbyTheTimesin2000as"thebestbitoftheentire[Millennium]dome".Thestarfishwasbuiltbyengineeringvisualimagery,notmetal:itisapurelyvirtualcreature(animageprojectedontoamarbletable),whichrespondsinextraordinarilylifelikewaystoavarietyofhumanmovements.Anditisgeneratedbyaself‐equilibratingconnectionistsystem,orneuralnetwork(programmed/builtbyIgorAlexander).Inshort,digitaltechnologyreachesfurtherthanonemightthink.ThesecondreasonwhythedefinitionofC‐artgivenaboveistoocatholicforourpurposesisthatitincludescaseswherethecomputerfunctionsmerelyasatoolundertheclosedirectionoftheartist,ratherlikeanextrapaintbrushorasharperchisel.Artistsintherelevantcommunitysometimesspeakofthisas"computer‐aided"or"computer‐assisted"art,contrastingitwithwhattheycall"computational"art‐‐wherethecomputerismoreofaparticipant,orpartner,intheart‐making(e.g.PaulBrown2003:1).Let'scallthisCA‐art,wherein(df.)thecomputerisusedasanaid(inprinciple,non‐essential)intheart‐makingprocess.Considervideoartandmusicvideos,forinstance.Thesepopularoutside‐the‐bubbleactivitiesqualifyasCA‐artinthissense.Forthehuman‐originatedimagesand/ormusicaredigitallystoredand(usually)manipulated/transformedbytheartist,usingthecomputerasatool.OthercasesofCA‐artincludesomeone'sdoingalinedrawingbyhandonthecomputerscreen,andthencallingonacolouringprogramsuchasPhotoShoptoproduceaLimitedEditionofidenticalprints‐‐or,forthatmatter,auniqueimage.Thisisanupmarketformofpainting‐by‐numbers,whereinthehuesforeachareaarechosenbytheindividualartist.Yetotherexamplesincludevisualcollagescomposedfromimage‐libraries,andcomputermusicthat'ssocalledbecauseituseselectronicsynthesizersand'virtual'instruments.

8

Inpractice,thecomputer"aid"maybenecessaryfortheart‐making.It'simpossible,forinstance,toaltervideo‐imagesincertainwaysexceptbyusingacomputer.Similarly,somevisualeffectsdeliveredbyPhotoshopcouldnothavebeenproducedbyusingoils,water‐colours,orgouache.(TherenownedartistDavidHockneyhasrecentlydescribedPhotoshopas"afantasticmedium"accordingly:Hockney2009.)Andsynthesizedcomputermusicexploitssoundsthathadneverbeenheardbeforesynthesizersweredeveloped.Nevertheless,thecomputerisnotessentialinprinciple.Therelevantvisual/soniceffectsarespecificallysoughtbythehumanartist,andmightconceivablyhavebeenproducedinsomeotherway.Muchasaspecieswithiron‐hardfingernailswouldnotneedchisels,soourvocalcords(orwood,metal,orcats'sinews...)mighthavebeenabletoproducethesoundsproducedbysynthesizers.Thesub‐classofC‐artthat'sofinterestinthepresentcontextisthetypewherethecomputerisnotusedasatooltoeffectsomepre‐existingideaintheartist'smind,butisinasense(justwhatsensewillbeexploredinSectionIV)partlyresponsibleforcomingupwiththeideaitself.Inotherwords,theC‐artthat'smostrelevanthereisaformofgenerativeart,orG‐art.InG‐art,(df.)theartworkisgenerated,atleastinpart,bysomeprocessthatisnotundertheartist'sdirectcontrol.Thisisaverybroaddefinition.Itdoesnotspecifytheminimalsizeofthe"part".Itdoesnotlaydownjustwhatsortofgenerativeprocessisinquestion.Itdoesnotsaywhatcountsasbeingoutsidetheartist'sdirectcontrol.Anditissilentontheextent(ifany)towhichtheprocessesconcernedmayhavebeendeliberatelymouldedbytheartistbefore'losing'directcontrol.Inshort,thisdefinitionofG‐artislargelyintuitive.Ingeneral,itpicksoutcasesofart‐makinginwhichpersonalcontrolisdeliberatelydiminished,orevenwhollyrelinquished,andrelativelyimpersonalprocessestakeover.Thoseimpersonalprocessesvarygreatly.Theymaybephysical,psychological,sociocultural,biological,orabstract(formal).Andifabstract,theymayormaynotbeimplementedinacomputer.Forexample,inthedice‐musicwrittenbyHaydnandMozarttheexactorderofthepre‐composedphraseswasdecidedbythrowingadie.Althoughahumanthrewthedievoluntarily,he/shecouldnotinfluence,stilllessdetermine,justhowitfell.Thatwasduetopurelyphysicalforces.Suchforcesalsoinfluencedsomevisualgenerativeartthatpre‐datedcomputers.OneclearexampleisKennethMartin,whose1949abstractpaintingusedbasicgeometricalfigures(squares,circles,diagrams)andrulesofproportion(Martin1951/1954).Later,his"ChanceandOrder"and"Chance,Order,Change"seriescombinedrule‐drivengenerationwithrandomchoice.AlthoughthebasicformswerelaiddownbytherulesthatMartinhaddeliberatelydevised,chancephysicalevents‐‐suchaspickinganumberoutofahat‐‐determinedtheactualcourseofthework.

9

Asforgenerativeliterature,thistoomayinvolvechanceeventsdependentonphysicalprocesses.ThevariousversionsofBryanJohnson's(1969)novelTheUnfortunatesareproducedinthisway.Thenovelwaspublishedas27separatesectionsinabox:allbutthefirstandlastweretobereadinarandomorder,decidedbyshufflingordice‐throwing.Manyotherexamplesofinteractivestories,part'narrated'bythe'reader',havebeenproducedsincethen(Montfort2003).Mostofthesedependnotonphysicalprocessesbutondeliberatevoluntarychoicesbythereader‐author;however,somearepart‐generatedbydice‐throwingandthelike.Arguably,G‐artproducedbyphysicalforcescanbefoundinsideMcCormack'sbubble,too.Giventhephrase(inthedefinitionabove)"atleastinpart",onemightsaythatJacksonPollock'spaintingsexemplifiedG‐artgroundedinphysics.Foralthoughhecertainlywasnotthrowing(stillless,choosing)paintatrandom,hedidnothavedirectcontrolovertheindividualsplashes‐‐ashewouldhavedoneovermarksmadewithapaintbrush.Evenmorecontrolwaslost,orratherdeliberatelysacrificed,whenHansHaacke,inthe1960s,begantoexploit‐‐andeventohighlight‐‐thephysicalbehaviourofwater/vapour/ice,ofwaves,andofweatherconditions.Hewantedtomake"somethingwhichexperiences,reactstoitsenvironment,changes,isnonstable...,alwayslooksdifferent,theshapeofwhichcannotbepredictedprecisely..."(Lippard1973:38,64f.).Hesawtheseworksnotasartobjectsbutas“'systems'ofinterdependentprocesses"‐‐whichevolvewithouttheviewer'sinteractionor"empathy",sothattheviewerisamere"witness".Afewyearslater,JanDibbetsplacedeightysticksinthesea,afewinchesbelowthesurface,andwatchedthemoscillateinthewaterfromfiftyfeetabove:"That",hesaid,"wasthework"(Lippard1973:59).TheSurrealistsofthe1920s,bycontrast,hadexploitedpsychologicalprocesses‐‐buttheirworkcountsasG‐artsincethesewereofarelativelyimpersonalkind.InspiredbyFreud,theyengagedinautomaticwritingandpaintedwhileintrancestates,inordertoprioritizetheunconsciousmind‐‐whichAndreBretondeclaredtobe"byfarthemostimportantpart[ofourmentalworld]".Indeed,SurrealismwasdefinedbyBretonas:"Purepsychicautomatism[sic]bywhichoneproposestoexpress...theactualfunctioningofthought,intheabsenceofanycontrolexertedbyreason,exemptfromallaestheticormoralpreoccupations"(Breton1969).Theunconsciousthoughtwastakingplaceinaperson'smind,tobesure,butvoluntarychoiceandpersonal"preoccupations"(i.e.therealityprincipleandego‐ideals)werenotdirectingit.Morerecently,theconceptualartistSolLeWittwasalsorecommendingG‐artwhenhesaidthatartshouldbedesignedbysomeformulaicrule.Thecrucialidea,hesaid,"becomesamachinethatmakestheart,"where"alloftheplanninganddecisionsaremadebeforehandandtheexecutionisaperfunctoryaffair"(1967:824).Oncetheplanhasbeenchosen,"Theartist'swillissecondarytothe[artmaking]processheinitiatesfromideatocompletion"(1969:item7;italicsadded).Heevenaddedthat"Hiswilfulnessmayonlybeego".Thatartmakingprocesswasneverthelesspsychological,

10

inthesensethattheimplicationsofhisabstractruleswerediscoverednotbycomputersbutbyconsciousreasoning.Socioculturalprocesses‐‐intheformoftheUnitedStatespostalsystem‐‐producedDouglasHuebler'sartworkcalled"42ndParallel".Here,itemswerepostedfrom14differenttownsspanning3,040milesonlatitude42,allsenttotheMassachusettstownofTruro.Thework,accordingtoHuebler,wasnottheconceptioninhismind,northeposteditems,noreventheactsofposting.Rather,itwasthewidespreadpatternofactivitywithintheUSpostalsystem.But,hesaid,theworkwas"broughtintoitscompleteexistence"throughdocuments:thecertifiedpostalreceipts(forsenderandforreceiver),andamapmarkedwithinktoshowthegeographicalrelationsbetweenthe15towns.ItsnatureasG‐artisevidentinhisremarks"Aninevitabledestinyissetinmotionbythespecificprocessselectedtoformsuchawork,freeingitfromfurtherdecisionsonmypart",and"IliketheideathatevenasIeat,sleep,orplay,theworkismovingtowardsitscompletion"(quotedinLippard1973:62).TheartistHubertDupratturnedtobiologyforconstructingtheworkofart.Heputdragonflylarvaeintoanaquariumcontainingnotpebblesandpondweedbuttinyflakesofgold,plusafewsmallpearls,opals,andsapphires‐‐andleftthemto"sculpt"opulentlittleprotectivecases,heldtogetherbycaddis‐silk(DupratandBesson1998).Somethirtyyearsearlier,Haacketoohadturnedtobiology.Heexperimentedwiththegrowthofgrassandthehatchingofchickens(aswellaswithwaterandweather),tomakesomething"Natural",which"livesintimeandmakesthe'spectator'experiencetime"(Lippard1973:38).Mavericksthoughtheywere,bothDupratandHaackewereworkinginsideMcCormack'sbubble.Othershaveevenexploitedphysicalandbiologicalde‐generationtoproducetheirG‐art.TheenvironmentalsculptorAndyGoldsworthysometimeshighlightseffectscausedbyundirectedphysicalchange:inhisgraduallymeltingice‐sculptures,forexample.AndinGustavMetzger's"auto‐destructive"art(notoriousfortheoccasiononwhichanovernightgallerycleanerinnocentlythrewMetzger'sbagofrottingrubbishintothedustbin),thepointoftheexerciseistoremindusofthedeteriorationthatawaitsallhumanconstructions‐‐andhumanbeings,too(Metzger1959,1965).Hewasthinkingnotonlyofbiologicaldecay,butalsooftheterribledestructivepoweroftheColdWararmsrace.Theartworkisusuallyassembledbyahumanartist(orsometimes,Metzgersaid,bymachinesinafactory).Butitattainsitsfinalform,anditssignificance,throughthenaturalprocessesofdamageanddecay.However,suchinside‐the‐bubble(albeitunorthodox)casesarenotwhatthenewartistsnormallyhaveinmindwhentheyreferto"generativeart".Theirphraseologyisborrowedfrommathematicsandcomputerscience,withwhichthemaverickartistsjustnamedwerenotconcerned.Thesedisciplinesseegenerativesystemsassetsofabstractrulesthatcanproduceindefinitelymanystructures/formulaeofagiventype,andwhich‐‐giventheChurch‐Turingthesis(Boden2006:4.i.c)—caninprinciplebe

11

implementedinacomputer.TheGA‐communityoutsidethebubbleputthisprincipleintopractice.Thatis,theirartmakingrestsonprocessesgeneratedbyformalrulescarriedoutbycomputers‐‐asopposedtophysical,biological,orpsychologicalprocesses,orabstractionspersonallydiscoveredbyconsciousthought.Inotherwords,theinstancesofG‐artwhichmostconcernusherearethosewhicharealsoinstancesofC‐art.Theyarecomputer‐generatedart:CG‐art,forshort.AverystrictdefinitionofCG‐artwouldinsistthat(df.)theartworkresultsfromsomecomputerprogrambeinglefttorunbyitself,withzerointerferencefromthehumanartist.Theartist(oramorecomputer‐literatecollaborator)writestheprogram,butdoesnotinteractwithitduringitsexecution.Ineffect,he/shecangooutforlunchwhiletheprogramislefttodoitsownthing.Suchcasesdoexist.Cohen'sAARONprogram(seebelow)isonewell‐knownexample.Nevertheless,thatdefinitionissostrictthatitmaybehighlymisleading.Mostpeopleworkingin,orcommentingon,generativeartallowa"compromise"inthecoreconcept,soastoincludeinteractiveart(definedbelow).Thatissuchaprominentsubclassofwhat'scalledgenerativeartthat,eventhoughthetaxonomygivenheredoesnotaimtocapturecommonusage,itwouldbehighlyanomaloustoexcludeit.Tobesure,thedefinitionofCG‐artgivenabovedoescovermostinteractiveart,becauseitinsistsonzerointerferencefrom"thehumanartist",ratherthanfrom"anyhumanbeing,whetherartistoraudience".However,itwouldbeveryeasyforreaderstoelidethatdistinction‐‐which,inanycase,makesaquestionableassumptionaboutauthorialresponsibility(seeSectionIV).Moreover,theoverlystrictdefinitionofCG‐artexcludesthosecases(whetherinsidethebubbleoroutsideit)whereinartistsrelyontheirintuitivejudgmenttomakeselectionsduringanartwork'sevolution.It'spreferable,therefore,todefineCG‐artlesstidily,asartwherein(df.)theartworkresultsfromsomecomputerprogrambeinglefttorunbyitself,withminimalorzerointerferencefromahumanbeing.Theword"minimal",ofcourse,isopentointerpretation.Itnecessitatescarefulattentiontojustwhatinterferencegoeson,andbywhom,inanyparticularcase.Mostofwhatpeoplecall"computerart"isCG‐art,inthissense.Indeed,thephrases"computerart"and"generativeart"areoftenregardedassynonyms.Notice,however,thatinourterminologynotallC‐artisCG‐art.CA‐artisnot,becausethecomputeristhereusedasatoolsubjecttotheartist'shands‐oncontrol‐‐andisofnomorephilosophicalinterestthanapaintbrushorachisel.Admittedly,thedistinctionbetweenCA‐artandCG‐artisnotalwayssoclearcutasintheCA‐examplesmentionedabove.Forinstance,aprogramforsimulatingvariouspaintingmaterialsandstylescanberuneithermoreorlessautonomously(Coltonetal.2008;Colton2012).More,anditcountsasCG‐art;less,andit'sbetterseenasCA‐

12

art‐‐althoughevenso,itreliesheavilyonCG‐processes.Ingeneral,CA‐artmayinvolveAI"agents":programscalledonbythehumanartisttoaidhim/herinspecificwaysduringtheproductionofanartwork(Boden1994,2006:13.iii.d).Themorethattheongoingdirectionisassumedbythecomputerisedagents,notbythehumanbeing,theclosertheprojectistoCG‐art.)CG‐artisintriguingontwocounts.First,thegeneralityandpotentialcomplexityofcomputerprogramsmeansthatthepossiblespaceofCG‐artworksishuge,indeedinfinite.Moreover,mostofthestructuresinthatspacewillbeimages/musicwhichtheunaidedhumanmindcouldnothavegenerated,orevenimagined‐‐astheartiststhemselvesadmit.(CG‐literaturecanbeignoredhere:unlessitisheavilyinteractive,itismuchlesssuccessful,becausetherelevantknowledgeoflanguageandoftheworldistoorichtobeimplementedincomputers.)Ascepticmightobjectthatmuchthesameistrueofatrumpet,oracello:noteventhemostskilledstage‐impressionistscouldmimictheseinstrumentsplausibly.Inshort,humanartistsoftenneedhelpfrommachines.Trumpets,computers...what'sthedifference?Well,oneimportantdifferencehasjustbeenmentioned,namely,thegeneralityofdigitalcomputers.Inprinciple,thesemachinescan(anddo)offerusanentiresymphonyorchestra,andaninfinitesetofvisualimagesandsculpturalforms‐‐indeed,aninfiniterangeofvirtualworlds.McCormack(2003:7)goessofarastocomparethisinfinitespaceofpossibilities,waybeyondourcomprehension,withtheKantiansublime.Thesecondpointisevenmorepertinent.Whereasthere'snointerestingsenseinwhichatrumpet,oracello,canbe"lefttodoitsownthing",acomputercertainlycan.AnditispartofthedefinitionofCG‐artthatthishappens.Aswe'llseeinSectionIV,thisaspectofCG‐artraisessometrickyproblemsconcerningconceptssuchasautonomy,agency,creativity,authenticity,andauthorialresponsibility.Especiallywell‐knowncasesofCG‐artarethesuccessiveversionsofAARON.Thisisadrawing‐and‐colouringprogramdevelopedoverthelastfortyyearsbytheone‐timeabstractpainterCohen(1995,2002,2007),andexhibitedatvenuesallaroundtheworld‐‐includingtheTateGallery.Ithasshownclearprogressionalongvariousaestheticdimensions.Indeed,Cohen(p.c.)describesthe2006versionasa"world‐class"colourist,whereashehimselfismerelya"first‐rate"colourist:"Iwouldn'thavehadthecouragetousethosecolours",hesometimessays.(Atearlierstages,colouring‐AARONmixedliquiddyesandused'paintingblocks'offivedifferentsizestoplacethemonpaper;alaterversionprintedoutcomputer‐generatedcoloursinsteadofusingliquids,butthesecolourstoowere'mixed'attheprogram'sbehest.AndthecurrentimplementationofAARONshowsthedevelopmentoftheimagesinrealtime,projectedontoanelectronicscreen.)AnalmostequallyfamousexampleisEmmy,acomputer‐musiciandevelopedovermuchthesameperiodbythecomposerDavidCope(2001,2006).Thisgeneratesmusicinthestylesofmanyrenownedcomposers,andveryconvincingly,too‐‐see

13

Hofstadter2001:38f.(Nevertheless,Copehasrecentlyabandonedit,becauseoftheprejudicedreactionsofaudiences:seeSectionIV.)BothofthoseprogramswerebasedonmethodsdrawnfromwhatthephilosopherJohnHaugeland(1985)dubbedGOFAI,orGoodOld‐FashionedAI(seeBoden2006:chs.10and13).However,thematureEmmyalsousesconnectionistAI(Boden2006:ch.12).MorerecentmethodsforconstructingCG‐artworks,asremarkedinSectionII,includecellularautomata,L‐systems,andevolutionaryprogramming‐‐allwidelyusedinA‐Liferesearch(Boden2006:ch.15).Cellularautomataaresystemsmadeupofmanycomputationalunits,eachfollowingasmallset(usually,thesameset)ofsimplerules.Insuchsystems,surprisingpatternscanemergefromthesimple,anodyne,base.Furthervariationsensueifanother'level'ofrulesisaddedtothesystem.ExamplesinCG‐artincludethetesselatedvisualconstructswithinPaulBrown's"Sandlines"and"InfinitePermutations",andotherworksbyPaulBrown(Whitelaw2004:148‐153;Tofts2005:85f.;www.paul‐brown.com).L‐systemsareautomaticallybranchingstructures,usedbybotaniststostudyplantformandphysiology(Lindenmayer1968;PrusinkiewiczandLindenmayer1990;Prusinkiewicz2004).InthehandsofCG‐artists,theyhaveled(forinstance)toMcCormack's"Turbulence"installation(McCormack2004;Tofts2005:80ff.).Thisgeneratesimagesofun‐naturalyetlifelikevegetationgrowinginfrontofone'seyes‐‐andinresponsetoone'sactions(thusqualifyingasinteractiveart).Anotherexampleistheuseofa"swarmgrammar"basedonL‐systemstogeneratestructuresin(simulated)3D‐space,comparabletothedecentralisedyetorganizedconstructionsofsocialinsectssuchastermites(JacobandvonMammen2007).Asforevolutionaryprogramming,thishasgivenrisetoanimportantsub‐classofCG‐art:evolutionaryart,orEvo‐art.ExamplesincludeKarlSims'"GeneticImages"and"Galapogos"(Sims1991,2007),plusmanyothers(Whitelaw2004:ch.2).InEvo‐art,theartworkisnotproducedbyacomputerprogramthathasremainedunchangedsincebeingwrittenbytheartist.Rather,theartworkis(df.)evolvedbyprocessesofrandomvariationandselectivereproductionthataffecttheart‐generatingprogramitself.Evo‐artreliesonprogramsthatincludeself‐modifyingprocessescalledgeneticalgorithms.Tobegin,a'population'ofnear‐identicalartworks‐‐or,tobemoreprecise,themini‐programsthatgeneratethem‐‐isproducedbythecomputer.Therecanbeanynumber:9,or16,orevenmore.Inaestheticterms,thesefirst‐generationartworksareboringatbestandchaoticatworst.Next,eachofthesefirst‐generationprogramsisaltered('mutated')inoneormoreways,atrandom.Usually,thealterationsareveryslight.Now,someselectiveprocedure‐‐the'fitnessfunction'(decidedbytheartist/programmer)—isappliedtochoosethemostpromisingcandidate/sforbreedingthenextgeneration.Andthisprocessgoesonrepeatedly,perhapsforhundredsofgenerations.Providedthatthemutationsallowedarenottoo

14

fundamental(seeSectionIV),whatensuesisagradualevolutionaryprogresstowardsthetypeofstructurefavouredbytheartist.Occasionally,thefitnessfunctionisfullyautomatic,beingappliedbythecomputeritself.(Ifso,theremaybescores,orevenhundreds,of'siblings'inagivengeneration.)Thisisaprimeexampleofthecomputer'sbeing"lefttodoitsownthing".Moreusually,theselectionisdonehands‐onbytheartist‐‐orbysomeotherhumanbeing:agallery‐visitor,forinstance‐‐usingintuitive,andoftenunverbalised,criteria.(Insuchcases,thepopulation‐sizerarelyrisesabove16,becausepeoplecannot'takein'morethanalimitednumberofpatternsatonce.)Inotherwords,andforreasonstouchedoninSectionIV,thereisusuallynoprogrammedfitnessfunction.Insuchcases,theEvo‐artalsocountsasinteractiveart,orI‐art(seebelow).OnemightarguethatthesuggesteddefinitionofEvo‐artisfaulty,onthegroundsthatevolutionaryartneednotinvolveacomputer.It'scertainlytruethattheveryearliestG‐artworksofthesculptorWilliamLatham,wholaterbecamefamousasacomputerartist,weredrawingsgeneratedbyrepeateddice‐throwingandhand‐sketching.Atthattime,hehadnoideathatcomputersmightbeabletodothejobforhim‐‐anddoitbetter(ToddandLatham1992).Butthatishighlyunusual:virtuallyallartthat'sproducedbyaniterativeprocessofrandomvariationplusselectioniscomputer‐based.Indeed,theremaybenonon‐computerizedexamplesbesidesearly‐Latham.(SomeonemightsuggestClaudeMonet'swater‐lilyseries:butalthoughtheseshowedgradualimprovementbywayofsmallchanges,thosechangeswerefarfromrandom.)EvenRichardDawkins'simple"Biomorphs",whichwerehugelyseminalforEvo‐artists,werecomputer‐generated(Dawkins1986:55‐74).ItisthereforeacceptabletodefineEvo‐artasasub‐classofCG‐art,eventhoughthisexcludestheearly‐Lathamefforts.Anothersub‐classofCG‐artisrobotart,orR‐art.ByR‐art,ismeant(df.)theconstructionofrobotsforartisticpurposes,whererobotsarephysicalmachinescapableofautonomousmovementand/orcommunication.This(happily!)isnottheplaceforattemptingtodefine"artisticpurposes".Asfor"autonomous",thewordmaybeunderstoodintuitivelyhere.Atsomepoint,however,itshouldbeconsideredcarefully‐‐notleast,becausetheconceptofautonomyiscloselyconnectedalsowithagencyandcreativity(seeSectionIV).(ThisdefinitioncoversallcasesofC‐artwhereinrobotsareinvolved.However,robotsmaybeconstructed"forartisticpurposes"wherethefocusofaestheticinterestisnot‐‐asisusual‐‐ontherobotsthemselves,butondrawingsdonebythem:see(Boden2010b).Anarrowerdefinition,thatexcludessuchmaverickcases,wouldbe:R‐artis(df.)theconstructionofrobotsregardedasobjectsofaestheticinterest,whererobotsarephysicalmachinescapableofautonomousmovementand/orcommunication.)Clearly,notallR‐artisEle‐art.Indeed,R‐artcoversexamplesbuiltmanycenturiesago.Afewoftheseancientmachinescouldmoveasawholefromoneplaceto

15

another‐‐suchasLeonardo'smechanicallionthat"walkedvpanddowne"theroom,orDaedalus'mercury‐filledVenuswhich(accordingtoAristotle'sDeAnima)hadtobetetheredtopreventitfromrunningaway.Most,however,couldmoveonlytheirbody‐parts‐‐likethemovingstatuesofnymphsandsatyrsinthegrottofountainsatSt.Germain,whichenthusedReneDescartesasayoungman(Boden2006:2.ii.d),orJacquesdeVaucanson'smechanicalflute‐player(Boden2006:2.iv).ElectronicR‐artishighlyvaried(Whitelaw2004:ch.4).ItincludesIhnatowicz'seerilyhypnoticSenster,Stelarc'sthought‐provokingman‐robothybrids,andKenGoldberg'searly‐1990sTeleGarden‐‐whereinlivingplantsarewateredbyarobotthatiscontrolledbyEverymanviatheInternet.(Foranarchiveofphotosandvideos,seewww.telegarden.org/tg/;seealsoPopper2007:379‐393).TheTelegardenwasanearlyexampleofnetart,orN‐art,inwhich(df.)theartworkisgeneratedontheInternet,bymultiplehumaninteractionswiththecomputer‐‐andindirectlywitheachother.SoanN‐artworkisnotjustacomputer‐generatedartworkthathappenstobeputontotheWebbyitshumanartist‐‐notevenifitcanthenbemodifiedbyotherpeople.Rather,itisoneforwhoseveryexistencetheInternetisanessentialcondition.AsThorMagnussonhasputit(p.c.),theimmaterialpropertyofinterconnectednessisalmostanartisticmaterial,likeclay.Artworkthatwascomparable,tosomeextent,existedfortyyearsago(Edmonds1975).In1971,Edmondsexhibited"CommunicationsGame",anelectro‐mechanicalsystemofswitchesandlightscontrolledbysixpeoplesittingatindividualstationslinkedbywiresintothree"networks".Andin1972,heexhibited"Rover",arotatingspheredriven,andpartlylit,bythreepeopleoperatingjoysticks.Theaimwastoenableanexperienceofcommunicationandcooperationtoarise,despitetheabsenceofanydirectcommunicationbetweenparticipants.Theseexamplesdon'tfitourdefinitionofN‐art,however.Sincenocomputerwasinvolved,theyweren'tevencasesofC‐art.Moreover,theInternetwasn'tinvolvedeither‐‐sothe"multiple"humanparticipantswereatinynumberascomparedwiththenumbersinvolvedinN‐arttoday(seebelow).Butonemightcallthemearlyprototypes,oranywayprecursors.Indeed,Edmondshadalsoexperimentedwithafewmoreparticipantsandnetworks(unsuccessfully:peoplewereoverwhelmedbythelargernumberofsignals);andhealreadyhadinmindthepossibilityofARPAnetconnectionsallowingforremote,andmuchmorenumerous,interactions.Tenyearslater,Ascottconceivedawork(LaPlissureduTexte)thatusedtheARTEXcomputernetworkasthebasisforthecreationofaworld‐widedistributednarrative,or"collectiveglobalfairytale"(Ascott1983).Theparticipants(orsmallparticipant‐groups)wereeachresponsibleforimprovisingtheactionsofadifferentcharacterinthestory:witch,princess,beast,wiseoldman,andsoon.Theyweredrawnfromelevencitiesaroundtheworld,andthesystemwascontinuouslyonlinefortwelvedaysattheMuseed'ArtModerne'sELECTRA1983exhibitioninParis.(Theversionsatdifferentlocationsactuallyvary,thoughtheyshouldbeidentical;foraTorontoversion,see<www.normill.ca/Text/plissure.txt>.)

16

ThiswasmuchnearertoN‐artthanEdmonds'1970sexampleshadbeen.ButtrueN‐art‐‐generatedbytheinteractionsbetweenhundredsoreventhousandsofpeople‐‐issignificantlydifferentagain.Theword"multiple"inthedefinition(above)needstobeinterpretedgenerously.AlthoughN‐artworksaresometimesconfinedtoarelativelysmalland/orclosedgroup,thegeneralspiritoftheN‐artenterpriseencouragesnotonlyextensiveinterconnectionbutalsonear‐unlimitedopenness.ThepioneeringTelegardenremainsunusual,foronlyrelativelyfewexamplesofN‐artinvolverobotics.MostN‐artisliterary,visual,ormusical(Bolter1991;Becker1995;Ascott2003;Greene2004).TherarityofroboticN‐artishardlysurprising,sincearoboticinstallationwillrequireconstanton‐the‐spotmonitoring‐‐ifonlytoreceivethefriendlyattentionsofanoil‐can.Goldberg'sgarden,forinstance,waskeptinoperationandexhibitionfornearlyadecadebyateambasedinAustria'sArsElectronicamuseum(www.ieor.berkeley.edu/~goldberg/garden/Ars/).Whetheritshouldreallybecalled"Goldberg'sgarden"isofcoursedebatable(seeSectionIV).Tobesure,itwashisideainthefirstplace.ButaswithallN‐art(bydefinition),itsdetailednatureatanytimehasdependedontheindividualchoicesofmanyotherhumanbeings.And"many",here,reallydoesmeanmany.Thenumberofparticipants/artistsinvolvedintheTelegardenhadalreadyreached9,000bytheendofitsfirstyearonline,andhasmushroomedmassivelysincethen.Hugenumbersapplyalsotosomeofthenon‐roboticexamples.Theliteraryinstances‐‐ofwhichAscott'sglobalfairy‐talewasaforerunner—aremulti‐authoredhypertexts.Theyincludenarrativescomposedbymanyhundredsofparticipants,offshootsofgame‐playingMUDsandMOOs(Montfort2003).TheirpossibilitywasglimpsedlongagobyVannevarBush,whoseprescient"AsWeMayThink"(1945),originallywrittenasearlyas1937,foresawnotonlyhypertextbutsearch‐enginessuchasGoogle,too(Bolter1991;Boden2006:10.i.h).InthecasesofR‐artmentionedabove,onlyonerobotisinvolved.Sometimes,however,groupsofinteracting("distributed")robotsareconstructed.Usually,suchgroupsemploythetechniquesofsituatedrobotics,whereinthemachinesresponddirectlytospecificenvironmentalcues‐‐here,Includingthebehaviourofotherrobots(Boden2006:13.iii.bandiii.d).Occasionally,theyexploitself‐organizingtechniqueswherebythesystemgraduallyreachesanequilibriumstate.(Futuristicthoughtheymayseem,boththesemethodologieswerefirstusedbymid‐centurycyberneticians:GreyWalterandRossAshby,respectively—Boden2006:4.viii.)OneexampleofthelattertypeisJaneProphet'sNetWorkinstallation(Bird,d'Inverno,andProphet2007).Onemightthinkofthisasahi‐techversionofDibbets'oscillatingsticks.Butinsteadofeighty'isolated'sticks,placedbelowthesurfaceofthesea,NetWorkconsistsof2500floating,andintercommunicating,buoys‐‐eachofwhichiscolour‐emittingandwave‐sensitive.(Moreaccurately,itwillconsistin2500suchbuoys:ithasbeentestedina3X3miniatureontheThames,butisplannedtosurroundthepieratHerneBay.)

17

Suchmutuallyinteractingrobot‐groupsdonotcountasinteractiveartonthedefinition(ofI‐art)givenbelow,unlesstheyarealsocapableofinteractingwiththehumanaudience.NetWorkdoeshavethatcapability:theaudiencecanaffectitbyshiningtorchlightonthebuoys,orbyremotecontrolovertheInternet.Otherexamplesofinteractive(andinteracting)robot‐groupsincludeKennethRinaldo'sworksinwhathecallseco‐technology.HisR‐art(andI‐art)installationcalled"TheFlock"comprisesthreewire‐and‐vinerobotic'arms'suspendedfromtheceiling,whichinteractwitheachotherandwiththemoving/speakinghumanaudience.Similarly,his"Autopoiesis"hasfifteenrobotwire‐frame'arms'distributedaroundtheroom,whichsensetheobserver'smovementsandcommunicatewitheachothersoastocoordinatetheirbehaviourinvariousways.Thisbringsustothetenthcategory:interactiveart.Inthisgenre,thehumanaudienceisnotapassiveobserverbutanactiveparticipant.Audiencesareneverwhollypassive,ofcourse,sinceart‐appreciationinvolvesactivepsychologicalprocesses.Indeed,Duchamp(1957)wentsofarastosay:"Thecreativeactisnotperformedbytheartistalone;thespectatorbringstheworkincontactwiththeexternalworldbydecipheringandinterpretingitsinnerqualificationandthusaddshiscontributiontothecreativeact".EvenforDuchamp,however,thespectator'scontributionconcernsonlythework's"inner"qualification(itsrole,hesaid,is"todetermine[its]weightontheaestheticscale").Thework'sperceptiblenature‐‐or,manywouldsay,theartworkitself‐‐doesnotchangeasaresult.Ininteractiveart,bycontrast,itdoes.InI‐art,then,(df.)theform/contentoftheartworkissignificantlyaffectedbythebehaviouroftheaudience.AndinCI‐art(i.e.thecomputer‐basedvarieties),(df.)theform/contentofsomeCG‐artworkissignificantlyaffectedbythebehaviouroftheaudience.Again,Iamspeakingintuitivelyhere:worriesaboutjustwhatcountsas"theartwork"arelefttothenextSection.Theword"significantly"isneeded,eventhoughitisahostagetointerpretativefortune,soastoexcludeperformanceart‐‐forperformanceisusuallysubtlyaffectedbyaudiencereception.Asfortheword"behaviour",thismustbeinterpretedwithgenerosity.InCI‐artitcoversvoluntaryactions(suchaswaving,walking,touchingthecomputerscreen,andchoosingaplot‐linewithinastory),largelyautomaticyetcontrollableactions(suchasthedirectionofeye‐gaze),andinvoluntarybodilymovements(suchasbreathing).Itevenincludesarcanephysicalfactorssuchastheradiationofbody‐heat.(Occasionally,the'interaction'involvesnottheaudiencebutthephysicalenvironment:aspectsoftheweather,forexample,orwavemovements.Someinstallationsincitysquaresrespondtotheambienttemperatureandrainfall,agentledrizzlecausingchangesdifferentfromthoseseeninadownpour;othersfocusonthechangingpatternscausedbywavesonthesea.Strictlyspeaking,suchcasesfalloutsideCI‐artasitisdefinedhere,unless‐‐whichisusuallythecase—theyalsoinvolveinteractionwiththehumanaudience.)

18

CI‐artisgenerativeartbydefinition.Butitisnot"generative"inourstrictestsense(above),asAARONis.Foralthoughtheartistcangotolunchandleavetheprogramtodoitsownthing,theaudiencecannot.However,itqualifiesasCG‐artinthebroadersense,sincetheartisthashandedovercontrolofthefinalformoftheartworktothecomputer,ininteractionwithsomeotherhumanbeing.Thedegreeofcontrolattributabletotheaudiencevaries:theymaynotrealisethattheyareaffectingtheartwork,nor(iftheydo)justwhatbehaviourleadstojustwhichchanges.We'llseelaterthatthisvariabilityisanimportantdimensionintheaestheticsofCI‐art.I‐artisnotanentirelyrecentphenomenon:rememberHaydn'sdice‐music,forinstance.Butitbecameprominentinthemid‐twentiethcentury.(Thiswasoftenjustifiedinpoliticalterms:I‐artwasseenasofferingvaluablehuman‐humancommunication,insocietieswherethesenseofcommunityhadbeendiluted‐‐Bishop2006.)ItwasmadepossiblelargelybycyberneticianssuchasPaskapplyingtheirtheoryofcommunicativefeedbacktoart,andbythenewelectronictechnologydevelopedinWorldWarII.That'snottosaythatalltheseI‐arteffortswereexamplesofEle‐art.Manyartists,indeed,eschewedsuchtechnologyfor(counter‐cultural)ideologicalreasons:itwastoostronglylinkedwiththemilitary‐industrialcomplex.EvenAscott'sfirstI‐arthadnaryanelectroninsight:itconsistedofcanvaseswithitems/imagesonthemthatcouldbecontinuallymovedaroundbyhand,sothatthevieweroftheresultingcollageswastheirmakertoo(Mason2008:54‐58).SAMandtheSensterwereearlyexamplesofI‐artthatdiduseelectronics.But,aswehaveseen,theydidnotinvolvecomputers.Today'sI‐art,however,isoverwhelminglycomputer‐based.That'sbecausethegeneralityofdigitalcomputersenablesthem,inprinciple,tosupportaninfinitevarietyofhuman‐computerinteractions.ThetypesofinteractionexploredinCI‐artarealreadywidelydiverse‐‐hencetheinclusivenessoftheterm"behaviour"inthedefinition,above.Theby‐now‐countlessexamplesrangefrominteractiveCD‐Romsviewedonadesk‐topandaltered(forinstance)bytouchingthescreen(LeggettandMichael1996),toroom‐sizedvideoorVRinstallations‐‐suchasChristaSommererandLaurentMignonneau's"TransPlant".Inthiscase,ajunglegraduallyappearsonthewallsastheaudiencemovesaroundtheenclosure:grassgrowswhentheviewerwalks,andtreesandbusheswhenhe/shestandsstill;theplants'size,colour,andshapedependonthesizeandbodilyattitudesofthehumanbeing;andthecolourdensitychangesastheperson'sbodymovesslightlybackwardsorforwards."TransPlant"isdrivenbytheviewer'smovements,butsomeCI‐artworksaremodifiedalso,orinstead,bythesoundofhumanvoicesorfootsteps.ThisisreminiscentoftheSenster—butthesecomputer‐generatedchangesaremuchmorevariedandcomplexthanthosewhichcouldbeengineeredinthe1960sbyIhnatowicz.

19

Sometimes,therelevantinteractionsinvolveon‐lineaccesstotheInternet.ThisistrueofN‐artingeneral,ofcourse,whereintheartworkitselfexistsonlybymeansoftheInternet.Butitisalsotrueofcaseswheretheartworkbeingshown/generatedonthewallsofagalleryisenhancedbytheautomaticincorporationofitemsthathappentobepresentontheworld‐wide‐webatthatparticularmoment.Oneexampleis"TheLivingRoom",anotherinstallationbuiltbySommererandMignonneau.Unlike"TransPlant",thisCI‐artworkdoesnotundergochangesthatdependsystematicallyonwhattheviewerisdoing.Instead,randomimagesandsounds,pickedupfromtheInternet,appearintheroomasaresultoftheviewer'smovementsandspeech.It'susual,asinthatexample,forthechangeintheCI‐artwork(whethersystematicornot)tobenear‐simultaneouswiththeobserver'striggeringactivity.InEdmonds'mostrecentCI‐art,however(whichwasincludedwithinthe2007WashingtonexhibitioncommemmoratingtheColorFieldpainters),theeffectsoftheviewer'sbehaviouraredelayedintime.Partlybecauseofthelesserlikelihoodthattheviewerwillrealise‐‐andbeabletocontrol—whatisgoingon,Edmondsspeaksof"influence"ratherthan"interaction"inthesecases.Aswe'llseeinSectionIV,whethermere"influence"canbeaestheticallysatisfyingiscontroversialevenoutsidethepreciousbubble.Certainly,mereinfluence,asagainstinstantaneousinteraction,wouldnotbeenoughforthenestcategory,namelyVirtualRealityorVR‐art.VR‐artisthemostadvancedversionofCI‐art(forexamples,seePopper2007:chs.4‐6).Alreadyforeseeninthemid‐1960s,byIvanSutherland(1965),itwasnottechnologicallypossibleuntilthelate‐1980s(Boden2006:13.vi).InVR‐art,interactionleadstoillusion‐‐ofanespeciallycompellingkind.Inotherwords,(df.)theobserverisimmersedinacomputer‐generatedvirtualworld,experiencingitandrespondingtoitasifitwerereal.Onecannotpretendthatthisdefinitionisclear:justwhatisitforsomeonetoexperience/respond"asifitwerereal"?SomerelevantissueswillbeindicatedinSectionIV.Meanwhile,let'scontinuetorelyonanintuitiveunderstandingofsuchlanguage.SomeonemightwanttoarguethatVR‐artwasinitiatedcenturiesago.Forpseudo‐realisticmimeticworldshavebeendepictedinvariousformsoftrompel'oeuil(including'realistic'panoramas)formanycenturies,andevenappearedinsomeofthewall‐paintingsandarchitectureofClassicalRome.Butthere'sacrucialdifferencebetweentherelevantaestheticsintimesancientandmodern.AsOliverGrau(2003:16)haspointedout,the"momentofaestheticpleasure"intrompel'oeuilcomeswhentheviewerconsciouslyrealizesthattheyarenotexperiencingreality.InVR‐art,bycontrast,theenjoymentliesinfeelingasthoughoneisreallyinhabiting,andmanipulating,analternativeworld.Thelongertheawarenessofitsunrealitycanbedelayed,thebetter.Inotherwords,theexperienceofpastformsofmimeticartwasbasedonlyonillusion,notonimmersion.Althoughonecansaythattheviewerswereinvited/deceivedintorespondingtotheartasifitwerereal,that"asif"wasmuchless

20

richlytextured,muchlesssustained,andthereforemuchlesspersuasive,thanitisnow.(Cinemaisahalf‐wayhouse‐‐Grau2003:ch.4.Itoftenelicitsanemotional/narrative'immersion'inthefilmgoer,andsometimes‐‐usingspecialscreensandtechniques‐‐leadstonear‐veridicalexperiencesofinhabitingthecinematicworld.Thesetendtoexploitourreflexbodilyresponsestovisualimagesthatsuggestfalling,orimminentcollision:soroller‐coasters,white‐water‐rafting,andtigersleapingtowardsusoutofthescreenarefamiliarfavourites.Butthere'slittlepsychologicalsubtletyinthis'inhabitation',andnodetailedinteractionwiththealternateworld‐‐stillless,anyphysicalmanipulationofit.)Ingeneral,VR‐artaimstomaketheparticipants(oftencalled"immersants")feelasthoughtheyarepersonallypresentinthecyberworldconcerned.Normally,thisworldisvisualoraudio‐visual,beingpresentedonaVDUscreenorprojectedontothewalls/floorofareal‐worldroom.(McCormack's"UniversalZoologies"VR‐artworkisanexception:here,theimages/soundsareprojectedontotwolarge'talkingheads',inanattempttoprovidearealisticillusionofhumanconversation‐‐Tofts2005:81f.)Butsometimes,VR‐artleadsalsotoconvincingexperiencesoftouch,pressure,andmotionbyprovidingtheobserverwithspecialglovesandotherequipment(Boden2006:13.vi).Sometimes,too,theobserverexperiencesutterlyunrealcapacities,suchasbeingabletoflyortoactivatehighlyunnaturalcausalchainswithinthevirtualworld.Evenwhentheviewerisnotpresentedwithsuchshockinglyunfamiliarexperiencesasthose,somethingaboutthevirtualworldwillbeperceptiblyunliketherealworld.Andthisisdeliberate.ForVR‐artistsarenotaimingtoachieveafullydetailedmimesis:whatwouldbethepointofthat?Rather,theyusenear‐mimesistocastsomeaesthetically/conceptuallyinterestinglightonourusualexperiencesandassumptions.Detailedmimesismaybeappropriateforotherpurposes,ofcourse.Forinstance,aVR‐brainusedintrainingneurosurgeonsprovidesnicelyrealisticsensationsoftouchandvisionwhenthetrainee'svirtualizedsurgicaltoolprods,pinches,orcutsdifferentpartsofit(Wangetal.2007).Giventhatbrainsareverysoft(comparedwithhearts,forexample),thevisual/hapticinformationatissuehereishighlycomplex.Soeachofthedifferenttypesof"touching"(prodding,pinching,cutting)hasitsowndistinctivematerialandperceptualeffects.SuchhighlyrealisticeffectswouldbeappropriateinanartisticVR‐workonlyiftheypromptedthoughtsaboutmattersbeyondthepracticalexigenciesofbrainsurgery‐‐thephysicalvulnerabilityofallhumanflesh,perhaps,and(byextension)ofhumanplans.Thefinalcategoryislive‐coding,orLC‐art.ThisisanewtypeofCG‐art,datingfromtheturnofthecentury(Collinsetal.2003).InLC‐art,(df.)theform/contentofsomecomputer‐generatedartworkisaffectedbycodingbeingdonelivebytheartistatthetimeofpresentation.The"artist"mayinfactbetwoormoreartists.Ifso,theymay

21

concentrateand/oralternateondifferentaspectsofthemusic,andcooperativelyundertakedistinctcodingtasks.Sincethisishappeninginrealtime,LC‐artistsdon'thavetheluxuryofwritinglengthyinstructions,nicelyconstructedtoachievehighlyspecificresults.Instead,theymustrelyonspecialprogrammingtricks(e.g.short‐cuts)andstrategies.Anumberofcriteriahavebeensuggestedforchoosing/writinggenerativeprocessessuitableforuseinLC‐practice.Accordingtooneaccount,theprocessesshouldbe:"succinctandquicktotype;widelyapplicabletoavarietyofmusical[orotherartistic]circumstances;computationallyefficientallowingreal‐timeevaluation;responsiveandadaptivebyminimisingfuturecommitments;andmodifiablethroughtheexposureofappropriateparameters"(BrownandSorenson2009:17).Thelastofthesemeansthatthemini‐algorithmsforrepeatingaphrase,orchanginganinstrument,or...shouldnotbewritteninahighlycondensed(andordinarilymoreefficient)way,butinamore"descriptive"fashion,sothattherelevantcode‐itemscanbeeasilyaccessedandaltered.Evenso,thecodeddescriptionsmustnotbetoofull:onlymini‐‐algorithmscanbesatisfactorilydealtwithonthefly.Clearly,LC‐artinvolvesintensiveinteractionbetweenhumanandcomputer.AndonepubliclyavailableLC‐toolisthereforedescribedbyitsauthorasan"interactive"programmingenvironmentformusic‐making(Sorenson2005).Nevertheless,LC‐artisnotanexampleofCI‐art,asdefinedabove.Withinthistaxonomy,CI‐artinvolvesinteractionbetweenthecomputerandthehumanaudience‐‐wherethelatterneednotevenknowwhateffect,ifany,theyarehaving(automatically)onthecomputer'sbehaviour.InLC‐art,bycontrast,boththebaseprogramandthelivecodingaredirectlyattributabletotheartist,nottotheaudience.Evenifthelivecodingweretobeinfluencedbytheaudience'sresponse(or,assometimeshappens,bythebehaviourofcooperatinglive‐coders),thatinfluencewouldhavebeenconsciouslyselectedanddeliberatelytransmittedbythehumanperformer.AlthoughLC‐artisnotCI‐art,theaudienceisinvitedtobeengagedrathermoreactivelythanitisinmost(non‐CI)casesofcomputerart.FortheLC‐artist'sintentionisnotonlytoproduceaninterestingartwork,butalsotoallowpeopletoexperienceitdevelopingmomentbymomentasaresultofthecodingbeingdonebeforetheireyes.Ideally,then,theaudiencedon'tmerelyrecognizethattherearetwosetsofchangesgoingonsimultaneously:oneintheartwork,andoneonthescreendisplayingthecodethat'sbeingwritten.Nordotheymerelyappreciatethatchangesinthecodearecorrelatedwith,andpresumablycause,changesintheartwork.Rather,theyunderstandwhyitisthatthisperceptiblechangehappenswhenthatlineofcodeiswritten.Ideally,too,theLC‐artisttakespainstoenablethisstructuralmatchingtohappen‐‐forinstance,byusingaprogramminglanguagethatisexceptionallyeasyfornon‐specialiststounderstand.Typically,the"perceptiblechange"intheartworkisanauditoryone.Inotherwords,LC‐artisoverwhelminglyconcernedwithmusic.Thebase(compare:thecanvas)isapieceofmusicbeinggeneratedatthetimebythebackgroundcomputer

22

program.Butthelivecodingcausestemporarychangesand/oradditionstothepre‐existinggenerativerules.Soitisakindofimprovisation,ormeta‐improvisation,ontheCG‐base.Specificsoundscanbetriggereddirectly,ifdesired.Butitismuchmoreefficientforthenewcodetorepresentnewgenerativerules,whichwillbeautomaticallyfollowedbythedevelopingCG‐programuntiltheyaremodifiedornegatedbysomefuturecodingepisode.Someofthemusicalchangesthatareeffectedbythecodinginclude:changingspeeds;changingvolumes;addingorchanginginstruments;andaddingorchangingamelody.Asthislistsuggests,somecode‐fragmentsproduceanephemeralchange,whereasothersproduceachangethatpersistsforanappreciabletime‐‐possibly,untiltheendofthatentirepresentation.Thelistenersareassumedtobemusicallyexperienced.Iftheywerenot,theycouldnotrecognizethemusicalchangesgoingon,stilllessmatchthemupwithspecificlinesofcode.Atpresent,thetypeofmusicalexperiencethat'smostrelevantisnotfamiliaritywithBachorChopinbutwithelectronicmusicofvariouskinds.ThereasonisthatmostLC‐musicians(ofwhomtherearestillrelativelyfew)havetheirroots‐‐andfindtheirmostappreciativeaudiences‐‐intheelectronicmusiccommunity.Inprinciple,however,anymusicalgenrecanbeapproachedbylivecoding.The"listeners",ofcourse,arealso"viewers"(ofthescreendisplayingthenewly‐addedcode).HearingandvisionmustworkintandeminexperiencingLC‐music.Rarely,LC‐artalsoinvolvesgraphics;forinstance,theLC‐duoCalledaa‐cellsometimesgeneratevisualimagesalongsidetheirmusic.Inprinciple,LC‐artcoulddealalsowithvisiblechangesintherealworld‐‐suchasthechoreographedmovementsofrobots(thuscountingasaformofR‐art).Itmighteveninvolvechangesinverbaltext:aformofconcretepoetry,perhaps,beingconstructedbeforeone'sveryeyes.Theproblemwithallthose(mostlyunrealized)possibilitiesisthatvisionwouldbeneededforperceivingbothsetsofchanges‐‐inthecode,andintheartwork.Onlyifthechangesweremadeextremelyslowlywoulditbefeasibletocomparetwosetsof(verydifferent)simultaneouslychangingstructures.Textwouldbeespeciallychallenging,becausementaleffortwouldalsoberequiredtointerpretthewordsbeingdisplayed.

23

Insum,thethirteendefinitionsinthistaxonomyareasfollows:

(1) Ele‐artinvolveselectricalengineeringand/orelectronictechnology.(2) C‐artusescomputersaspartoftheart‐makingprocess.(3) D‐artusesdigitalelectronictechnologyofsomesort.(4) CA‐artusesthecomputerasanaid(inprinciple,non‐essential)intheart‐

makingprocess.(5) G‐artworksaregenerated,atleastinpart,bysomeprocessthatisnot

undertheartist'sdirectcontrol.(6) CG‐artisproducedbyleavingacomputerprogramtorunbyitself,with

minimalorzerointerferencefromahumanbeing.NB:ThestricterdefinitionofCG‐art(artproducedbyaprogramlefttorunbyitself,withZerointerferencefromthehumanartist)wasdeliberatelyrejected,asexplainedabove.

(7) Evo‐artisevolvedbyprocessesofrandomvariationandselectivereproductionthataffecttheart‐generatingprogramitself.

(8) R‐artistheconstructionofrobotsforartisticpurposes,whererobotsarephysicalmachinescapableofautonomousmovementand/orcommunication.NB:CasesofC‐artthatuserobots,butwheretheartisticfocusisnotontherobotsthemselves,wouldbeexcludedbydefiningR‐art,instead,astheconstructionofrobotsregardedasobjectsofaestheticinterest.

(9) N‐artisthegenerationofartworksontheInternet,bymultiplehumaninteractionswiththecomputer‐‐andindirectlywitheachother.

(10) InI‐art,theform/contentoftheartworkissignificantlyaffectedbythebehaviouroftheaudience(or,sometimes,bypurelyphysicalcauses)

(11) InCI‐art,theform/contentofsomeCG‐artworkissignificantlyaffectedbythebehaviouroftheaudience.

(12) InVR‐art,theobserverisimmersedinacomputer‐generatedvirtualworld,experiencingitandrespondingtoitasifitwerereal.

(13) InLC‐art,theform/contentofsomecomputer‐generatedartworkisaffectedbycodingbeingdonelivebytheartistatthetimeofpresentation.

24

IV:QuestionsforPhilosophicalAestheticsVariousaestheticand/orphilosophicalproblemsarisewithrespecttoCG‐artingeneral,andotherswithrespecttoparticularvarietiesofit.Noneofthesecanbeexploredatlengthhere.(Forfullerdiscussions,see:Boden1999,2004,2006:13.iii.d‐eand16.viii.c,2007(a,b),2010(a,b);CornockandEdmonds1973;CostelloandEdmonds2007;Edmonds2006,2007;Muller,Edmonds,andConnell2006.)Instead,thisSectionmerelyindicatesthewiderangeofpuzzlesthatattendtheconsiderationofgenerativeart.Oneobviousquestioncanbeputlikethis:Isitreallythecasethatacomputercaneverdoitsownthing?Orisitalwaysdoingtheprogrammer's(artist's)thing,howeverindirectly?ToanswerthatquestionseriouslyrequiresbothgeneralphilosophicalargumentandattentiontospecificaspectsofparticularCG‐artexamples—intheunderlyingprogram,aswellasintheobservableartwork.ThatsortofattentionisnotappropriateincasesofG‐artthatarenotcomputer‐based.Forthephysical,psychological,orbiologicalprocessesinwhichtheyaregroundedarenotspecifiableindetail‐‐notevenbyscientists,letalonebyartists.Computerprograms,incontrast,aresospecifiable.That'swhyonecanmakesensiblecomparisonsbetweentheextenttowhichdifferentCG‐artprogramsareorarenot"undertheartist'sdirectcontrol",andtheextenttowhich,andthepointsatwhich,theyaresubjectto"interferencefromahumanbeing".However,onecandothisonlyifoneknowssomethingabouthowtheprogramand/orinstallationworks.Merelyobserving,orevenparticipatingin,theresultantartworkisnotenough.Whetheritappearstoparticipantsthattheprogram/installationisindependent,orautonomous,isofcourseanotherquestion‐‐onewhichmaynotbeeasytoanswer,inpractice.Eventheprogrammermaybemisled,here.Inthelongerpaperonwhichthisoneisbased(BodenandEdmonds2009),Edmondspointedoutthatstep‐by‐stepprogramming(i.e.writingaprogramasasequenceofexplicitinstructions)"feels"moredirectivethanrule‐basedprogramming(i.e.definingasetofconstraints‐‐forinstance,that"ZshouldalwaysbebiggerthanY",or"XmustneverequalW"‐‐thatthecomputermustfollow,withoutstatinghowthiswillbeeffectedbythemachine).Inthelattercase,onemightsaythattheartistleavesthecomputertodoitsownthingwithoutknowingjustwhatitisthatthecomputerwillbedoing.Thecomputer‐artcommunityusuallyregardsitasimportantthattheartworkisgeneratedfromasetofrules,orconstraints,ratherthanfromastep‐by‐stepalgorithm.Butthisismoreamatteroftastethananythingelse.Forevenwhenaprogrammerhaswrittenexplicitstep‐by‐stepcode,heorshedoesnotnecessarily‐‐orevenusually‐‐knowtheoutcome.

25

Iftheydid,therewouldbenobugs(exceptthoseduetotypingmistakesandpunctuationerrors).Despitethedifferencebetweenthe"feel"ofthetwoprogrammingapproaches,thereisnodistinctionatthemostfundamentallevel:inallbuttheverysimplestcases,bothtypesofprogramareunpredictablebytheirprogrammer.Rule‐drivensystemsmerelyappeartohaveagreaterdegreeofautonomy,relativetotheconsciousdecisionsofthehumanartist.Autonomy,ofcourse,isaconceptthat'scloselyconnectedwithart‐makingingeneral.(JohnRuskin,forexample,mademuchofitinhistheoryofaesthetics.)Butdoesitevermakesensetoascribeautonomytoacomputer?Ifso,howmuch?Irrespectiveoftheartist'sphenomenologywhilewritingtheprogram,and/oroftheparticipants'phenomenologywhenexperiencingit,dosomecategoriesofCG‐arthavemoreautonomythanothers?WhatofEvo‐art,forinstance:doestheself‐modificationinvolved,andtheautomaticselection(incaseswherethathappens),meanthatevo‐programsaremoreautonomousthan(say)AARON?WithrespecttoAARON,canweascribeatleastaminimallevelofautonomytothecomputer,giventhatCohenhasnohands‐oncontroloverwhatpicturewillbedrawn,orhow?Insofarasaprogramis"doingitsownthing",doesittakeontheauthorialresponsibility?(Letusignorethefactthat"authorialresponsibility"isoftenunclearhereanyway,sincemostCG‐artisproducedbyateam,notaloneartist.)Forinstance,didAARONgeneratethosemagnificent"world‐class"coloureddrawings,ordidCohendoso?Headmits,afterall,thathehimself"wouldn'thavehadthecouragetouseThosecolours".Ontheotherhand,hesaysheishappythattherewillbemoreof"his"originalartworksappearingwellafterhisdeath(Cohen2002).Isheright,orishedeluded?Theanswerwilldependnotonlyonone'sphilosophyoftheselfbutalsoonone'sviewsastowhetheranycomputerprogramcanbeseenasanauthor/artist.DouglasHofstadter,forexample,interprets"theself"insuchawaythathewouldbecontenttoascribetheposthumousworkstoCohenhimself‐‐andwouldevendenythattheyareinthefullestsenseposthumous(Hofstadter2007).However,ifhewasemotionallymovedbythem,hewouldalsoresistascribingauthorshiptothecomputer(Hofstadter2001).DoesEvo‐artleavemoreroom,orless,forhumanauthorshipthanAARONdoes?Thatis,doestheartist'schoiceoffitnessfunctionsufficetogivehim/hertheauthorialcreditforwhateverartworkemergesaftermanygenerationsofrandom(i.e.undirected)change?Isthecreditgreater,orless,ifinsteadofrelyingonaprogrammedfitnessfunctiontheartistdoestheselecting'byhand'?OnereasonfortheEvo‐artist'schoosingtodotheselectionbyhandisinordertoproduceonlyworksinhis/herownstyle.Thisisalsothereasonwhythemutationsthatareallowedareusuallyveryslight.Foranartisticstyleisasustainedpatternofactivity,lastingovertime(Boden2010b).InEvo‐artthatallowsradicalmutations

26

(andwhichdoesnot'ration'themtoonceevery2,000thgeneration,forinstance),nopatterncanbesustainedforlong‐‐notevenifthehumanartististryingtoshapetheresultsbymakingthe'fitness'selectionateachstage.Onthecontrary,hugestructuralchangescanoccurinasinglegeneration(cf.Sims1991).Thisleadstofascinatedamazementonthepartofthegalleryaudience.Nevertheless,Evo‐artistsdonotnormallyallowsuchmutations.Theyprefertoexploreastylisticspacewhich,despitemanysurprisingvariations,remainsrecognizableas'theirs'tosomeonewithanexperiencedeye.Inotherwords,theyareprimarilyengagedinexploratorycreativity,nottransformationalcreativity(Boden2004).Therearesomeexceptions.TheCG‐artistPaulBrownrecentlyinstigatedanEvo‐artprojectwhoseaimwastoevolverobotsthatwillmakeaestheticallyacceptabledrawingswhichdonotcarryBrown'sgeneralstyle,or'personalsignature'(Birdetal.2006).Thusfar,hishopehasn'tbeensatisfied.Andperhapsthat'snotsurprising:Brown,afterall,wassettingthefitnessfunctionsatallstagesofthework.It'snotclearwhetherit'sinprinciplepossibleforhisartisticmarktobelostasthisprojectproceeds,norwhethertherobotsmightbeabletodevelopa'personal'signatureoftheirown(Boden2010b).ThisexampleraisesquestionsalsoabouttherelationbetweenCG‐artandembodiment.ManyphilosophersofminddiscountAI/A‐Lifeingeneral(asmodelsofmindorlife)forbeingconcernedwithvirtual,body‐less,systems.However,theseR/Evo‐artcreaturesarerobotsmovingintherealworld,andarethereforesubjecttophysicalforces.It'sknownthattrulyfundamentalchanges‐‐i.e.newtypesofsensoryreceptor‐‐canevolveinrobotsasaresultofunsuspectedphysicalcontingencies(BirdandLayzell2002).(Comparethebiologicalevolutionnotofaprimitiveeyeintoabettereye,butofalight‐sensorwherenosuchsensorexistedbefore.)Inprinciple,then,afundamentallynewstyle[sic]mightdevelopinthisway,whereas(arguably)thatcouldnothappeninapurelyvirtual,programmed,system.SimilarpuzzlesaboutauthorialresponsibilityariseinCI‐artingeneral,ofwhich'hand‐selected'Evo‐artisaspecialcase.Justwhere,intheman‐machinesystemconcerned,isthetrueauthor?ThatworryaffectsallI‐art,ofcourse‐‐butisthereanyextradifficultywhereCI‐artisconcerned?(Forpresentpurposes,letusignoreDuchamp'ssuggestion,quotedabove,thatallartismulti‐authored.)Andwhatdifference,ifany,doesitmakeif—assometimeshappens(seeChapter9)‐‐theaudienceprovidesfeedbackduringtheconstructionoftheCI‐work,sothatitsfinalformdependsnotonlyonthedecisionsoftheartistbutalsoonthereactionsoftheaudience/swhoencountereditinitsprototypestage?Perhapsthedistinctionbetween"decisions"and"reactions"iscrucialhere,debarringtheaudiencefromearningany'extra'authorialcreditinsuchcases?Tospeakofa"worry"here,however,isperhapstocounteractwhatCI‐artistsaretryingtodo.Despiteitssturdyrootsincyberneticsandcomputertechnology,CI‐art

27

hasattractedfavourablenoticefrompost‐modernistspreciselybecauseoftheambiguityofauthorshipinvolved.ThepioneeringAscott(2003),inparticular,hasalwaysseenthevalueofCI‐artasitsdemocratisingabilitytoengagetheviewer/participantascreator.Inhiswords,"creativityisshared,authorshipisdistributed..."(1990:238).Ifauthorshipisdeliberatelydistributed,thentoworryaboutitslocus(aboutascribingthestatusofauthor)istomissthepoint.(Foralltheheadytalkofcreativeparticipation,someCI‐artisfairlylimiting:Kahn1996.That'sso,forinstance,wherethepossiblechangesintheartworkareexplicitlypre‐setbytheartist,asopposedtotheiremergingfromtheprogram's"doingitsownthing".Thelimitationisespeciallygreatwheretheyareselectedbytheparticipant'schoosingfromaMenu.)AnotherwayofputtingquestionsaboutauthorialresponsibilityistoaskwheretheCreativitylies.Butwhat,exactly,dowemeanbycreativity?Itcertainlyinvolvesagency‐‐whichiswhyconsiderationsofautonomyandauthorialresponsibilityareinevitable.Butwhatisagency?Theinteracting'arms'andfloatingbuoysidentifiedaboveasexamplesofR‐artaretypicallydescribedbytheartistsandtechniciansconcernedasagents‐‐awordborrowedfromAI/A‐Liferesearchondistributedcognition.Butdoesthatresearchmisusetheconcept?Evenifitdoes,doesitinclude'agents'ofinterestinglydifferenttypes(Boden2006:13.iii.d‐e),someofwhicharemoredeservingofthenamethanothers?Ifso,shouldweatleastreservetheterm‐‐andtheascriptionofcreativity‐‐forthosecasesofCG‐artwheretheagentsinvolvedareofthemoreplausiblevariety?Again,suchquestionscannotbeansweredwithoutcarefulattentiontothedetailsoftheprogramsandcommunicationsinvolved.It'scommonlyassumedthatcreativity‐‐andart,too—involvesunpredictability.Butwhatisitssource?Isitmerelylackofcomputationalpoweronthepartofhumanminds?WehaveseenthatCG‐art,likecomplexprogramsingeneral,isindeedunpredictableforthatreason.ButCI‐artandEvo‐artareunpredictableforotherreasonsaswell.CI‐art,becausetheartistcannotpredictthesequenceofinteractionsthatwilltakeplace,evenifhe/shecanpredictwhatwouldhappenatagivenmomentifthataudience‐movementweretooccur;andEvo‐art,becauseofthemanyrandomchangestotheprogram,andbecauseofthechoicesmadeatsuccessivegenerationsbytheartist.Doestheunpredictabilityoftraditionalarthaveanydeepersource?Andifso,isthissomethingwhichcannotbeascribedto,orevensimulatedin,computers?Answeringthesequestionsrequiresonetodistinguishdifferenttypesofunpredictabilityverycarefully(seeBoden2004:ch.9).Anothersetofquestionsconcernsontology,namelywhatcountsastheartwork.Howcaneidentify"theartwork"whenanartist'scomputerprogramgeneratescountlessuniqueimages,ormusicalcompositions,noneofwhichhavebeen

28

seen/heardbytheartist?Iseachimage/musicproucedbyAARONorEmmyanartwork‐‐oristheartworktheprogramwhichgeneratesthem?InEvo‐art,doesoneandthesameartworkexistatdifferinglevelsofsophisticationatdifferentgenerations?Ordoeseverygenerationproduceanewartwork‐‐or,perhaps,anewpopulationof(sibling)artworks?Whatcountsastheartworkwhentheuniquenessisduenotonlytoarichlygenerativecomputerprogrambutalsotothecontingent(andephemeral)behaviourofaparticipatoryhumanaudience?Perhapsthefamiliarconceptofartworkiswell‐suitedonlytotheunchangingartefactsthatformtheoverwhelmingmajorityofthecasesinsideMcCormack'sbubble?Atraditionalartistcanfullycomprehendthepaintingorsculpturethattheyhaveexecutedsocarefully(althoughwhetherthisappliestotheG‐artdimensionofPollock'spaintingsisquestionable),butCI‐artistscannotfullyknowtheCI‐artworkthattheyconstructedwithequalcare.Thisisnotmerelyamatteroftheunpredictabilityofdetail:insufficientlycomplexcases,it'snotevenclearthattheycanrecognizethegeneralpotentialoftheirownwork.WithregardtoCI‐art,then,perhapsweshouldspeaknotofthe"artwork"butofthe"artsystem"‐‐wherethiscomprisestheartist,theprogram,thetechnologicalinstallation(anditsobservableresults),andthebehaviourofthehumanaudience?(Andperhaps,iftheconceptofthe"artwork"falls,thenthatofthe"artist/author"fallstoo?)OrmaybeweshouldthinkofeachoccurrenceofCI‐artasaperformance,andtheprogram/installationasthescore?Ifso,thenphilosophicaldiscussionofwhatcountsasanartworkinmusicispertinent(e.g.Goodman1968).Butthe'performance'ismorelikeajazzimprovisationthantheplayingofclassicalmusic,foritcanvaryconsiderablyfromoneoccasiontoanother.Eveniftheformofeachparticularhuman‐computerinteractioncanbecompletelydeterminedbytheartist(whichisnotso,forinstance,whenthecomputer'sresponsecanbemodifiedbyitsmemoryofthehistoryofpreviousinteractions),thesequenceofsucheventscannot.Yetanotherproblematicareaconcernsaestheticevaluation.AreentirelynovelaestheticconsiderationsrelevantforCG‐artingeneral,orforsomesubclassofit?Andaresomeaestheticcriteria,normallyregardedasessential,utterlyoutofplaceinCG‐art:authenticity,forinstance?ThedevoteesofCI‐art,infact,donotusethefamiliar(inside‐the‐bubble)criteriatojudgedifferentinteractiveinstallations.Orinsofarastheydo,thesearesecondarytootherconsiderations(Boden2010a).Thecriteriatheyseeasmostappropriateconcernnotthenatureoftheresulting'artwork'(thebeautyoftheimageprojectedonthewall,forexample,orthemelodyandharmoniousnessoftheaccompanyingsounds),butthenatureoftheinteractionitself.There'sgeneralagreementonthatpoint.Butthere'ssignificantdisagreementonjustwhattypeofinteractionisthemostaestheticallyvaluable.

29

SomeCI‐artists,especiallythoseengagedinVR‐art,stressthedisturbingsenseofunrealityinvolved,andtheparticipant'snew'take'oneverydayexperiencethatensues.Manyvaluetheparticipant'sconsciouscontroloftheartwork;othersaimtohighlighttheirsenseofpersonalembodiment;whileyetothersstresstheaudience'sdisconcertingexperienceofunpredictabilitytriggeredbytheirownactions.Allofthosecriteriaconcerntheparticipant'sexperience‐‐butdifficultiesariseifoneaskshowthatexperiencecanbediscerned,or'logged',byanyoneotherthantheindividalparticipant.(AsremarkedinSectionIII,iftheobserverscannevercometorealizethattheyareaffectingwhathappens,thenthe"I"in"CI‐art"mightbetterbethoughtofastheinitialletterof"influence",notof"interaction".)TherearesomeespeciallyjaggedphilosophicalrockslyinginwaitforVR‐artists.Theconceptofvirtualrealityhasbeendefinedinvariousways(Steuer1992).Most,likethedefinitionofVR‐artgiveninSectionIII,refertotheparticipant'sexperienceofbeingimmersedinarealworld,andreactingaccordingly.Thisnotionseemstobeintuitivelyintelligible,especiallyifonehasactuallyencounteredaVR‐installation.Butjustwhatitmeans,whetherinpsychologicalorphilosophicalterms,isverydifficulttosay.It'snotevenclearthatitiscoherent(Boden2006:16.viii.c).Severalleadingphilosophersofmindhaveaddressedthishornet'snestofquestionsinwritingaboutthefilmTheMatrix(seeespeciallythepapersbyHubertDreyfusandAndyClarkontheWarnerBrotherswebsite:http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com).That'snottosaythatTheMatrixcountsasVR‐art,foritdoesnot.Nevertheless,itraisessomeofthesamequestionsthatwouldattendhighlyplausibleinstancesofVR‐art.(Whetherthesewouldalsobehighlysuccessfulinstancesisanothermatter:wehaveseenthatVRinart,asopposedtoscienceorsurgery,typicallyhighlightssomeunrealdimensionoftheexperience.)Asforauthenticity,thisisatrickyconcept.Thereareseveralreasons,ofvaryingplausibility,whysomeonemightarguethatitisnotapplicabletoanyinstanceofCG‐art(Boden2007a).AndCG‐artistshavesufferedasaresult.Forexample,Cope(2006)hasbeencontinuallydisappointedbypeople'sfailuretotakehismusicseriously‐‐notbecausetheydislikeitonhearingit(sometimestheyrefusetohearit),butsimplybecauseitiscomputer‐generated.Evenwhentheydopraiseit,hehasfoundthattheytypicallyseeitlessas"music"thanas"computeroutput"‐‐aclassificationwhichcompromisesitsauthenticity.Forinstance,eventhougheachEmmy‐compositionisinfactunique,peopleknowthattheprogramcouldspewoutindefinitelymanymoretomorrow.(Thefactthathumancomposersdie,saysCope,hasconsequencesforaestheticvaluation:someone'soeuvreisvaluedinpartbecauseitisauniquesetofworks,nowclosed.)Asaresultofthiscommonreaction,Copehasrecentlydestroyedthedata‐baseofdeadcomposers'musicthathehadbuiltupoverthelasttwenty‐fiveyears,andusedasacrucialsourceinEmmy'sfunctioning.(Emmy'ssuccessorwillcomposemusiconlyinCope'sownstyle;whetheraudiencesregardthisasbeingsignificantlymoreauthenticremainstobeseen.)

30

Finally,whatoftheclaimsmadebymanyCG‐artiststobeexploringthenatureoflife?It'sclearfromRinaldo'schoiceofthetitles"Autopoiesis"and"TheFlock"(plustherestofhisoeuvre‐‐Whitelaw2004:109‐116),forinstance,thathisR‐artworksarenotintendedasmerefairgroundtoysbutasmeditationsonsignificantaspectsoflife.He'snotaloneinthis:manyoftheCG‐artistswhohavebeeninfluencedbyA‐Lifeseetheirworkinthatway.Conceptssuchasemergenceandself‐organization,andofcourseevolution,cropuprepeatedlyintheirwritingsandinterviews‐‐asdoesthekeyconceptoflifeitself.Onemaywellagreethattheirworkthrowslighton,oranywayremindsusof,important‐‐andpuzzling‐‐propertiesoflife.ButoneneednotalsoagreewiththeclaimsometimesmadebytheseCG‐artists,thatpurelyvirtuallife(a.k.a.strongA‐Life)ispossible‐‐andthattheirwork,orsomethingsimilar,mightevencreateit.Indeed,oneshouldnotacceptthoseclaims,becausephysicalmetabolism(whichismuchmorethanmereenergy‐dependency)isessentialforlifebutisdeniedtocomputers(Boden1999).Perhapsthemostobviousphilosophicalquestionofallisthis:"Yes,itcanhelptowhileawayaSundayafternoon‐‐butisitart,really?"Whatever"art"maybe(atopiconwhichgallonsofinkhavebeenspilled),manypeoplefeelthatcomputersaretheveryantithesisofit.Indeed,somephilosophersarguethispositionexplicitly(e.g.O'Hear1995).Ontheirview,artinvolvestheexpressionandcommunicationofhumanexperience,sothatifwediddecidethatitisthecomputerthatisgeneratingthe'artwork',thenitcannotbeanartworkafterall‐‐nomatterhowdecorative,orevenbeautiful,itmaybe.Acloselyrelatedworryconcernsemotioninparticular:ifcomputersarenotemotionalcreaturesthen‐‐onthisview—theycannotgenerateanythingthat'sproperlytermed"art"(Hofstadter:2001).Anothercommonwayofdiscreditingcomputerartingeneralistoarguethatartinvolvescreativity,andthatnocomputer‐‐irrespectiveofitsobservableperformance—canreallybecreative(foradiscussion,seeBoden2004:ch.11).Furthermore,aperson'saestheticapprovalofanartworkissometimesinstantlyrenouncedontheirdiscoveringthatitis,infact,aCG‐artwork.Copewassodisturbedbythisreaction,aswe'veseen,thathedestroyedthedata‐baseonwhichEmmy's‐‐orshouldonerathersay"his"?‐‐CG‐musicrested.Despitethese(fairlycommon)viewsontherelation‐‐orlackofit‐‐betweenartandcomputers,thereareundeniablecontinuitiesbetweenCG‐artandnon‐computerart.SeveralofthesewerementionedinSectionIII,whichshowedthatsomeofthetwelvetaxonomiccategoriesincludeexamplesdrawnfrombothinsideandoutsideMcCormack'spreciousbubble.AndthosecategorieswhichapplyonlytoCG‐artcovermanyindividualcasesthatareaestheticallyrelatedtotraditionalartworks.

31

Moreover,theartworlditself‐‐howeversuspiciousitmaybeofcomputersingeneral,andhoweverdismissiveitmaybeofparticularCG‐artefforts‐‐doessometimesawardthesenewactivitiesthecovetedstatusofart.Sometimes,thishappensinaspecialisedcorneroftheartworld:forinstance,London'sKineticagallery(openedin2006),whichisdevotedtointeractive,robotic,andkineticart.Buttherearealsocaseswheremajor'traditional'galleriesclearlyacceptthattraditionalandCG‐artareplayersinthesameculturalballpark.Twosuchinstanceswerementionedabove:theTate'sone‐manshowofCohen'sAARON,andtheWashingtonexhibitionfeaturingEdmonds'workasadevelopmentofthatoftheColorFieldpainters(MarkRothko,andthelike).Thelatterexampleisespeciallytelling,preciselybecauseitwasnotashowcelebratingonlyCG‐art.Onthecontrary,this60th‐anniversaryexhibitionwasputtingCG‐artalongsidethepreciousbubble‐‐oreveninsideit.Inreplytothescepticalchallenge"Butisitart,.really?",whatmorepersuasiveanswercouldtherebe?

32

References:Ascott,R.(1966/1967),'BehaviouristArtandtheCyberneticVision',Cybernetica,9(1966),247‐264;and10(1967),25‐56.Reprintedasch.3ofAscott2003:109‐156.Ascott,R.(1983),LaPlissureduTexte.http://alien.mur.at/rx/ARTEX/PLISSURE/plissure.htmlAscott,R.(1990),'IsThereLoveintheTelematicEmbrace?',ArtJournal(CollegeArtsAssociationofAmerica),49:241‐247.Reprintedasch.15ofAscott2003:232‐246.Ascott,R.(1998/2003),'TechnoeticAesthetics:100TermsandDefinitionsforthePost‐BiologicalEra',inAscott2003:375‐382.FirstpublishedinJapanese,trans.E.Fujihara,inR.Ascott,ArtandTelematics:TowardtheConstructionofaNewAesthetics,(Tokyo:NTTPublishingCo.),1998.Ascott,R.(2003),TelematicEmbrace:VisionaryTheoriesofArt,Technology,andConsciousness(London:UniversityofCaliforniaPress).Becker,H.S.(1986),DoingThingsTogether:SelectedPapers(Evanston,Illinois:NorthwesternUniversityPress).Becker,H.S.(1995)'ANewArtForm:HypertextFiction'.OnlineinM.Bernstein(ed.),HowtoReadaHypertext(Cambridge,Mass.:EastgateSystems),andonBecker'shomepage.Bird,J.,d'Inverno,M.,andProphet,J.(2007),'NetWork:AnInteractiveArtworkDesignedUsinganInterdisciplinaryPerformativeApproach',DigitalCreativity,18(1):11‐23.Bird,J.,andLayzell,P.(2002),'TheEvolvedRadioanditsImplicationsforModellingtheEvolutionofNovelSensors',ProceedingsofCongressonEvolutionaryComputation,CEC‐2002,1836‐1841.Bird,J.,Stokes,D.,Husbands,P.,Brown,P.,andBigge,B.(forthcoming),'TowardsAutonomousArtworks',LeonardoElectronicAlmanac.(Availablefromjonba@sussex.ac.uk.)Bishop,C.(2006),Participation(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Boden,M.A.(1994),'AgentsandCreativity',CommunicationsoftheAssociationforComputingMachinery:SpecialIssueonAgents(ed.D.Riecken),July27th:117‐121.ReprintedinM.A.Boden,CreativityandArt:ThreeRoadstoSurprise(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2010),ch.8.Boden,M.A.(1999),'IsMetabolismNecessary?',

33

BritishJournalforthePhilosophyofScience,50:231‐248.ReprintedinM.A.Boden,CreativityandArt:ThreeRoadstoSurprise(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2010),ch.12.Boden,M.A.(2004),TheCreativeMind:MythsandMechanisms(London:Routledge).2ndedn.,expanded/revised.Boden,M.A.(2006),MindasMachine:AHistoryofCognitiveScience(Oxford:Clarendon/OxfordUniversityPress).Boden,M.A.(2007a),'AuthenticityandComputerArt',DigitalCreativity,18(1):3‐10.(SpecialIssueonCreativity,Computation,andCognition,ed.P.Brown.)ReprintedinM.A.Boden,CreativityandArt:ThreeRoadstoSurprise(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2010),ch.10.Boden,M.A.(2007b),'StillnessasAutonomy',inS.Worden,L.Green,andP.Thomas(eds.),ProceedingsofComputersinArtandDesignEducation(CADE)Conference,Stillness(Perth),September2007.PublishedasaCD‐ROM(ISBN1740675304).AlongerversionisinM.A.Boden,CreativityandArt:ThreeRoadstoSurprise(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2010),ch.9.Boden,M.A.(2010a),'AestheticsandInteractiveArt',inM.A.Boden,CreativityandArt:ThreeRoadstoSurprise(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress),ch.11..Boden,M.A.(2010b),'PersonalSignaturesandComputerArt',inM.A.Boden,CreativityandArt:ThreeRoadstoSurprise(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress),ch.6.Bolter,J.D.(1991)WritingSpace:TheComputer,Hypertext,andtheHistoryofWriting(Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum).Brown,A.R.,andSorenson,A.(2009),'InteractingwithGenerativeMusicthroughLiveCoding,'ContemporaryMusicReview,28(1):17‐29.Brown,Paul.(2003),'GenerativeComputationandtheArts',DigitalCreativity,14(1):1‐2.(SpecialissueonGenerativeComputationandtheArts,ed.P.Brown.)Brown,Richard.(2001)Biotica:Art,Emergence,andArtificialLife(London:RCACRDResearch).Brown,Richard.(2006),'TheElectrochemicalGlass',StrangeAttractorJournalThree,availablefromtheStrangeAttractorShoppe,<http://www.strangeattractor.co.uk>Breton,A.(1969),ManifestoesofSurrealism(AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress).Trans.R.SeaverandH.R.Lane.(Includesseveralmanifestoes,thefirstpublishedin1924.)

34

Burnham,J.(1968),BeyondModernSculpture:TheEffectsofScienceandTechnologyontheSculptureofthisCentury(London:AllenLane).Bush,V.(1945),'AsWeMayThink',AtlanticMonthly,176(July):101‐108.ReprintedinR.PackerandK.Jordan(eds.),Multimedia:FromWagnertoVirtualReality(London:W.W.Norton,2001):135‐153.Candy,L.,andEdmonds,E.A.,eds.(2002)ExplorationsinArtandTechnology(London:Springer).Cohen,H.(1995),'TheFurtherExploitsofAARONPainter',inS.FranchiandG.Guzeldere(eds.),ConstructionsoftheMind:ArtificialIntelligenceandtheHumanities.Specialedn.ofStanfordHumanitiesReview,4(2):141‐160.Cohen,H.(2002),'AMillionMillennialMedicis',inL.CandyandE.A.Edmonds(eds.),ExplorationsinArtandTechnology(London:Springer):91‐104.Cohen,H.(2007),AARON'sWorld:20deJunho‐‐28deJulho2007(Lisbon:AntonioPrates,ArteContemporanea).Collins,N.,McLean,A.,Rohrhuber,J.,andWard,A.(2003),'LiveCodinginLaptopPerformance,'OrganisedSound,8(3):321‐330.Colton,S.(2012),'ThePaintingFool:StoriesfromBuildinganAutomatedPainter',inJ.McCormackandM.d'Inverno(eds.),ComputersandCreativity(Berlin;Heidelberg:Springer):3‐38.Colton,S.,Valstar,M.,andPantic,M.(2008),'EmotionallyAwareAutomatedPortraitPainting',Proceedingsofthe3rdInternationalConferenceonDigitalInteractiveMediainEntertainmentandArts(DIMEA),(ACM):304‐311.Cope,D.(2001),VirtualMusic:ComputerSynthesisofMusicalStyle(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Cope,D.(2006),ComputerModelsofMusicalCreativity(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Cornock,S.,andEdmonds,E.A.(1973),'TheCreativeProcessWheretheArtistisAmplifiedorSupercededbytheComputer',Leonardo,6:11‐16.Costello,B.,andEdmonds,E.A.(2007),PlayfulPleasures:AUserEvaluationofThreeArtworks(UniversityofTechnology,Sydney:CCSReport2007‐1).Dawkins,R.(1986),TheBlindWatchmaker(Harlow:Longman).

35

Dorin,A.,andMcCormack,J.(2001),'FirstIteration/GenerativeSystems(GuestEditors'Introduction)',Leonardo,34(3):335.Duchamp,M.(1957),'TheCreativeAct',inM.SanouilletandE.Peterson(eds.),TheEssentialWritingsofMarcelDuchamp(London:ThamesandHudson,1975),138‐140.Duprat,H.,andBesson,C.(1998),'TheWonderfulCaddisWorm:SculpturalWorkinCollaborationwithTrichoptera',Leonardo,31(3):173‐182.Edmonds,E.A.(1969)'IndependenceofRose'sAxiomsform‐valuedImplication',JournalofSymbolicLogic,34:283‐284.Edmonds,E.A.(1975)'ArtSystemsforInteractionsBetweenMembersofaSmallGroupofPeople',Leonardo,8:225‐227.Edmonds,E.A.,(1988)'LogicandTime‐basedArtPractice",Leonardo,ElectronicArtSupplementalissue(Oxford:PergamonPress):19‐20.Edmonds,E.A.(2003)'LogicsForConstructingGenerativeArtSystems'.DigitalCreativity,14(1):23‐38.Edmonds,E.A.(2006),'NewDirectionsinInteractiveArtCollaboration',CoDesign,2(4):19‐194.Edmonds,E.A.(2007),'ReflectionsontheNatureofInteraction',CoDesign:InternationalJournalofCoCreationinDesignandtheArts,3(3):139‐145.Eno,B.(1996)'GenerativeMusic:Evolvingmetaphors,inmyopinion,iswhatartistsdo.'Availableat:http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/eno1.htmlGenerativeart.com,http://www.generativeart.com/Goodman,N.(1968),LanguagesofArt:AnApproachtoaTheoryofSymbols.(Indianapolis:Bobbs‐Merrill).Goodstein,R.L.(1951),ConstructiveFormalism,EssaysontheFoundationsofMathematics(Leicester:UniversityCollegePress).Grau,O.(2003)VirtualArt:FromIllusiontoImmersion(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Greene,R.(2004),InternetArt(London:ThamesandHudson).Haugeland,J.(1985),ArtificialIntelligence:TheVeryIdea(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).

36

Hiller,L.andIsaacson,L.(1958)'MusicalCompositionwithaHigh‐SpeedDigitalComputer,'JournaloftheAudio‐EngineeringSociety,6(3):154‐160.Hockney,D.(2009),'DrawinginaPaintingMachine',at<www.lalouver.com/resource/hockney>.Seealso'DavidHockneySwapsOilsforPixels',<timesonline.co.uk/news>March222009.)Hofstadter,D.R.(2001),'StaringEmmyStraightintheEye‐AndDoingMyBestNottoFlinch',inCope2001:33‐82.Hofstadter,D.R.(2007),IAmaStrangeLoop(NewYork:BasicBooks).Johnson,B.S.(1969),TheUnfortunates(London:Panther).Kahn,D.(1996),'WhatNowthePromise?',inM.LeggettandL.Michael(eds.),BurningtheInterface,ExhibitionCatalogueonInternationalArtists'CD‐Rom(Sydney:MuseumofContemporaryArt),pp.21‐30.Kowalski,T.L.andLevy,L.S.(1996),Rule‐BasedProgramming(Amsterdam:KluwerAcademic).Krueger,M.W.(1991),ArtificialReality,2ndedn.(Reading,Mass.:Addison‐Wesley).Laposky,B.(1969),'Oscillons:ElectronicAbstractions',Leonardo,2(4):345‐354.Leggett,M.(2000),'ThinkingImagingSoftware',Photofile:PhotomediaJournal,60:28‐31.Leggett,M.,andMichael,L.,eds.(1996),BurningtheInterface<InternationalArtists'CD‐Rom(Sydney:MuseumofContemporaryArt).LeWitt,S.(1967),'ParagraphsonConceptualArt',Artforum,5(10):79‐83.ReprintedinK.StilesandP.Selz(eds.),TheoriesandDocumentsofContemporaryArt:ASourcebookofArtists'Writings(London:UniversityofCaliforniaPress),822‐826.LeWitt,S.(1969),'SentencesonConceptualArt',Art‐Language,1:11‐13.Reprintedin(Lippard1973),75f.,andinK.StilesandP.Selz(eds.),TheoriesandDocumentsofContemporaryArt:ASourcebookofArtists'Writings(London:UniversityofCaliforniaPress),826‐827.Lindenmayer,A.(1968),'MathematicalModelsforCellularInteractioninDevelopment,PartsIandII',JournalofTheoreticalBiology,18:280‐315.Lippard,L.R.(1973),SixYears:TheDematerializationoftheArtObjectfrom1966to1972(NewYork:Praeger).Page‐referencestothe1997reprint(London:UniversityofCaliforniaPress).

37

McCorduck,P.(1991),AARON'sCode:Meta‐Art,ArtificialIntelligence,andtheWorkofHaroldCohen(NewYork:W.H.Freeman).McCormack,J.(2003),'ArtandtheMirrorofNature',DigitalCreativity,14(1):3‐22.(SpecialissueonGenerativeComputationandtheArts,ed.PaulBrown.)McCormack,J.(2004),ImpossibleNature:TheArtofJohnMcCormack(Melbourne:AustralianCentrefortheMovingImage).McCormack,J.,Dorin,A.,andInnocent,T.(2004),'GenerativeDesign:AParadigmforDesignResearch',inJ.Redmond,D.Durling,andA.deBono(eds.),ProceedingsofFuturegroundI(Melbourne:DesignResearchSociety.Mallen,G.(2005),'ReflectionsonGordonPask'sAdaptiveTeachingConceptsandtheirRelevancetoModernKnowledgeSystems',inL.Candy(ed.),CreativityandCognition2005.ProceedingsoftheFifthConferenceonCreativityandCognition,12‐15April,GoldsmithsCollege(NewYork:ACMPress):86‐91.Marr,A.(2003),'"HeThoughtittheDeuil,WhereasIndeedeitwasaMeereMathematicallInuention":UnderstandingAutomataintheLateRenaissance',papergiventotheWorkshopontheHistoryofAI/A‐Life,Stanford(October).Alaterversionwaspublishedas:A.Marr,'UnderstandingAutomataintheLateRenaissance',JournaldelaRenaissance,2(2004):205‐222.Martin,K.(1951/54)'AbstractArt',BroadsheetNo.1:AbstractPaintings,Sculptures,Mobiles(London:LundHumphries,1951),AIAexhibitioncatalogue;alsoinL.Alloway,NineAbstractArtists,TheirWorkandTheirTheory:RobertAdams,TerryFrost,AdrianHeath,AnthonyHill,RogerHilton,KennethMartin,MaryMartin,VictorPasmore,WilliamScott(London:Tiranti,1954).Mason,C.(2008),AComputerintheArtRoom:TheOriginsofBritishComputerArts1950‐80(Hindrigham:JJGPublishing).Metzger,G.(1959),'ManifestoAuto‐DestructiveArt',reprintedinC.Mason,AComputerintheArtRoom:TheOriginsofBritishComputerArts1950‐80(Hindrigham:JJGPublishing),p.59.Metzger,G.(1965),Auto‐DestructiveArt(London:Destruction/Creation).ExpandedversionofatalkattheArchitecturalAssociation,updatingthemanifestoof1959.Montfort,N.(2003),TwistyLittlePassages:AnApproachtoInteractiveFiction(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).

38

Muller,L.,Edmonds,E.A.,andConnell,M.(2006),'LivingLaboratoriesforInteractiveArt',CoDesign:InternationalJournalforCoCreationinDesignandtheArts,2(4):195‐207.Nake,F.(1998),'ArtintheTimeoftheArtificial',Leonardo,31(3):163‐164.Nake,F.(2005),'ComputerArt:APersonalRecollection',inL.Candy(ed.)CreativityandCognition2005.ProceedingsoftheFifthConferenceonCreativityandCognition,12‐15April,GoldsmithsCollege(NewYork:ACMPress):54‐62.Nees,G.(1969),GenerativeComputergraphik(Berlin:SiemensAG).O'Hear,A.(1995),'ArtandTechnology:AnOldTension',inR.Fellows(ed.),PhilosophyandTechnology(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress),143‐158.Pask,G.(1971),'AComment,aCase‐History,andaPlan',inJ.Reichardt(ed.),Cybernetics,Art,andIdeas(London:StudioVista),76‐99.Popper,F.(2007),FromTechnologicaltoVirtualArt(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Pinch,T.,andTrocco,F.(2002)AnalogDays:TheInventionandImpactoftheMoogSynthesizer(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress).Prusinkiewicz,P.(2004),"ArtandScienceforLife:DesigningandGrowingVirtualplantswithL‐Systems',inC.G.DavidsonandT.Fernandez(eds.),NurseryCrops:Development,Evaluation,ProductionandUse.ProceedingsoftheXXVIInternationalHorticulturalCongress,ActaHorticulturae,630:15‐28.Prusinkiewicz,P.,andLindenmayer,A.(1990),TheAlgorithmicBeautyofPlants(NewYork:Springer‐Verlag).Sims,K.(1991),'ArtificialEvolutionforComputerGraphics',ComputerGraphics,25(4):319‐28.Seealso<http://www.genarts.com/karl/genetic‐images.html>Sims,K.(2007),'GalapogosInteractiveExhibit'<http://www.genarts.com/galapogos/index.html>.Smith,M.(ed.)(2005),Stelarc:TheMonograph(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Sorenson,A.(2005),'Impromptu:AnInteractiveProgrammingEnvironmentforCompositionandPerformance,'ProceedingsoftheAustralasionComputerMusicConference2005,Brisbane,ACMA:149‐153.Steuer,J.(1992),'DefiningVirtualReality:DimensionsDeterminingTelepresence',JournalofCommunication,42(4),73‐93.

39

Sutherland,I.E.(1965),'TheUltimateDisplay',ProceedingsoftheInternationalFederationofInformationProcessing(NewYork),2,506‐508and582‐583.Washington,D.C.:Spartanbooks.ReprintedinR.PackerandK.Jordan(eds.),Multimedia:FromWagnertoVirtualReality(London:W.W.Norton,2001),232‐236.Todd,S.C.,andLatham,W.(1992),EvolutionaryArtandComputers(London:AcademicPress).Tofts,D.(2003),'AvatarsoftheTortoise:Life,Longevity,andSimulation',DigitalCreativity,14(1):54‐63.(SpecialIssueonGenerativeComputationandtheArts,ed.PaulBrown.)Tofts,D.(2005),Interzone:MediaArtsinAustralia(Fisherman'sBend,Victoria:CraftsmanHouse).Wang,P.,Becker,A.A.,Jones,I.A.,Glover,A.T.,Benford,S.D.,Greenhalgh,C.M.,andVloeberghs,M.(2007),'VirtualRealitySimulationofSurgerywithHapticFeedbackBasedontheBoundaryElementMethod',ComputersandStructures,85(7‐8):331‐339.Webster,A.(2006‐ongoing),SolarStacking.(Anelectrochemicalsculpture.)See<http://www.andywebster.info/solar/>Webster,A.,andBird,J.(2002),TuningPask'sEar.Video(7:26)exhibitedinseveralgalleries.Whitelaw,M.(2004),Metacreation:ArtandArtificialLife(London:MITPress).Wilson,S.(2002),InformationArts:IntersectionsofArt,Science,andTechnology(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Woolf,S.(2004),ExpandedMedia:InteractiveandGenerativeProcessesinNewMediaArtsUnpublishedDPhilthesis,Dept.Informatics,UniversityofSussex.Xenakis,I(1971),FormalizedMusic:ThoughtandMathematicsinComposition(Bloomington,IndianaUniversityPress).Zivanovic,A.(2005),'TheDevelopmentofaCyberneticSculptor:EdwardIhnatowiczandtheSenster',inL.Candy(ed.),CreativityandCognition2005.ProceedingsoftheFifthConferenceonCreativityandCognition,12‐15April,GoldsmithsCollege(NewYork:ACMPress):102‐108.