Week 2 Reading Reflection
Read Regularity from 10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10 by Nick Monfort et al. (2012)
Create a slide in this deck with your response to the reading. You can respond through text directly on the slide, or via a link to a google doc or other online format. Include links to other texts, works, videos, images, as relevant.You can respond to any aspects of the reading, however you may choose to use the following prompt:
The reading highlights a range of applications of the grid in works of art and craft, while also demonstrating how computers, and computer programming provides the means to automate the production of grid-based designs through procedural repetition and algorithmic variation. Describe your perspective on the tradeoffs between manually executing grid based work by hand or through human performance, in comparison to automated procedural generation. Your response can include reflections on the implications manual or automated approaches have with regards to labor, aesthetics, workflows, or other properties of art and design production.
Post your Reflection by 6 PM Wednesday January 7th (13th?).
Ashley
The use of grids reminds me of the creation of patterns and styles in crochet, such as "granny squares". Crochet is basically based on repetition, and although there have been attempts to recreate crochet techniques through computers, there has been little progress. Yet due to the complex and beautiful pattern created along the years, programmers and artist still strive to achieve a computational tool that can crochet. Even though crochet can sometimes become monotonous due to the repetitions, I feel a deeper connection to it since I am making it with my own hands. I remember having as a kid a machine which automatize knitting, I created countless projects and really enjoyed my creations. Yet, I do not save or really treasure any of the projects made by the machine. I guess I do not feel that “ I made them”. On the other side, I still cherish my first knitting project made with my own hands, no matter the mistakes it was a different experience and sense of ownership. Maybe the feeling would have been different if I were to create the machine itself. In a way, I see computational art as the later, feeling proud of the code as well as the output of it.
I find it spectacular how a single line of code can create complex and different patterns. What makes this use of the grid and repetition unique and difficult to recreate is the inclusion of "randomness" or chance. Without this component, computerized art would be easy to replicate and in a way predictable. However the 10 PRINT code generates a feeling of curiosity, even the creator of the program does not know how it will turn out. Even more impressive, each time you run the program, a new pattern will be generated. It reminds me of a reading discussed in the previous class, created by Ingold, which talked about living materials used in art that brought their own mysterious uniqueness.
Mert
One line of BASIC code that runs infinitely and generates a new pattern in each iteration! It is a genius way of using programming for creating visual designs.
The reading discusses the applications of grid structures in depth from various disciplines. From the structures of computer memories to knitting patterns, there is an immense variety of applications. I especially liked how the reading is structured around examining the regularities in space, time, and process.
The manual execution of the repetition in space reminded me of Sol Lewitt's paintings. He designs 'algorithms' written in English to create most of his visual works. By observing draftspeople working on his pieces in the museums, we can immediately see the amount of labor this production mode requires to recreate one of his works on the gallery's wall. It would definitely be a faster production mechanism to use a computational method to produce such work, but it wouldn't have the same sense of belonging (either his or draftspeople’s) as it does now.
I also liked that the authors use performance arts as an example of repetition in the process. Step Piece is a performance where Vito Acconci climbs on a step stool at a rate of 30 steps a minute until he cannot do so anymore. The procedure defined here is robotic and is expected to be the same all the time. Yet since "a person's repetitive performance cannot be exactly the same each time," this poses an interesting contrast and comparison with the procedure defined in 10 Print. First is that 10 Print runs infinitely, whereas the Step Piece ultimately concludes with the performer's exhaustion. Also, the use of randomness in 10 Print makes it similarly variance as the Step Piece.
Masood
When I think about the difference between manual or automated procedural generation, the one idea that comes to mind is embodiment. From a purely phenomenological point of view, setting aside notions of what art is, creation is more satisfying for me when it is embodied. More important than satisfaction, I believe that being able to think with the whole body enables a greater range of possibilities, regardless of the end product. It’s one of the reasons I value having a designated space for creativity (like a studio or even just a desk).
The book is brilliant and the notion that an artwork could result from a single line of code is fascinating. Regarding the essay, I know things have changed somewhat since this piece was written. I wonder if it were written today if the framing of it would change. I suspect it would.
At its core, this work is an attempt to legitimate computational art practices by placing them within the larger framework of [Western] art history, a field that has largely marginalized computer art. The marginalization that has occurred to computer art is reminiscent of the ways in which craft has been marginalized. It usually involves a discourse of how it is automated and thus the subjectivity of the
[fictional] artist-genius is absent. Similarly I am critical of the notion that craft is not art because it was made for a purpose. This is a very Western ethnocentric point of view and is wholly absent in other cultures. I believe the art/craft dichotomy is largely rooted in class distinction and the exclusion of indigenous people and people of color from the canon of art history.
There is more I could write, but my position is that art created with computers does not need to be blessed by art history. Attempts at using its language or discourse to de-marginalize are futile and unnecessary. Art history and, indeed, the art world is an invention of the late 18th-19th century that condenses a history of segregation, colonialism, and inequality into specialized fields that feed into themselves to perpetuate themselves with a deep conservatism that is often overlooked by those wishing to be a part of it. I don’t see this as cynicism. I see it as truth. Computer art has its own history, and to be fair much of it is problematic as well and connected to the war machine.
The famous title of a book by Black lesbian feminist Audre Lorde comes to mind: “You can’t take apart the master’s house with the master’s tools.”
Suriya
The reading highlights the process of combining regularity and randomness in the setting of a grid and compares the results between manual execution and automated procedural generation.
One of the main tradeoffs that stood out to me were - programming, dealt with procedure of generating patterns symmetrical and repeatable, but the computer dealt with randomness and repetition(loops) but for a manual stitching setting like in a Jacquard Loom, the creator needs to know both creating patterns and seamlessly repeating them.
Secondly, the contrast that stood out between the two were, in terms of labour - “Commercial-grade textiles require up to four thousand cards strung together—a far
cry from the two statements on the one line of 10 PRINT”. The labor that goes into creating manual grid based work is incomparable to being able to generate the same with few lines of code. But this is also offset a little by thinking about memory and space in the computer screen and how the developer needs to consider it to produce works of art with aesthetic values.
Finally, the take on grid in modern art showed that the grid travels through time and artists and it has had it’s form from Abstract Expressions, Op-Art and through to minimalism. Quoting Ad Reinhardt - “...present art-as-art...to make it one thing it is only...” - shows that grid is an integral part to art be it computational generated or traditionally generated.