Randomness
From Maze
(Difference between revisions)
(→Works Cited) | (→Computational Randomness in Aesthetic Design: More on Perlin, add Csuri) | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
Even before the SAGA II playlets, there were other literary experiments with randomness and computers. Noah Wardrip-Fruin identifies the British computer scientist Christopher Strachey as the creator of the first work of electronic literature, a series of "love letters" generated by the Ferranti Mark I computer at Manchester University in 1952 (Wardrip-Fruin 2005). Affectionately known as M.U.C., the Manchester University Computer could produce the evocative love letters at a pace of one per minute for hours on end without duplicating any love letter. The "trick," as Strachey put it, was the two model sentences (e.g. "My ''adjective'' ''noun'' ''adverb'' ''verb'' your ''adjective'' ''noun''" and "You are my ''adjective'' ''noun''") in which the nouns, adjectives, and adverbs were randomly selected from a list of words Strachey had culled from Roget's Thesaurus. Adverbs and adjectives randomly dropped out of the sentence as well, and the computer randomly alternated the two sentences. On the whole, Strachey is dismissive of his foray into the literary use of computers, using the example of the love letters simply to illustrate his point that simple rules can generate diverse and unexpected results (Strachey 1954). Nonetheless, a decade before Raymond Queneau's ''One Hundred Thousand Billion Poems,'' Strachey had unwittingly laid the foundation for the combinatory method of composition, a use of randomness that would grow more central to literature and the arts in the following decades. | Even before the SAGA II playlets, there were other literary experiments with randomness and computers. Noah Wardrip-Fruin identifies the British computer scientist Christopher Strachey as the creator of the first work of electronic literature, a series of "love letters" generated by the Ferranti Mark I computer at Manchester University in 1952 (Wardrip-Fruin 2005). Affectionately known as M.U.C., the Manchester University Computer could produce the evocative love letters at a pace of one per minute for hours on end without duplicating any love letter. The "trick," as Strachey put it, was the two model sentences (e.g. "My ''adjective'' ''noun'' ''adverb'' ''verb'' your ''adjective'' ''noun''" and "You are my ''adjective'' ''noun''") in which the nouns, adjectives, and adverbs were randomly selected from a list of words Strachey had culled from Roget's Thesaurus. Adverbs and adjectives randomly dropped out of the sentence as well, and the computer randomly alternated the two sentences. On the whole, Strachey is dismissive of his foray into the literary use of computers, using the example of the love letters simply to illustrate his point that simple rules can generate diverse and unexpected results (Strachey 1954). Nonetheless, a decade before Raymond Queneau's ''One Hundred Thousand Billion Poems,'' Strachey had unwittingly laid the foundation for the combinatory method of composition, a use of randomness that would grow more central to literature and the arts in the following decades. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The 1960s were a time for radical experimentation with randomness in the visual arts. Even though computers were an available tool to explore chance operations, they were used in a limited way because of problems of access to the machines and a general distrust of computer technology within the arts. The 10 PRINT program is remarkable because it was created at the time when these reasons for not using computers in the visual arts were disappearing; the C64 was relatively inexpensive and designed for home use. Also, the public image of the computer was changing from a machine that supported technocracies to a tool for self-empowerment and creativity. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Before personal computers, calculating machines could only be found in universities and research labs and because of the cost and perceived use. They were typically used exclusively for serious work, not for creating aesthetic images. When artists did gain access to these machines it was typically through artists-in-residence programs at companies such as Bell Labs and IBM, and through infrastructure such as Experiments in Art and Technology (E.A.T) based in New York and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art's Art and Technology initiative in Los Angeles. In fact, many of the first aesthetic computer graphics were made not by artists, but by mathematicians and engineers who were curious about the potential for other uses for the machines at their labs. | ||
| − | [Randomness in art/computing appropriates the code/hardware from engineering uses.] | + | Within the first years that computer images were made, random processes were explored thoroughly. The first two exhibitions of computer-generated graphics appeared in art galleries in 1965 and both shows included pieces that were created using random values. In New York, the works of A. Michael Noll and Bela Julesz, both researchers at Bell Labs, were exhibited at the Howard Wise gallery from 6-24 April under the title “Computer-Generated Pictures”. In Stuttgart, the works of Georg Nees and Frieder Nake were exhibited at the Wendelin Niedlich Gallery from 5 - 26 November under the title “Computer-Grafik Programme.” |
| − | The 1960s were a time for radical experimentation with randomness in the visual arts. Even though computers were an available tool to explore chance operations, they were used in a limited way because of problems of access to the machines and a distrust of technology within the arts. The 10 PRINT program is remarkable because it represents the time when these reasons for not using computers in the visual arts were disappearing; the C64 was relatively inexpensive and designed for home use and the image of the computer was changing from machines that support technocracies to learning and self-empowerment tools. | + | In 1962, Noll published a technical memorandum at Bell Labs titled “Patterns by 7090”, the number 7090 refers to the IBM 7090 digital computer. He explained a series of mathematical and programming techniques that use random values to draw “haphazard patterns” to a Carlson 4020 Microfilm Printer. The eight patterns documented in the memo are the basis for his Guassian Quadratic image, which was exhibited in his 1965 exhibition. [MORE] |
| − | |||
| − | Before personal computers, however, calculating machines could only be found in universities and research labs and because of the cost and perceived use. They were typically used exclusively for serious work, not for creating aesthetic images. When artists did gain access to these machines it was typically through artists-in-residence programs at companies such as Bell Labs and IBM, and through infrastructure such as Experiments in Art and Technology (E.A.T) based in New York and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art's Art and Technology initiative in Los Angeles. In fact, many of the first aesthetic computer graphics were made not by artists, but by mathematicians and engineers who were curious about the potential for other uses for the machines at their labs. | ||
| − | |||
| − | Within the first years that computer images were made, random processes were explored thoroughly. The first two exhibitions of computer-generated graphics appeared in art galleries in 1965 and both shows included pieces that were created using random values. In New York, the works of A. Michael Noll and Bela Julesz, both researchers at Bell Labs, were exhibited at the Howard Wise gallery from 6-24 April under the title “Computer-Generated Pictures”. In Stuttgart, the works of Georg Nees and Frieder Nake were exhibited at the Wendelin Niedlich Gallery from 5 - 26 November under the title “Computer-Grafik Programme” | ||
| − | |||
| − | In 1962, Noll published a technical memorandum at Bell Labs titled “Patterns by 7090”, the number 7090 refers to the IBM 7090 digital computer. He explains a series of mathematical and programming techniques that use random values to draw “haphazard patterns” to a Carlson 4020 Microfilm Printer. The eight patterns documented in the memo are the basis for his Guassian Quadratic image, which was first exhibited in 1965. MORE | ||
In 1965, Nake created his Fields of rectangular cross hatchings series. Nake explains the way random values are used in the images: | In 1965, Nake created his Fields of rectangular cross hatchings series. Nake explains the way random values are used in the images: | ||
| + | Within a given (arbitrarily chosen) image size, a random number of hatchings were generated. Each one of them was determined by the following random variables: location (x, y), size (a, b), orientation of lines within rectangle (horizontal or vertical), number of lines, pen. So for each rectangle there were seven random numbers determining its details. [More on NAKE's random work] | ||
| − | :Within a given (arbitrarily chosen) image size, a random number of hatchings were generated. Each one of them was determined by the following random variables: location (x, y), size (a, b), orientation of lines within rectangle (horizontal or vertical), number of lines, pen. So for each rectangle there were seven random numbers determining its details. | + | [First artists on computer, using Random: Vera Molnar, Edward Zajec, Bangerts (See Artist and Computer)] |
| − | [More on NAKE's random work] | + | Charles Csuri's Random War (1967) is another early notable work of computer art to use random values. This plotter drawing is comprised of outlined figures patterned off of the little green army men toys popular at the time. Each figure, named after a real person, is placed randomly on the page and given a random status: dead, wounded, or missing. The solders of one army are drawn in red and the other in black; the names and status of each soldier appear at the top of the drawing. The drawing comments on the often arbitrary nature of war through both it's form and content. |
| − | [First artists on computer, using Random: Vera Molnar, Edward Zajec, Bangerts (See Artist and Computer)] | + | While the first decade of computer-generated art was well documented in magazines, books, and exhibition catalogs, there are fewer source materials from the 1970s public interest veered and the energy needed to publish and exhibition waned. Later in the decade as computer graphics started to make their way into advertising and films, the public record picks up. The 1982 film Tron is a landmark in the history of computation and aesthetics. This film pushed the aesthetics of computer graphics to a new level and it therefore also revealed the limitations of computer imagery at that time. Specifically, the images are purely geometric and cold; they lack the organic qualities of our natural world. Ken Perlin, one of the programmers for the Tron was frustrated with the clean look and he later developed a technique called Perlin Noise in 1983 to generate organic textures with a random appearance, but fully controllable to allow for careful design. Perlin Noise allows computer graphics models to have the subtle irregularities of real objects; it's used to create hard surfaces such as rocks and mountains and softer systems like fire and clouds. By the 1990s, it was used in all of the big budget films and had been incorporated into most off-the-shelf modeling software. |
| − | The 1982 film Tron is a landmark in the history of computation and aesthetics. This film pushed the aesthetics of computer graphics as far as they had been to date, and it therefore reveals the strongest limitation of computer images at the time. The images are purely geometric and cold in feeling; they lack the organic qualities of our larger world. Ken Perlin, one of the programmers for the film was frustrated with the clean look and he invented a technical called Perlin Noise to generate textures... A few years later, all Hollywood computer graphics used his technique for creating more realistic water, fire, and smoke... | + | Today, within the traditional visual arts, the most widely known artists that utilize random values still do so without computers. For example, 2002 Turner Prize winner Keith Tyson has designed sculptures entirely through rolling dice. Certainly, one reason for this reluctance to use computers is the stigma surrounding its use in art. Manfred Mohr, an pioneer of computer-generated art remarked in an interview, "I called my work generative art, or occasionally also algorithmic works. The problem was that no-one understood either of these terms, and I was forced -- so to speak -- to declare my drawings as art from the computer... people accused me of degrading art, because I was employing capitalistic instruments of war -- computer was a word non grata!".[ddaa p. 35] While Mohr was referring to the 1970s, the aversion to computers remains strong today within contemporary art. |
| − | [Random values for mutation in genetic algorithms] | + | Within the last decade, however, as a new generation of visual artists have started to program their work, computed random numbers have played an increased role in the visual landscape. The most prominent programming languages used by visual artists have functions for generating random numbers, noise values, and setting the random seed value to repeat a sequence. [More?] |
| − | Today, within the traditional visual arts, the most widely known artists that utilize random values still do so without computers. For example, 2002 Turner Prize winner Keith Tyson has designed sculptures entirely through rolling dice. Certainly, one reason for this reluctance is the stigma surrounding the computer use in art. Manfred Moore, an pioneer of computer-generated art remarked in an interview, "I called my work generative art, or occasionally also algorithmic works. The problem was that no-one understood either of these terms, and I was forced -- so to speak -- to declare my drawings as art from the computer... people accused me of degrading art, because I was employing capitalistic instruments of ware -- computer was a word non grata!".[ddaa p. 35] While Mohr was referring to the 1970s, the aversion to computers remains strong today within contemporary art. | + | With the perspective of time, it seems that aesthetic computational work and random values are intertwined. Writing in 1970, Noll highlights randomness as an essential feature of the computer in relation to the arts, “The computer is a unique device for the arts since it can function solely as an obedient tool with vast capabilities for controlling complicated and involved processes, but than again, full exploitation of its unique talents for controlled randomness and detailed algorithms could result in an entirely new medium – a creative artistic medium.” |
| − | |||
| − | Within the last decade, however, as a new generation of visual artists have started to program their work, computed random numbers have played an increased role in the visual landscape. The most prominent programming languages used by visual artists have functions for generating random numbers, noise values, and setting the random seed value to repeat a sequence. [Maybe more] | ||
| − | |||
| − | With the perspective of time, it seems that aesthetic computational work and random values are intertwined. Writing with perspective in 1970, Noll highlights randomness as an essential feature of the computer in relation to the arts, “The computer is a unique device for the arts since it can function solely as an obedient tool with vast capabilities for controlling complicated and involved processes, but than again, full exploitation of its unique talents for controlled randomness and detailed algorithms could result in an entirely new medium – a creative artistic medium.” | ||
=== Randomness in Contemporary Computing === | === Randomness in Contemporary Computing === | ||
