The Cybernetics of Painting [courtesy of Simon Ingram]

I agree, however the fractal painting is not actually a painting at all. it is sculptural depiction of painting. Sort of an inverted painting of kinetics'.

On a slightly aside, early computer graphics used in film ran into the problem of, looking mathematical in contrast with real cinematography. So films like Jurassic park and terminator had to have steam or fog scripted hide the fact.

I swear, Artbash has been steeling the odd word here and there out of my sentences.

So I wonder how this show that Barton has put together compares with Justin Paton's 'The Secret Life of Paint'. (That title links nicely with Conland's 'Mystical Truths' that opens tonite in Auckland).
Here's Paton's line up: Guy Benfield, Graham Fletcher, Simon Ingram, Denise Kum, Julia Morison, Michael Morley, Miranda Parkes, Seung Yul Oh, Daniel von Sturmer, Rohan Wealleans.
A strange discordant mix - like Barton's . I'm puzzled how that bunch would come together. Has anyone seen it? .....Alibi?

Here is a great little article on Barton's show:
http://www.salient.org.nz/arts/visual-arts/four-times-painting

The catalogue, by the way, is a cracker, and elaborates in depth on Barton's interest here in painting's relationship to time. Something I hadn't fully grasped previously about this show.

Barton's introduction is excellent, and there are four terrific commissioned essays by Blair French (on Shane Cotton), Roger Horrocks (Julian Dashper), Natasha Conland (Simon Ingram) and Jan Bryant (Isobel Thom). This small, bright yellow publication has a conspicuously European look in its overall simplicity and use of only text on the cover. Very French or German, and designed brilliantly by experimenta.

 

Interesting discussion, I thought i would offer this youtube, it's a time based painting of mine. The youtube quality is a bit of a dissapointment, but you'll get the idea.  I wanted the paint to be its own articulation, free from the artists brush and gesture.  So i guess, Simon Ingram's robotic paintings think for them selves, these head towards becoming self-declarations of paint on the move!

 

Do Ingram's robots think for themselves or has Simon programmed in their actions?

The same could be said for his audience.

None of this is dissimilar to the work of Harold Cohen and his algorithm Aaron. Cohen has written some interesting essays on the subject of artificial intelligence and art. The most poignant is Brother Giorgio's Kangaroo.

Links

Aaron - http://www.viewingspace.com/genetics_culture/pages_genetics_culture/gc_w05/cohen_h.htm

BGK  - http://crca.ucsd.edu/~hcohen/cohenpdf/brothergkanga.pdf

Crazy my links don't work

I suppose copy and past in address bar will do it.

Another Artist/Researcher looking closely at the use of AI in art is Michael Mateas he is looking for practical narrative affordance as a process that can be utilized by AI in order to be "creative". Although his work is strictly aimed toward text based works, it is capable of describing any artistic practice that relies on systems and random behavior within those systems.

Much like Pollocks splash and dribble works.

Luke

Early Cohen use of floor drawing robot was fantastic, but then the works became figurative and corny. He never got the machine to make colour decisions,either, I think? Such a shame.

Interesting thread to revive.

My interest in Cohen/Aaron is the change between Cohen's even earlier work as a commercially and critically successful painter (produced the traditional way) which had left him economically comfortable but otherwise in a state of ennui and disenchantment...to then intentionally relinquishing control to sets of pre-programmed painting rules.

arguably the artist is also questioning the rules of modernity/ 'being a successful painter" (authenticity, expression, aesthetics, a-political and -just for JH- non-corny content)
and reducing or translating selected art world rules to sets of algorithms.

Ironic /poetic that the critic says: not good enough application of rules relating to color Aaron...back to the studio!

I think its all to do with Art as reification. Cohens Aaron and Ingram painting machines produce (algorithmic process objects). That due to association with artistic endeavor or narrative, become more to the viewer than objects. They take on meaning. Something that the artist might have calculated or like splash and dribble paintings eg Pollock, the object evokes the meaning by way of its being.

And isn't this what landscapes and still life paintings do? After all aren't paintings just coloured pigment on canvas arranged in such a way they represent something.

if all paintings do is to represent something, then that is sad, also failure. the only "dribble and splash" paintings that have thought meaningful in any way are those by Don Van Vliet. not a whif of the usual self indulgent twaddle usually seen exhibited in the walk-in wardrobes for interior decorators.

Hey Paul,

There is no doubting that the artists intention and emotion goes in to an artwork, that is without question. What is in question is, does an artwork convey what goes in "because" of what goes in, or is it the mere fact that any artifact that is representative of an artistic process will be concidered art. Cohen's Aaron algorithmic painting process is without experience other than the input that Harold Cohen puts in. It produces artifacts - coloured pigment on canvas arranged in such a way they represent something. Ingram painting machines produce much the same artifact based on algorithmic process not artistic input.

can admin sort out the double ups - my mouse is stuffing up

Quoting Lukeo25:

Hey Paul,

There is no doubting that the artists intention and emotion goes in to an artwork, that is without question. What is in question is, does an artwork convey what goes in "because" of what goes in, or is it the mere fact that any artifact that is representative of an artistic process will be concidered art. Cohen's Aaron algorithmic painting process is without experience other than the input that Harold Cohen puts in. It produces artifacts - coloured pigment on canvas arranged in such a way they represent something. Ingram painting machines produce much the same artifact based on algorithmic process not artistic input.

many artifacts that are representative of applying paint and process to a surface  are not deemed "art", for example film set rendering, and signwriting. the creativity that the machine displays through it's pigment distribution is the idea of the machine itself, the use of the machine makes an artistic statement, albeit a banal one. for me any artwork that is not answering or generating a question is gratuitous.