generative art submission. fiorella modolo. 40056892
DES09124 2013-4 TR1 001 - Prototyping Interactive Experiences
generative art
“Generative art is neither programming nor art, in their conventional sense. It’s both and neither of these things. Programming is an interface between man and machine; it’s a clean, logical discipline, with clearly defined aims. Art is an emotional subject, highly subjective and defying definition. Generative art is the meeting place between the two; it’s the discipline of taking strict, cold, logical processes and subverting them into creating illogical, unpredictable, and expressive results.”
from “Generative Art“ by Matt Pearson
Generative Art (GenArt), is a relatively new form of expression. In his book “Generative Art“, Matt Pearson explains a lot about it and most of his concept are easy to grasp and extremely helpful for the “Spacial Interaction Project“ this booklet wants to document.
by Yuri Vishnevsky
What seems to be making GenArt different from all the traditional disciplines related to Fine Art is that it does not take years of practive to create a good work of art. It only takes a basic level of coding in Processing and a propension to embrace unexpected results and chaos.
ld or W of in sp ir at n
io
ld or W
GenArt
of c
gi
lo The cold language of programming and logic comes to touch with inspiration and spontaneity in Generative Art. Computers explore organic forms, the world of emotions and aesthetic values through the artist. The AIM of Generative Art is to “make something beautiful“.
Computers
Organic Emotion Aesthetic
Generative Art is defined in terms of the methods used to create it, not in terms of the final outcomes and the different styles achieved. Artist + a mechanism that autonomally generates the art.
Everything is Meltin by Will Nolan
The flexibility of the term also implies that nature and natural events can be used as the mechanism to produce art (see left and below).
Tree Drawings (2006) by Tim Knowles
assigned space
The designated space for this project is the passageway through Napier Tower in Merchiston Campus., more specifically the NorthWest wall, the ceiling and floorspace. The space has an aesthetic of its own compared to the rest of the university building which is not always appreciated by the crowd that walks quickly to the JKCC and the rest of the campus. Stone walls and 4 carved wooden chairs create an atmosphere of its own.
Design studios
Design studios
offices
shop
other building, canteen
JKCC ECCI student hub
cafe
exit
Main directions of people walking through the space.
library
Elements in the space and how the users react to them: Timber chairs: the passageway is part of the original Napier tower and the chairs (together with the stone walls) are the clear sign that that part of the building is historical. The chairs could be removed, but they might play an interesting role in the project. People walking past at the moment don’t seem to pay attention to them. Window: the window created a deep tunnel of dim light in the corridor. The light is not direct and it does not shine through, but it could cause an element of disturbance for the projection, for this reason the window could be covered with a panel. People walking past don’t generally notice the window because it is often covered by stands or materials.
development
There are two options for my design. The first is to make people move through the space, which is what is already happening without the projection; the second is to make people stop and linger in the area, which is often neglected. I think the second option would be more interesting for my design purposes.
Design ideas:
Ideally people should be encouraged to sit on the chairs and be part of the projection, to reevaluate the passageway. Abstract elements “growing� directly from the chairs to create a big coil on top of the wall would create an appealing design. The Perlin Noise function is ideal for this purpose.
If the chairs had 2 opposite interactions meeting at the top, an interesting visual dialogue would enhance the space and attract people more. For this design idea, I could use the random function making sure the shapes appear at the top corners.
The first idea of natural shapes being already there and growing only of intensity led to a further development. If they grew from scratch upwards to the top, like streams it would look more delicate. Again, Perlin noise would be central if this is developed.
The design might also start from the middle point of the floor up to the wall, branching out in an organic shape. People sitting on the chair would sit under the same abstract tree. To deliver this design, a recursive tree would be necessary.
The chairs could stay in place without being the central part of the projection. A constant flow of lines, created with particles on Processing and Perlin noise would look elegant and appealing.
Experimenting with Perlin Noise:
Modifying the PVector coordinates was I was trying to achieve was two separate streams of lines moving upwards. Changing the PVector didn’t work, and changing the i++ growing factor of the particle to i— did not work. This function seems also visually heavy.
Recursive trees and branches. Experiments #2:
On “Generative Art”, Matt Pearson talks about recursive trees (pg 159 onwards), which could have been a cool tool to explore. There seems to be a mistake in the code though, which I couldn’t fix.
Further Development: OpenProcessing has lots of examples of engaging design and to get some inspiration I tried to search for sketches dealing with free falling objects. I came across this sketch, Space Rain by Jerome Herr:
Having shapes falling freely onto the two chairs on the Napier Tower could create an engaging installation. From this code I tried to limit the “rain� to certain areas of the screen so it would cover only one, or more chairs. Placing a black rectangle on top of the rain seemed the most logical approach to take. Unfortunately, as much as visually this trick works, the rain is considerably slowed down by it.
Falling objects from OpenProcessing: The Perlin noise function is used to make objects flow smoothly, but there are sketches on OpenProcessing using other functions and achieving the same result. I found this code and started modifying it for my projection. The changes are roughly: - changing the frame rate to make it more flowy - placing new values in the translate() function to move the sketch on the top left corner of the screen - changing the colour of the particles from random to a simple white and the size of the particles.
Two independent flows of objects on the screen: to create a second flow, compatible with the white stream of particles, I used the random() function applied to rect().
I put red as default but other colours could work too:
Think about having 2 chairs with 2 streams of light flowing down on them. Considering that one stream is white, which other colour would you choose for the other stream? warm
4
cold
7
red
3
maroon
3
bright green
1
bright blue
4
light blue
3
purple
7
pink
2
yellow
1
With a quick questionnaire I asked people in Merchiston walking past the location what colours they thought would be appealing and appropriate for the space. Purple seems to be the most popular one.
The space given by the brief if relatively small. Positioning a projector in here could be difficult, especially if we consider cast shadows by passers by. placing the projector on the floor close to the wall could be an option but the width of the projection could not be enough to cover the wall. Moving the projector in the middle of the space seems out of the question. The best option is to use mirrors. The projector would face the opposite direction from the wall, and it would be close to it, but thanks to curved mirrors the projection would be wide enough. People walking past wouldn’t trip on it.
final design Final sequence: Two independent white streams flowing on the chairs and on the people sitting on them
The chairs are not the same two by accident, but if both the floes are white, two different chairs create an interesting effect.