Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature: differenze tra le versioni

Versione delle 11:52, 24 mag 2019

Versione delle 18:42, 24 mag 2019

Riga 17:

== Controversy ==

Despite the loose parameters for what qualifies as art today, the debatable literary status of algorithmic outputs has been an ongoing contention even amongst [[new media]] artists.  Digital technology theorist [[Yuk Hui]] called algorithmic outputs “algorithmic catastrophes” rather than anything worth studying at all, defining outputs, or “the product of automated algorithms,” as “the failure of reason,” not even “material failure.”[[Utente:Lydia<ref>{{Cita Tuan/Generativepubblicazione|autore=Yuk Literature#%20ftn1Hui|[1]]] anno=2015|titolo=Algorithmic Catastrophe—The Revenge of Contingency|rivista=Parrhesia|volume=23|numero=|p=123|lingua=en|url=http://whatishappeningtoourbrain.rietveldacademie.nl/pages/brain/parrhesia.pdf}}</ref> Portuguese experimental poet [[Rui Torres]], whose corpus of creative works includes presenting poetry in hypermedia contexts, asserted, while fielding questions after a talk delivered at the [[Università della California, Berkeley|University of California, Berkeley]] in April 2016,[[Utente<ref>{{Cita video|autore=Rui Torres|titolo=Rui Torres – Unlocking the Secret Garden:Lydia Tuan/GenerativeElectronic Literature#%20ftn2 from Portugal|[2]]]url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKSo0iqdvPk|accesso=2019-05-24|data=2016-05-04|editore=Institute of European Studies, UC Berkeley|lingua=en}}</ref> that algorithmic outputs can never transpierce the literary realm, thus barring algorithmic outputs as literature and siding with Hui’s idea that algorithmic behaviors suggest a “failure of reason.”

[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Hui, 123.

[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftnref2|[2]]] Torres, “Unlocking the Secret Garden.”

To address this skepticism maintained by Hui and Torres, as well as other generative art skeptics — that algorithmic output cannot qualify as art — inevitably attracts past debates on art’s definition that have been hashed and re-hashed out since the emergence of the avant-garde.  According to Galanter, the oft-discussed question of “What is art?” within art theory does not go unnoticed when formulating generative art theory.  If art is to be understood as a product of expression, then generative art, Galanter notes, faces another obstacle, namely, the frequently encountered question within artificial intelligence discourse: “Can it be claimed that a computer can and will express itself? Alternatively, when the computer determines forms not anticipated by the artist, does its creation still qualify as the artist’s expression?”[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftn1|[1]]]

[[Utente:Lydia Tuan/Generative Literature#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Galanter, “Generative Art Theory,” 169.

To address this skepticism maintained by Hui and Torres, as well as other generative art skeptics — that algorithmic output cannot qualify as art — inevitably attracts past debates on art’s definition that have been hashed and re-hashed out since the emergence of the avant-garde.  According to generative artist [[Philip Galanter]], the oft-discussed question of “What is art?” within art theory does not go unnoticed when formulating generative art theory.  If art is to be understood as a product of expression, then generative art, Galanter notes, faces another obstacle, namely, the frequently encountered question within artificial intelligence discourse: “Can it be claimed that a computer can and will express itself? Alternatively, when the computer determines forms not anticipated by the artist, does its creation still qualify as the artist’s expression?”[[Utente:Lydia<ref>{{Cita Tuan/Generativelibro|autore=Philip Literature#%20ftn1Galanter|[curatore=Christiane Paul|titolo=A Companion to Digital Art|edizione=1]]]|anno=2016|editore=John Wiley & Sons, Inc.|lingua=en|p=169|capitolo=Generative Art Theory}}</ref>

== Examples of generative literature ==