draw-something

Hi Rob,
I was looking at this and find it interesting. Thanks for sharing the
code with us. There are a couple of questions that come to mind. I'd
like to know if you have any plans of making the lines more "pencil"-
like by creating a more expressive line. I feel this is an issue that
has been largely overlooked by people working with automated drawing
processes. They tend to look really flat and dead because of it.
AARON, for instance, suffers from a severe case of flatness that
could be easily cured by some simple, maybe even random, variation in
line thickness and length. There's an interesting project called
Freestyle that's working on this (among other things) at http://
freestyle.sourceforge.net/index.php (source available).

Also, I noticed this on your blog:
"The shapes are random. The colours are random. At worst I'm showing
one in every three of these images.

Randomness gives good results far more often than it should. Is it
the heuristics I'm coding in, or is aesthetics really random?

Time to start adding rules."

I think it has to do with the range of data. Random is going to use
the whole range of data equally whereas something like weather is
going to be concentrated in predictable area's of the full range.
Personally, I think it's really interesting to see what happens with
different types of data. If you experiment with different data
sources, I think you'll find that they each have their own
significant character which could in turn be interesting to mix
together.

Pall

On 10.1.2006, at 18:56, Rob Myers wrote:

> I have been working on my program draw-something.
>
> There's a Flash version (made with MTASC):
>
> http://draw-something.robmyers.org/
>
> And the Lisp version now makes multiple figures and coloured figures:
>
> http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/11/purely-random-colour/
> http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/draw-something-drawing/
> http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/a-change-of-algorithm-for-
> draw-something/
>
> Source for all versions available from sourceforge CVS along with
> some recent release bundles:
>
> http:://rob-art.sourceforge.net/
>
> - Rob.
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> 29.php
>



–
Pall Thayer
p\[email protected]
http://www.this.is/pallit

I like draw-something as well. The shapes are flat - but strangely expressive.
The freestyle site looks a bit like open source Fractal Painter -which I always liked while being somewhat confused by what to actuallydo with it.
Creating computer art that emulates old media becomes realist to me ina funny way - I tend to perceive it as a portrait of the media itsimulates rather than the image itself.
jason van anden

On 1/11/06, Pall Thayer <[email protected]> wrote:> Hi Rob,> I was looking at this and find it interesting. Thanks for sharing the> code with us. There are a couple of questions that come to mind. I'd> like to know if you have any plans of making the lines more "pencil"-> like by creating a more expressive line. I feel this is an issue that> has been largely overlooked by people working with automated drawing> processes. They tend to look really flat and dead because of it.> AARON, for instance, suffers from a severe case of flatness that> could be easily cured by some simple, maybe even random, variation in> line thickness and length. There's an interesting project called> Freestyle that's working on this (among other things) at http://> freestyle.sourceforge.net/index.php (source available).>> Also, I noticed this on your blog:> "The shapes are random. The colours are random. At worst I'm showing> one in every three of these images.>> Randomness gives good results far more often than it should. Is it> the heuristics I'm coding in, or is aesthetics really random?>> Time to start adding rules.">> I think it has to do with the range of data. Random is going to use> the whole range of data equally whereas something like weather is> going to be concentrated in predictable area's of the full range.> Personally, I think it's really interesting to see what happens with> different types of data. If you experiment with different data> sources, I think you'll find that they each have their own> significant character which could in turn be interesting to mix> together.>> Pall>> On 10.1.2006, at 18:56, Rob Myers wrote:>> > I have been working on my program draw-something.> >> > There's a Flash version (made with MTASC):> >> > http://draw-something.robmyers.org/> >> > And the Lisp version now makes multiple figures and coloured figures:> >> > http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/11/purely-random-colour/> > http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/draw-something-drawing/> > http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/a-change-of-algorithm-for-> > draw-something/> >> > Source for all versions available from sourceforge CVS along with> > some recent release bundles:> >> > http:://rob-art.sourceforge.net/> >> > - Rob.> > +> > -> post: [email protected]> > -> questions: [email protected]> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/> > subscribe.rhiz> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support> > +> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/> > 29.php> >>>>> –> Pall Thayer> [email protected]> http://www.this.is/pallit>>>>>> +> -> post: [email protected]> -> questions: [email protected]> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support> +> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php>

–Jason Van Andenhttp://www.smileproject.com

For me randomness, the concept, is a nightmare, it's quicksand, it is the
one thing i can think of that's worse then (pick any random worst horror).
The day Superman solves random we'll all go to heaven (yes, even you manik).

Try it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random
They (we) can't even get the wikipedia article straightened out.

dv


> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
> Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Namens Pall Thayer
> Verzonden: woensdag 11 januari 2006 15:55
> Aan: Rob Myers
> CC: Rhizome Raw list
> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>
> Hi Rob,
> I was looking at this and find it interesting. Thanks for
> sharing the code with us. There are a couple of questions
> that come to mind. I'd like to know if you have any plans of
> making the lines more "pencil"- like by creating a more
> expressive line. I feel this is an issue that has been
> largely overlooked by people working with automated drawing
> processes. They tend to look really flat and dead because of it.
> AARON, for instance, suffers from a severe case of flatness
> that could be easily cured by some simple, maybe even random,
> variation in line thickness and length. There's an
> interesting project called Freestyle that's working on this
> (among other things) at http://
> freestyle.sourceforge.net/index.php (source available).
>
> Also, I noticed this on your blog:
> "The shapes are random. The colours are random. At worst I'm
> showing one in every three of these images.
>
> Randomness gives good results far more often than it should.
> Is it the heuristics I'm coding in, or is aesthetics really random?
>
> Time to start adding rules."
>
> I think it has to do with the range of data. Random is going
> to use the whole range of data equally whereas something like
> weather is going to be concentrated in predictable area's of
> the full range.
> Personally, I think it's really interesting to see what
> happens with different types of data. If you experiment with
> different data sources, I think you'll find that they each
> have their own significant character which could in turn be
> interesting to mix together.
>
> Pall
>
> On 10.1.2006, at 18:56, Rob Myers wrote:
>
> > I have been working on my program draw-something.
> >
> > There's a Flash version (made with MTASC):
> >
> > http://draw-something.robmyers.org/
> >
> > And the Lisp version now makes multiple figures and
> coloured figures:
> >
> > http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/11/purely-random-colour/
> > http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/draw-something-drawing/
> > http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/a-change-of-algorithm-for-
> > draw-something/
> >
> > Source for all versions available from sourceforge CVS
> along with some
> > recent release bundles:
> >
> > http:://rob-art.sourceforge.net/
> >
> > - Rob.
> > +
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> > subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> > 29.php
> >
>
>
>
> –
> Pall Thayer
> [email protected]
> http://www.this.is/pallit
>
>
>
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in
> the Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

Dirk,

I love randomness. Much of my art work is based on randomness. Much of my
life has been affected by seemingly random events and coincidences. I don't
know where I'd be without randomness. I don't want it solved or defined.
Maybe randomness is an illusion, and it's all preordained, but I don't care,
I still love randomness.

Best,

Zev

—– Original Message —–
From: "Dirk Vekemans" <[email protected]>
To: "'Pall Thayer'" <[email protected]>; "'Rob Myers'"
<[email protected]>
Cc: "'Rhizome Raw list'" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:22 PM
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something


> For me randomness, the concept, is a nightmare, it's quicksand, it is the
> one thing i can think of that's worse then (pick any random worst
> horror).
> The day Superman solves random we'll all go to heaven (yes, even you
> manik).
>
> Try it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random
> They (we) can't even get the wikipedia article straightened out.
>
> dv
>
>
>> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
>> Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Namens Pall Thayer
>> Verzonden: woensdag 11 januari 2006 15:55
>> Aan: Rob Myers
>> CC: Rhizome Raw list
>> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>>
>> Hi Rob,
>> I was looking at this and find it interesting. Thanks for
>> sharing the code with us. There are a couple of questions
>> that come to mind. I'd like to know if you have any plans of
>> making the lines more "pencil"- like by creating a more
>> expressive line. I feel this is an issue that has been
>> largely overlooked by people working with automated drawing
>> processes. They tend to look really flat and dead because of it.
>> AARON, for instance, suffers from a severe case of flatness
>> that could be easily cured by some simple, maybe even random,
>> variation in line thickness and length. There's an
>> interesting project called Freestyle that's working on this
>> (among other things) at http://
>> freestyle.sourceforge.net/index.php (source available).
>>
>> Also, I noticed this on your blog:
>> "The shapes are random. The colours are random. At worst I'm
>> showing one in every three of these images.
>>
>> Randomness gives good results far more often than it should.
>> Is it the heuristics I'm coding in, or is aesthetics really random?
>>
>> Time to start adding rules."
>>
>> I think it has to do with the range of data. Random is going
>> to use the whole range of data equally whereas something like
>> weather is going to be concentrated in predictable area's of
>> the full range.
>> Personally, I think it's really interesting to see what
>> happens with different types of data. If you experiment with
>> different data sources, I think you'll find that they each
>> have their own significant character which could in turn be
>> interesting to mix together.
>>
>> Pall
>>
>> On 10.1.2006, at 18:56, Rob Myers wrote:
>>
>> > I have been working on my program draw-something.
>> >
>> > There's a Flash version (made with MTASC):
>> >
>> > http://draw-something.robmyers.org/
>> >
>> > And the Lisp version now makes multiple figures and
>> coloured figures:
>> >
>> > http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/11/purely-random-colour/
>> > http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/draw-something-drawing/
>> > http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/a-change-of-algorithm-for-
>> > draw-something/
>> >
>> > Source for all versions available from sourceforge CVS
>> along with some
>> > recent release bundles:
>> >
>> > http:://rob-art.sourceforge.net/
>> >
>> > - Rob.
>> > +
>> > -> post: [email protected]
>> > -> questions: [email protected]
>> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
>> > subscribe.rhiz
>> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> > +
>> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
>> > 29.php
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> –
>> Pall Thayer
>> [email protected]
>> http://www.this.is/pallit
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> +
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in
>> the Membership Agreement available online at
>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

Hi there Zev:
once again, you're talking zen. These are pleasant thoughts though.
So yes & perhaps if you love it you get to know it in the end, as a reward
for letting it happen.
Miracles, or tales thereoff, always include some form of randomness, too.

But the point is (i think, do correct me if i'm wrong, cause i really don't
know any of this for sure): when you're programming, mostly either you want
to know exactly what will happen or you want to be able to count on it that
what will happen in the program is not determined by your previous code. So
you want it to be a random sequence. But that's where the problems start.
First you need to deal with pseudo-random, i. e. seemingly random things
that only act truly random for a given amount of cycles before it starts
reiterating. When that happens the sequence can only be 'just' another
predetermined, programmed cycle.

Pseudo-random is not a major problem unless you need to program very
important encryption software. If you're involved in such a thing, you can
make your fortune by coming up with the 'cheepest' algorhythm giving the
highest degree of randomness. Cheep in processing time to run the darn
thing, that is.

Pseudo-random is also a problem, i think, for those of us who want to make
works of art that include randomness in its concept. In some cases
pseudo-random won't do conceptually, because it would be cheating on the
idea you're trying to present. In some of those hard cases, you might solve
the problem by reverting to external inputs like radio static of the
degeneration rate of radio-activity. Alan Sondheim uses a 100 year old
instrument called a Crookes spinthariscope for it. They sell these beautiful
instruments as plastic leaded toys these days:
http://www.unitednuclear.com/spinthariscope.htm
But in a few scenario's using such equipment, or a random generating service
like http://www.random.org/ might not be possible.

And when you have finally succesfully included pure randomness in your
artwork, or when you're satisfied with the amount of imperfection, you still
need to make sense of it (ok:some artists don't, but because of the random
thing they'll never know for sure just how meaningless it is). You don't
need to solve the riddle of the universe at that point, but you want to have
a clear idea of what you're doing, how the random part strikes the balance
with the programmed part including the personal, stylish part every
programmer puts in her programming and their personal assesment of what is
beautiful, valuable, aesthetically pleasing or any perversions thereoff. So
if you ask yourself what is your take on random, you are perhaps required to
ask yourself a question that goes to the core of what you're trying to
accomplish. It's about how much control you want to have over what you are
doing, the inner/outer balance of it, the IOwhy of an artist.

There are times when you don't want to be face to face with these questions.
I can write poetry or nag on art like this for ages without getting
emotionally affected when i don't want that. Merely calling the Math.random
class in my actionScript sometimes gives me the creeps, involuntarily.

I can't predict it, but when that happens, it take it to be a sign.

greetings,
dv

> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
> Van: Zev Robinson [mailto:[email protected]]
> Verzonden: woensdag 11 januari 2006 22:30
> Aan: Dirk Vekemans; 'Pall Thayer'; 'Rob Myers'
> CC: 'Rhizome Raw list'
> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>
> Dirk,
>
> I love randomness. Much of my art work is based on
> randomness. Much of my life has been affected by seemingly
> random events and coincidences. I don't know where I'd be
> without randomness. I don't want it solved or defined.
> Maybe randomness is an illusion, and it's all preordained,
> but I don't care, I still love randomness.
>
> Best,
>
> Zev
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Dirk Vekemans" <[email protected]>
> To: "'Pall Thayer'" <[email protected]>; "'Rob Myers'"
> <[email protected]>
> Cc: "'Rhizome Raw list'" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:22 PM
> Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>
>
> > For me randomness, the concept, is a nightmare, it's
> quicksand, it is the
> > one thing i can think of that's worse then (pick any random worst
> > horror).
> > The day Superman solves random we'll all go to heaven (yes,
> even you
> > manik).
> >
> > Try it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random
> > They (we) can't even get the wikipedia article straightened out.
> >
> > dv
> >
> >
> >> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
> >> Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> >> Namens Pall Thayer
> >> Verzonden: woensdag 11 januari 2006 15:55
> >> Aan: Rob Myers
> >> CC: Rhizome Raw list
> >> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
> >>
> >> Hi Rob,
> >> I was looking at this and find it interesting. Thanks for
> >> sharing the code with us. There are a couple of questions
> >> that come to mind. I'd like to know if you have any plans of
> >> making the lines more "pencil"- like by creating a more
> >> expressive line. I feel this is an issue that has been
> >> largely overlooked by people working with automated drawing
> >> processes. They tend to look really flat and dead because of it.
> >> AARON, for instance, suffers from a severe case of flatness
> >> that could be easily cured by some simple, maybe even random,
> >> variation in line thickness and length. There's an
> >> interesting project called Freestyle that's working on this
> >> (among other things) at http://
> >> freestyle.sourceforge.net/index.php (source available).
> >>
> >> Also, I noticed this on your blog:
> >> "The shapes are random. The colours are random. At worst I'm
> >> showing one in every three of these images.
> >>
> >> Randomness gives good results far more often than it should.
> >> Is it the heuristics I'm coding in, or is aesthetics really random?
> >>
> >> Time to start adding rules."
> >>
> >> I think it has to do with the range of data. Random is going
> >> to use the whole range of data equally whereas something like
> >> weather is going to be concentrated in predictable area's of
> >> the full range.
> >> Personally, I think it's really interesting to see what
> >> happens with different types of data. If you experiment with
> >> different data sources, I think you'll find that they each
> >> have their own significant character which could in turn be
> >> interesting to mix together.
> >>
> >> Pall
> >>
> >> On 10.1.2006, at 18:56, Rob Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> > I have been working on my program draw-something.
> >> >
> >> > There's a Flash version (made with MTASC):
> >> >
> >> > http://draw-something.robmyers.org/
> >> >
> >> > And the Lisp version now makes multiple figures and
> >> coloured figures:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/11/purely-random-colour/
> >> > http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/draw-something-drawing/
> >> >
> http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/a-change-of-algorithm-for-
> >> > draw-something/
> >> >
> >> > Source for all versions available from sourceforge CVS
> >> along with some
> >> > recent release bundles:
> >> >
> >> > http:://rob-art.sourceforge.net/
> >> >
> >> > - Rob.
> >> > +
> >> > -> post: [email protected]
> >> > -> questions: [email protected]
> >> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> >> > subscribe.rhiz
> >> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >> > +
> >> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> >> > 29.php
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> –
> >> Pall Thayer
> >> [email protected]
> >> http://www.this.is/pallit
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> +
> >> -> post: [email protected]
> >> -> questions: [email protected]
> >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >> +
> >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in
> >> the Membership Agreement available online at
> >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >>
> >
> >
> > +
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
>

Hi Dirk,
This is MANIK from hell.
Let's get to work:for you randomness mean same as a concept("For me randomn=
ess, the concept, …)
This is interesting idea and I dare to see rot of it could be in Dutchman's=
fight for fertility land,fight against nature(fait against randomness of s=
ee, the concept of other entity,God maybe.)American Pioneer have some of th=
at madness but they were cruel murder if is necessary,and of curse God was =
good/necessary for pardon of sins)."So help me God!",they said and kill som=
e Iraqi child,or Indian,it doesn't matter.
Man have to established full control,he's uber alles,he rule over nature-in=
this moment this represent retro-modernistic concept with element of fasci=
sm(genetic control and modular stile of space/mind strategic organization),=
fancy,inn,mostly in design,and fashion,in "modular"architecture etc…Signi=
ficant historical example were Mondrian's neoplasticism,and Le Corbusier bu=
ildings.But even in Mondrians work was element of randomness,intentionally =
provoke suspense(Bugi-Vugi serial from NYC,40-this,…to much randomness,to=
many blots).
I think that you wish people-machine who work perfect until they stop.One's=
for ever,The End!(?)Plastic doll who you could bore when became nasty?
My humble experience with mechanism who investigate random/rule-tarot,and s=
imilar discipline are para-scientist,worthless and extremely personal as an=
experience and they're in strange co-relation with J.Koons statement(parap=
hrase):"We have to be objective and reduce influence of subconsiousnes."Whi=
ch mean that we can see our self's in every sense of this word(future,desti=
ny,…)but what's the purpose?If you are afraid of concept act like they do=
esn't existed.If you hate randomness there's no Superman anymore(he broke h=
is neck and die)to save us.It looks to me that we must live with legs sprea=
d between random and predictable.See explanation of card"Chariot",and legen=
d about Medusa,Orpheus&Eurydice,emotions?:)
Cheers
MANIK


For me randomness, the concept, is a nightmare, it's quicksand, it is the
one thing i can think of that's worse then (pick any random worst horror).
The day Superman solves random we'll all go to heaven (yes, even you manik).

Try it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random
They (we) can't even get the wikipedia article straightened out.

dv


> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
> Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Namens Pall Thayer
> Verzonden: woensdag 11 januari 2006 15:55
> Aan: Rob Myers
> CC: Rhizome Raw list
> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>
> Hi Rob,
> I was looking at this and find it interesting. Thanks for
> sharing the code with us. There are a couple of questions
> that come to mind. I'd like to know if you have any plans of
> making the lines more "pencil"- like by creating a more
> expressive line. I feel this is an issue that has been
> largely overlooked by people working with automated drawing
> processes. They tend to look really flat and dead because of it.
> AARON, for instance, suffers from a severe case of flatness
> that could be easily cured by some simple, maybe even random,
> variation in line thickness and length. There's an
> interesting project called Freestyle that's working on this
> (among other things) at http://
> freestyle.sourceforge.net/index.php (source available).
>
> Also, I noticed this on your blog:
> "The shapes are random. The colours are random. At worst I'm
> showing one in every three of these images.
>
> Randomness gives good results far more often than it should.
> Is it the heuristics I'm coding in, or is aesthetics really random?
>
> Time to start adding rules."
>
> I think it has to do with the range of data. Random is going
> to use the whole range of data equally whereas something like
> weather is going to be concentrated in predictable area's of
> the full range.
> Personally, I think it's really interesting to see what
> happens with different types of data. If you experiment with
> different data sources, I think you'll find that they each
> have their own significant character which could in turn be
> interesting to mix together.
>
> Pall
>
> On 10.1.2006, at 18:56, Rob Myers wrote:
>
> > I have been working on my program draw-something.
> >
> > There's a Flash version (made with MTASC):
> >
> > http://draw-something.robmyers.org/
> >
> > And the Lisp version now makes multiple figures and
> coloured figures:
> >
> > http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/11/purely-random-colour/
> > http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/draw-something-drawing/
> > http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/a-change-of-algorithm-for-
> > draw-something/
> >
> > Source for all versions available from sourceforge CVS
> along with some
> > recent release bundles:
> >
> > http:://rob-art.sourceforge.net/
> >
> > - Rob.
> > +
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> > subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> > 29.php
> >
>
>
>
> –
> Pall Thayer
> [email protected]
> http://www.this.is/pallit
>
>
>
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in
> the Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>


+
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

Hi Dirk,
This is MANIK from hell.
Let's get to work:for you randomness mean same as a concept("For me randomn=
ess, the concept, …)
This is interesting idea and I dare to see rot of it could be in Dutchman's=
fight for fertility land,fight against nature(fait against randomness of s=
ee, the concept of other entity,God maybe.)American Pioneer have some of th=
at madness but they were cruel murder if is necessary,and of curse God was =
good/necessary for pardon of sins)."So help me God!",they said and kill som=
e Iraqi child,or Indian,it doesn't matter.
Man have to established full control,he's uber alles,he rule over nature-in=
this moment this represent retro-modernistic concept with element of fasci=
sm(genetic control and modular stile of space/mind strategic organization),=
fancy,inn,mostly in design,and fashion,in "modular"architecture etc…Signi=
ficant historical example were Mondrian's neoplasticism,and Le Corbusier bu=
ildings.But even in Mondrians work was element of randomness,intentionally =
provoke suspense(Bugi-Vugi serial from NYC,40-this,…to much randomness,to=
many blots).
I think that you wish people-machine who work perfect until they stop.One's=
for ever,The End!(?)Plastic doll who you could bore when became nasty?
My humble experience with mechanism who investigate random/rule-tarot,and s=
imilar discipline are para-scientist,worthless and extremely personal as an=
experience and they're in strange co-relation with J.Koons statement(parap=
hrase):"We have to be objective and reduce influence of subconsiousnes."Whi=
ch mean that we can see our self's in every sense of this word(future,desti=
ny,…)but what's the purpose?If you are afraid of concept act like they do=
esn't existed.If you hate randomness there's no Superman anymore(he broke h=
is neck and die)to save us.It looks to me that we must live with legs sprea=
d between random and predictable.See explanation of card"Chariot",and legen=
d about Medusa,Orpheus&Eurydice,emotions?:)
Cheers
MANIK


For me randomness, the concept, is a nightmare, it's quicksand, it is the
one thing i can think of that's worse then (pick any random worst horror).
The day Superman solves random we'll all go to heaven (yes, even you manik).

Try it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random
They (we) can't even get the wikipedia article straightened out.

dv


> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
> Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Namens Pall Thayer
> Verzonden: woensdag 11 januari 2006 15:55
> Aan: Rob Myers
> CC: Rhizome Raw list
> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>
> Hi Rob,
> I was looking at this and find it interesting. Thanks for
> sharing the code with us. There are a couple of questions
> that come to mind. I'd like to know if you have any plans of
> making the lines more "pencil"- like by creating a more
> expressive line. I feel this is an issue that has been
> largely overlooked by people working with automated drawing
> processes. They tend to look really flat and dead because of it.
> AARON, for instance, suffers from a severe case of flatness
> that could be easily cured by some simple, maybe even random,
> variation in line thickness and length. There's an
> interesting project called Freestyle that's working on this
> (among other things) at http://
> freestyle.sourceforge.net/index.php (source available).
>
> Also, I noticed this on your blog:
> "The shapes are random. The colours are random. At worst I'm
> showing one in every three of these images.
>
> Randomness gives good results far more often than it should.
> Is it the heuristics I'm coding in, or is aesthetics really random?
>
> Time to start adding rules."
>
> I think it has to do with the range of data. Random is going
> to use the whole range of data equally whereas something like
> weather is going to be concentrated in predictable area's of
> the full range.
> Personally, I think it's really interesting to see what
> happens with different types of data. If you experiment with
> different data sources, I think you'll find that they each
> have their own significant character which could in turn be
> interesting to mix together.
>
> Pall
>
> On 10.1.2006, at 18:56, Rob Myers wrote:
>
> > I have been working on my program draw-something.
> >
> > There's a Flash version (made with MTASC):
> >
> > http://draw-something.robmyers.org/
> >
> > And the Lisp version now makes multiple figures and
> coloured figures:
> >
> > http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/11/purely-random-colour/
> > http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/draw-something-drawing/
> > http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/a-change-of-algorithm-for-
> > draw-something/
> >
> > Source for all versions available from sourceforge CVS
> along with some
> > recent release bundles:
> >
> > http:://rob-art.sourceforge.net/
> >
> > - Rob.
> > +
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> > subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> > 29.php
> >
>
>
>
> –
> Pall Thayer
> [email protected]
> http://www.this.is/pallit
>
>
>
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in
> the Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>


+
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

it's always back to Zen, isn't it.

three things here - the perception of randomness, whether the randomness
actually exists or not, and the computer's ability to simulate it.

A lot of our work at www.artafterscience.com is (pseudo) random. If we take,
say, a hundred images, a hundred sound clips, and, let's say there are a
hundred perceived colours (just for arguements sake). So we have a million
different combinations, and if we add a (pseudo) random position, or
movement, or the number of objects appearing, or the time it stays on the
screen, then the number goes much, much higher.

so the random possibility of someone saying, "didn't I see that exact image
before" is about the same if it were pseudo random or truely random.

If the computer can simulate at least the perception of randomness, so that,
for example, the viewer cannot which image will come up next, then I can
live with that.

Our experience, tho, is that the difficult part isn't so much in the
scripting (easy for me to say since it's Adrian Marshall who does the
scripting) but in molding it into a creative vision, understanding what we
want to do, see how it works audio-visually, deciding on the parameters of
the randomness, on the nature of the imagery used, and so on and so on.

I don't know any of this for sure either, tho, and nobody else does either.

Zev


—– Original Message —–
From: "Dirk Vekemans" <[email protected]>
To: "'Zev Robinson'" <[email protected]>
Cc: "'Rhizome Raw list'" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:55 PM
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something


>
> Hi there Zev:
> once again, you're talking zen. These are pleasant thoughts though.
> So yes & perhaps if you love it you get to know it in the end, as a reward
> for letting it happen.
> Miracles, or tales thereoff, always include some form of randomness, too.
>
> But the point is (i think, do correct me if i'm wrong, cause i really
> don't
> know any of this for sure): when you're programming, mostly either you
> want
> to know exactly what will happen or you want to be able to count on it
> that
> what will happen in the program is not determined by your previous code.
> So
> you want it to be a random sequence. But that's where the problems start.
> First you need to deal with pseudo-random, i. e. seemingly random things
> that only act truly random for a given amount of cycles before it starts
> reiterating. When that happens the sequence can only be 'just' another
> predetermined, programmed cycle.
>
> Pseudo-random is not a major problem unless you need to program very
> important encryption software. If you're involved in such a thing, you can
> make your fortune by coming up with the 'cheepest' algorhythm giving the
> highest degree of randomness. Cheep in processing time to run the darn
> thing, that is.
>
> Pseudo-random is also a problem, i think, for those of us who want to
> make
> works of art that include randomness in its concept. In some cases
> pseudo-random won't do conceptually, because it would be cheating on the
> idea you're trying to present. In some of those hard cases, you might
> solve
> the problem by reverting to external inputs like radio static of the
> degeneration rate of radio-activity. Alan Sondheim uses a 100 year old
> instrument called a Crookes spinthariscope for it. They sell these
> beautiful
> instruments as plastic leaded toys these days:
> http://www.unitednuclear.com/spinthariscope.htm
> But in a few scenario's using such equipment, or a random generating
> service
> like http://www.random.org/ might not be possible.
>
> And when you have finally succesfully included pure randomness in your
> artwork, or when you're satisfied with the amount of imperfection, you
> still
> need to make sense of it (ok:some artists don't, but because of the random
> thing they'll never know for sure just how meaningless it is). You don't
> need to solve the riddle of the universe at that point, but you want to
> have
> a clear idea of what you're doing, how the random part strikes the balance
> with the programmed part including the personal, stylish part every
> programmer puts in her programming and their personal assesment of what is
> beautiful, valuable, aesthetically pleasing or any perversions thereoff.
> So
> if you ask yourself what is your take on random, you are perhaps required
> to
> ask yourself a question that goes to the core of what you're trying to
> accomplish. It's about how much control you want to have over what you are
> doing, the inner/outer balance of it, the IOwhy of an artist.
>
> There are times when you don't want to be face to face with these
> questions.
> I can write poetry or nag on art like this for ages without getting
> emotionally affected when i don't want that. Merely calling the
> Math.random
> class in my actionScript sometimes gives me the creeps, involuntarily.
>
> I can't predict it, but when that happens, it take it to be a sign.
>
> greetings,
> dv
>
>> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
>> Van: Zev Robinson [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Verzonden: woensdag 11 januari 2006 22:30
>> Aan: Dirk Vekemans; 'Pall Thayer'; 'Rob Myers'
>> CC: 'Rhizome Raw list'
>> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>>
>> Dirk,
>>
>> I love randomness. Much of my art work is based on
>> randomness. Much of my life has been affected by seemingly
>> random events and coincidences. I don't know where I'd be
>> without randomness. I don't want it solved or defined.
>> Maybe randomness is an illusion, and it's all preordained,
>> but I don't care, I still love randomness.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Zev
>>
>> —– Original Message —–
>> From: "Dirk Vekemans" <[email protected]>
>> To: "'Pall Thayer'" <[email protected]>; "'Rob Myers'"
>> <[email protected]>
>> Cc: "'Rhizome Raw list'" <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:22 PM
>> Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>>
>>
>> > For me randomness, the concept, is a nightmare, it's
>> quicksand, it is the
>> > one thing i can think of that's worse then (pick any random worst
>> > horror).
>> > The day Superman solves random we'll all go to heaven (yes,
>> even you
>> > manik).
>> >
>> > Try it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random
>> > They (we) can't even get the wikipedia article straightened out.
>> >
>> > dv
>> >
>> >
>> >> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
>> >> Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
>> >> Namens Pall Thayer
>> >> Verzonden: woensdag 11 januari 2006 15:55
>> >> Aan: Rob Myers
>> >> CC: Rhizome Raw list
>> >> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>> >>
>> >> Hi Rob,
>> >> I was looking at this and find it interesting. Thanks for
>> >> sharing the code with us. There are a couple of questions
>> >> that come to mind. I'd like to know if you have any plans of
>> >> making the lines more "pencil"- like by creating a more
>> >> expressive line. I feel this is an issue that has been
>> >> largely overlooked by people working with automated drawing
>> >> processes. They tend to look really flat and dead because of it.
>> >> AARON, for instance, suffers from a severe case of flatness
>> >> that could be easily cured by some simple, maybe even random,
>> >> variation in line thickness and length. There's an
>> >> interesting project called Freestyle that's working on this
>> >> (among other things) at http://
>> >> freestyle.sourceforge.net/index.php (source available).
>> >>
>> >> Also, I noticed this on your blog:
>> >> "The shapes are random. The colours are random. At worst I'm
>> >> showing one in every three of these images.
>> >>
>> >> Randomness gives good results far more often than it should.
>> >> Is it the heuristics I'm coding in, or is aesthetics really random?
>> >>
>> >> Time to start adding rules."
>> >>
>> >> I think it has to do with the range of data. Random is going
>> >> to use the whole range of data equally whereas something like
>> >> weather is going to be concentrated in predictable area's of
>> >> the full range.
>> >> Personally, I think it's really interesting to see what
>> >> happens with different types of data. If you experiment with
>> >> different data sources, I think you'll find that they each
>> >> have their own significant character which could in turn be
>> >> interesting to mix together.
>> >>
>> >> Pall
>> >>
>> >> On 10.1.2006, at 18:56, Rob Myers wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I have been working on my program draw-something.
>> >> >
>> >> > There's a Flash version (made with MTASC):
>> >> >
>> >> > http://draw-something.robmyers.org/
>> >> >
>> >> > And the Lisp version now makes multiple figures and
>> >> coloured figures:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/11/purely-random-colour/
>> >> > http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/draw-something-drawing/
>> >> >
>> http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/a-change-of-algorithm-for-
>> >> > draw-something/
>> >> >
>> >> > Source for all versions available from sourceforge CVS
>> >> along with some
>> >> > recent release bundles:
>> >> >
>> >> > http:://rob-art.sourceforge.net/
>> >> >
>> >> > - Rob.
>> >> > +
>> >> > -> post: [email protected]
>> >> > -> questions: [email protected]
>> >> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
>> >> > subscribe.rhiz
>> >> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> >> > +
>> >> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> >> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
>> >> > 29.php
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> –
>> >> Pall Thayer
>> >> [email protected]
>> >> http://www.this.is/pallit
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> +
>> >> -> post: [email protected]
>> >> -> questions: [email protected]
>> >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> >> +
>> >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in
>> >> the Membership Agreement available online at
>> >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > +
>> > -> post: [email protected]
>> > -> questions: [email protected]
>> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> > +
>> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> > Membership Agreement available online at
>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>

Apologies, MANIK from hell, i was out all day and perhaps it's because i'm
too tired but much as i feel obliged to anwer when addressed, i find it near
impossible to respond to your remarks in a meaningful way now: you start
from mistaking my sigh of incompetence to deal with a concept for a
definition of a word, and continue in a random fashion of pre-emptive
strikes to nail my male but against an imagenary wall, it seems. My next
mail in this thread kinda contradicts everything here, no? Anyway, i'm not
from the Netherlands, so there's no need to drag those fine people into this
and if you'd care to take a look at what i try to do, you might agree i'm
not after any kind of total control.
How is hell these days anyway? i kinda miss the heat, sometimes.
dv


_____

Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Namens manik
Verzonden: donderdag 12 januari 2006 3:41
Aan: [email protected]
Onderwerp: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something


Hi Dirk,
This is MANIK from hell.
Let's get to work:for you randomness mean same as a concept("For me
randomness, the concept, …)
This is interesting idea and I dare to see rot of it could be in Dutchman's
fight for fertility land,fight against nature(fait against randomness of
see, the concept of other entity,God maybe.)American Pioneer have some of
that madness but they were cruel murder if is necessary,and of curse God was
good/necessary for pardon of sins)."So help me God!",they said and kill some
Iraqi child,or Indian,it doesn't matter.
Man have to established full control,he's uber alles,he rule over nature-in
this moment this represent retro-modernistic concept with element of
fascism(genetic control and modular stile of space/mind strategic
organization),fancy,inn,mostly in design,and fashion,in
"modular"architecture etc…Significant historical example were Mondrian's
neoplasticism,and Le Corbusier buildings.But even in Mondrians work was
element of randomness,intentionally provoke suspense(Bugi-Vugi serial from
NYC,40-this,…to much randomness,to many blots).
I think that you wish people-machine who work perfect until they stop.One's
for ever,The End!(?)Plastic doll who you could bore when became nasty?
My humble experience with mechanism who investigate random/rule-tarot,and
similar discipline are para-scientist,worthless and extremely personal as an
experience and they're in strange co-relation with J.Koons
statement(paraphrase):"We have to be objective and reduce influence of
subconsiousnes."Which mean that we can see our self's in every sense of this
word(future,destiny,…)but what's the purpose?If you are afraid of concept
act like they doesn't existed.If you hate randomness there's no Superman
anymore(he broke his neck and die)to save us.It looks to me that we must
live with legs spread between random and predictable.See explanation of
card"Chariot",and legend about Medusa,Orpheus&Eurydice,emotions?:)
Cheers
MANIK


For me randomness, the concept, is a nightmare, it's quicksand, it is the
one thing i can think of that's worse then (pick any random worst horror).
The day Superman solves random we'll all go to heaven (yes, even you manik).

Try it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random
They (we) can't even get the wikipedia article straightened out.

dv


> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
> Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Namens Pall Thayer
> Verzonden: woensdag 11 januari 2006 15:55
> Aan: Rob Myers
> CC: Rhizome Raw list
> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>
> Hi Rob,
> I was looking at this and find it interesting. Thanks for
> sharing the code with us. There are a couple of questions
> that come to mind. I'd like to know if you have any plans of
> making the lines more "pencil"- like by creating a more
> expressive line. I feel this is an issue that has been
> largely overlooked by people working with automated drawing
> processes. They tend to look really flat and dead because of it.
> AARON, for instance, suffers from a severe case of flatness
> that could be easily cured by some simple, maybe even random,
> variation in line thickness and length. There's an
> interesting project called Freestyle that's working on this
> (among other things) at http://
> freestyle.sourceforge.net/index.php (source available).
>
> Also, I noticed this on your blog:
> "The shapes are random. The colours are random. At worst I'm
> showing one in every three of these images.
>
> Randomness gives good results far more often than it should.
> Is it the heuristics I'm coding in, or is aesthetics really random?
>
> Time to start adding rules."
>
> I think it has to do with the range of data. Random is going
> to use the whole range of data equally whereas something like
> weather is going to be concentrated in predictable area's of
> the full range.
> Personally, I think it's really interesting to see what
> happens with different types of data. If you experiment with
> different data sources, I think you'll find that they each
> have their own significant character which could in turn be
> interesting to mix together.
>
> Pall
>
> On 10.1.2006, at 18:56, Rob Myers wrote:
>
> > I have been working on my program draw-something.
> >
> > There's a Flash version (made with MTASC):
> >
> > http://draw-something.robmyers.org/
> >
> > And the Lisp version now makes multiple figures and
> coloured figures:
> >
> > http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/11/purely-random-colour/
> > http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/draw-something-drawing/
> > http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/a-change-of-algorithm-for-
> > draw-something/
> >
> > Source for all versions available from sourceforge CVS
> along with some
> > recent release bundles:
> >
> > http:://rob-art.sourceforge.net/
> >
> > - Rob.
> > +
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> > subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> > 29.php
> >
>
>
>
> –
> Pall Thayer
> [email protected]
> http://www.this.is/pallit
>
>
>
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in
> the Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>


+
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

> Namens Zev Robinson

> If the computer can simulate at least the perception of
> randomness, so that, for example, the viewer cannot which
> image will come up next, then I can live with that.

Well in my PCU part of my Cathedral, for instance, i can't: for now i have to use pseudo-random, because i haven't found a solution yet, but it is conceptually wrong. The idea of the thing (however stupid that may be) calls for it to be(come) exactly what the words about it say: a view (visualisation) of the Cathedral over time. That might include true randomness, it certainly may *not* include pseudo-random sequences, not even if no-one would ever see the difference (which i doubt, in this case)

> Our experience, tho, is that the difficult part isn't so much
> in the scripting (easy for me to say since it's Adrian
> Marshall who does the
> scripting) but in molding it into a creative vision,
> understanding what we want to do, see how it works
> audio-visually, deciding on the parameters of the randomness,
> on the nature of the imagery used, and so on and so on.

Earlier discussions on this list have shown statements like these to be rather tricky. I take it you're not downplaying the programmers part in the art, but some of us believe you cannot just 'outsource' your scripting part to someone who has little to say in the conceptual work. Perhaps this little random topic can be a good example of how the minute decisions you make as a programmer do matter to the conceptual soundness of the thing. Personally, i've learned some (web)programming the hard way and i'm by no means a full fledge professionally trained programmer, but i prefer to hack my own stuff together no matter how much time i loose in the process. Entrusting a skilled programmer with the task would be like writing a poem in Dutch and have someone translate it to English and then claim i'm an English poet.

But i'm a literary person, a fetishist obstinate self-indulgent fool insisting authorship includes dealing with every aspect of the thing. As such however i vainly venture this kind of approach can be meaningful for the small audience i aim for, even in these rapidly deteriorating conditions. I'm dead serious about that.

Let us not conjecture (συμϐαλλώμεθα) at random (εἰκῆ) about (περὶ) the greatest (μεγίστων) things.
Heraclitus said that. Don't know if the Greek comes through. The urgency is not about power or control and now that i'm rambling anyway: not solely about art either, its about finding a perfect expression at the right time. It matters because its about choice, a global choice if you want, so if we're not sure we need to find a way to be more so. (The choice has long been made for us but we need an awareness of it so we know what, if anything, to do, …)

Ah forget it, told you it was a bad sign…

dv

> I don't know any of this for sure either, tho, and nobody
> else does either.
>
> Zev
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Dirk Vekemans" <[email protected]>
> To: "'Zev Robinson'" <[email protected]>
> Cc: "'Rhizome Raw list'" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:55 PM
> Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>
>
> >
> > Hi there Zev:
> > once again, you're talking zen. These are pleasant thoughts though.
> > So yes & perhaps if you love it you get to know it in the
> end, as a reward
> > for letting it happen.
> > Miracles, or tales thereoff, always include some form of
> randomness, too.
> >
> > But the point is (i think, do correct me if i'm wrong,
> cause i really
> > don't
> > know any of this for sure): when you're programming,
> mostly either you
> > want
> > to know exactly what will happen or you want to be able to
> count on it
> > that
> > what will happen in the program is not determined by your
> previous code.
> > So
> > you want it to be a random sequence. But that's where the
> problems start.
> > First you need to deal with pseudo-random, i. e. seemingly
> random things
> > that only act truly random for a given amount of cycles
> before it starts
> > reiterating. When that happens the sequence can only be
> 'just' another
> > predetermined, programmed cycle.
> >
> > Pseudo-random is not a major problem unless you need to program very
> > important encryption software. If you're involved in such a
> thing, you can
> > make your fortune by coming up with the 'cheepest'
> algorhythm giving the
> > highest degree of randomness. Cheep in processing time to
> run the darn
> > thing, that is.
> >
> > Pseudo-random is also a problem, i think, for those of us
> who want to
> > make
> > works of art that include randomness in its concept. In some cases
> > pseudo-random won't do conceptually, because it would be
> cheating on the
> > idea you're trying to present. In some of those hard cases,
> you might
> > solve
> > the problem by reverting to external inputs like radio static of the
> > degeneration rate of radio-activity. Alan Sondheim uses a
> 100 year old
> > instrument called a Crookes spinthariscope for it. They sell these
> > beautiful
> > instruments as plastic leaded toys these days:
> > http://www.unitednuclear.com/spinthariscope.htm
> > But in a few scenario's using such equipment, or a random
> generating
> > service
> > like http://www.random.org/ might not be possible.
> >
> > And when you have finally succesfully included pure
> randomness in your
> > artwork, or when you're satisfied with the amount of
> imperfection, you
> > still
> > need to make sense of it (ok:some artists don't, but
> because of the random
> > thing they'll never know for sure just how meaningless it
> is). You don't
> > need to solve the riddle of the universe at that point, but
> you want to
> > have
> > a clear idea of what you're doing, how the random part
> strikes the balance
> > with the programmed part including the personal, stylish part every
> > programmer puts in her programming and their personal
> assesment of what is
> > beautiful, valuable, aesthetically pleasing or any
> perversions thereoff.
> > So
> > if you ask yourself what is your take on random, you are
> perhaps required
> > to
> > ask yourself a question that goes to the core of what
> you're trying to
> > accomplish. It's about how much control you want to have
> over what you are
> > doing, the inner/outer balance of it, the IOwhy of an artist.
> >
> > There are times when you don't want to be face to face with these
> > questions.
> > I can write poetry or nag on art like this for ages without getting
> > emotionally affected when i don't want that. Merely calling the
> > Math.random
> > class in my actionScript sometimes gives me the creeps,
> involuntarily.
> >
> > I can't predict it, but when that happens, it take it to be a sign.
> >
> > greetings,
> > dv
> >
> >> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
> >> Van: Zev Robinson [mailto:[email protected]]
> >> Verzonden: woensdag 11 januari 2006 22:30
> >> Aan: Dirk Vekemans; 'Pall Thayer'; 'Rob Myers'
> >> CC: 'Rhizome Raw list'
> >> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
> >>
> >> Dirk,
> >>
> >> I love randomness. Much of my art work is based on
> >> randomness. Much of my life has been affected by seemingly
> >> random events and coincidences. I don't know where I'd be
> >> without randomness. I don't want it solved or defined.
> >> Maybe randomness is an illusion, and it's all preordained,
> >> but I don't care, I still love randomness.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Zev
> >>
> >> —– Original Message —–
> >> From: "Dirk Vekemans" <[email protected]>
> >> To: "'Pall Thayer'" <[email protected]>; "'Rob Myers'"
> >> <[email protected]>
> >> Cc: "'Rhizome Raw list'" <[email protected]>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:22 PM
> >> Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
> >>
> >>
> >> > For me randomness, the concept, is a nightmare, it's
> >> quicksand, it is the
> >> > one thing i can think of that's worse then (pick any
> random worst
> >> > horror).
> >> > The day Superman solves random we'll all go to heaven (yes,
> >> even you
> >> > manik).
> >> >
> >> > Try it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random
> >> > They (we) can't even get the wikipedia article straightened out.
> >> >
> >> > dv
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
> >> >> Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> >> >> Namens Pall Thayer
> >> >> Verzonden: woensdag 11 januari 2006 15:55
> >> >> Aan: Rob Myers
> >> >> CC: Rhizome Raw list
> >> >> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi Rob,
> >> >> I was looking at this and find it interesting. Thanks for
> >> >> sharing the code with us. There are a couple of questions
> >> >> that come to mind. I'd like to know if you have any plans of
> >> >> making the lines more "pencil"- like by creating a more
> >> >> expressive line. I feel this is an issue that has been
> >> >> largely overlooked by people working with automated drawing
> >> >> processes. They tend to look really flat and dead because of it.
> >> >> AARON, for instance, suffers from a severe case of flatness
> >> >> that could be easily cured by some simple, maybe even random,
> >> >> variation in line thickness and length. There's an
> >> >> interesting project called Freestyle that's working on this
> >> >> (among other things) at http://
> >> >> freestyle.sourceforge.net/index.php (source available).
> >> >>
> >> >> Also, I noticed this on your blog:
> >> >> "The shapes are random. The colours are random. At worst I'm
> >> >> showing one in every three of these images.
> >> >>
> >> >> Randomness gives good results far more often than it should.
> >> >> Is it the heuristics I'm coding in, or is aesthetics
> really random?
> >> >>
> >> >> Time to start adding rules."
> >> >>
> >> >> I think it has to do with the range of data. Random is going
> >> >> to use the whole range of data equally whereas something like
> >> >> weather is going to be concentrated in predictable area's of
> >> >> the full range.
> >> >> Personally, I think it's really interesting to see what
> >> >> happens with different types of data. If you experiment with
> >> >> different data sources, I think you'll find that they each
> >> >> have their own significant character which could in turn be
> >> >> interesting to mix together.
> >> >>
> >> >> Pall
> >> >>
> >> >> On 10.1.2006, at 18:56, Rob Myers wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I have been working on my program draw-something.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There's a Flash version (made with MTASC):
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://draw-something.robmyers.org/
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And the Lisp version now makes multiple figures and
> >> >> coloured figures:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/11/purely-random-colour/
> >> >> >
> http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/draw-something-drawing/
> >> >> >
> >>
> http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/a-change-of-algorithm-for-
> >> >> > draw-something/
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Source for all versions available from sourceforge CVS
> >> >> along with some
> >> >> > recent release bundles:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http:://rob-art.sourceforge.net/
> >> >> >
> >> >> > - Rob.
> >> >> > +
> >> >> > -> post: [email protected]
> >> >> > -> questions: [email protected]
> >> >> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> >> >> > subscribe.rhiz
> >> >> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >> >> > +
> >> >> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >> >> > Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/
> >> >> > 29.php
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> –
> >> >> Pall Thayer
> >> >> [email protected]
> >> >> http://www.this.is/pallit
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> +
> >> >> -> post: [email protected]
> >> >> -> questions: [email protected]
> >> >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> >> >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >> >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >> >> +
> >> >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in
> >> >> the Membership Agreement available online at
> >> >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > +
> >> > -> post: [email protected]
> >> > -> questions: [email protected]
> >> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >> > +
> >> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >> > Membership Agreement available online at
> >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

i get the giggles thinking about randomness.

some folks don't like any at all, consider it is really mostly used
as a crutch when you aren't monitoring enough input variables (mostly
true if you use electronic sensors-serial in), or as a shortcut for
making a decision. and folks often do use it that way. though it's
hardly the only way to think about it.

some folks think there is a purity of randomness. that a pseudo-
random number generator (every programming language has a random()
function, and they all work the same way) is not as purely random as
the un-virtual version. furthermore, seeding a random() function
with a random function is somehow "more" random.


but if you think of randomness, not as a conscious-less choice, but
merely as unpredictable by humans, the difference between random and
pseudo random() is unimportant. in neither case will our audience
guess. the end effect is the same.

if you imagine that randomness is like a language for the muses/
spirits. just because we don't recognize intentions is hardly any
indication they don't exist. random IS intentional, but we just
don't understand the preferences.

the muses can only speak to our world via these unpredictable
choices. it's like a prisoner tapping signals in morse code on the
wall. but in this case, it's as if no one understands morse code.
the tapping sounds meaningless (random) to us on the other side. but
it's really a communication.

adding randomness (unpredictability, regardless of technicalities) is
like giving the muses some input in your work. (the more they are
involved, the better they tend to favor it too). no one needn't get
bogged down with anything more technical than that. giving up some
control, an offering to the muses, is a great thing. probably the
only thing.




On Jan 12, 2006, at 4:31 PM, Dirk Vekemans wrote:

>
>> Namens Zev Robinson
>
>> If the computer can simulate at least the perception of
>> randomness, so that, for example, the viewer cannot which
>> image will come up next, then I can live with that.
>
> Well in my PCU part of my Cathedral, for instance, i can't: for now
> i have to use pseudo-random, because i haven't found a solution
> yet, but it is conceptually wrong. The idea of the thing (however
> stupid that may be) calls for it to be(come) exactly what the
> words about it say: a view (visualisation) of the Cathedral over
> time. That might include true randomness, it certainly may *not*
> include pseudo-random sequences, not even if no-one would ever see
> the difference (which i doubt, in this case)
>
>> Our experience, tho, is that the difficult part isn't so much
>> in the scripting (easy for me to say since it's Adrian
>> Marshall who does the
>> scripting) but in molding it into a creative vision,
>> understanding what we want to do, see how it works
>> audio-visually, deciding on the parameters of the randomness,
>> on the nature of the imagery used, and so on and so on.
>
> Earlier discussions on this list have shown statements like these
> to be rather tricky. I take it you're not downplaying the
> programmers part in the art, but some of us believe you cannot just
> 'outsource' your scripting part to someone who has little to say in
> the conceptual work. Perhaps this little random topic can be a good
> example of how the minute decisions you make as a programmer do
> matter to the conceptual soundness of the thing. Personally, i've
> learned some (web)programming the hard way and i'm by no means a
> full fledge professionally trained programmer, but i prefer to hack
> my own stuff together no matter how much time i loose in the
> process. Entrusting a skilled programmer with the task would be
> like writing a poem in Dutch and have someone translate it to
> English and then claim i'm an English poet.
>
> But i'm a literary person, a fetishist obstinate self-indulgent
> fool insisting authorship includes dealing with every aspect of the
> thing. As such however i vainly venture this kind of approach can
> be meaningful for the small audience i aim for, even in these
> rapidly deteriorating conditions. I'm dead serious about that.
>
> Let us not conjecture (συμϐαλλώμεθα) at random
> (εἰκῆ) about (περὶ) the greatest (μεγίστων)
> things.
> Heraclitus said that. Don't know if the Greek comes through. The
> urgency is not about power or control and now that i'm rambling
> anyway: not solely about art either, its about finding a perfect
> expression at the right time. It matters because its about choice,
> a global choice if you want, so if we're not sure we need to find a
> way to be more so. (The choice has long been made for us but we
> need an awareness of it so we know what, if anything, to do, …)
>
> Ah forget it, told you it was a bad sign…
>
> dv
>
>> I don't know any of this for sure either, tho, and nobody
>> else does either.
>>
>> Zev
>>
>>
>> —– Original Message —–
>> From: "Dirk Vekemans" <[email protected]>
>> To: "'Zev Robinson'" <[email protected]>
>> Cc: "'Rhizome Raw list'" <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:55 PM
>> Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Hi there Zev:
>>> once again, you're talking zen. These are pleasant thoughts though.
>>> So yes & perhaps if you love it you get to know it in the
>> end, as a reward
>>> for letting it happen.
>>> Miracles, or tales thereoff, always include some form of
>> randomness, too.
>>>
>>> But the point is (i think, do correct me if i'm wrong,
>> cause i really
>>> don't
>>> know any of this for sure): when you're programming,
>> mostly either you
>>> want
>>> to know exactly what will happen or you want to be able to
>> count on it
>>> that
>>> what will happen in the program is not determined by your
>> previous code.
>>> So
>>> you want it to be a random sequence. But that's where the
>> problems start.
>>> First you need to deal with pseudo-random, i. e. seemingly
>> random things
>>> that only act truly random for a given amount of cycles
>> before it starts
>>> reiterating. When that happens the sequence can only be
>> 'just' another
>>> predetermined, programmed cycle.
>>>
>>> Pseudo-random is not a major problem unless you need to program very
>>> important encryption software. If you're involved in such a
>> thing, you can
>>> make your fortune by coming up with the 'cheepest'
>> algorhythm giving the
>>> highest degree of randomness. Cheep in processing time to
>> run the darn
>>> thing, that is.
>>>
>>> Pseudo-random is also a problem, i think, for those of us
>> who want to
>>> make
>>> works of art that include randomness in its concept. In some cases
>>> pseudo-random won't do conceptually, because it would be
>> cheating on the
>>> idea you're trying to present. In some of those hard cases,
>> you might
>>> solve
>>> the problem by reverting to external inputs like radio static of the
>>> degeneration rate of radio-activity. Alan Sondheim uses a
>> 100 year old
>>> instrument called a Crookes spinthariscope for it. They sell these
>>> beautiful
>>> instruments as plastic leaded toys these days:
>>> http://www.unitednuclear.com/spinthariscope.htm
>>> But in a few scenario's using such equipment, or a random
>> generating
>>> service
>>> like http://www.random.org/ might not be possible.
>>>
>>> And when you have finally succesfully included pure
>> randomness in your
>>> artwork, or when you're satisfied with the amount of
>> imperfection, you
>>> still
>>> need to make sense of it (ok:some artists don't, but
>> because of the random
>>> thing they'll never know for sure just how meaningless it
>> is). You don't
>>> need to solve the riddle of the universe at that point, but
>> you want to
>>> have
>>> a clear idea of what you're doing, how the random part
>> strikes the balance
>>> with the programmed part including the personal, stylish part every
>>> programmer puts in her programming and their personal
>> assesment of what is
>>> beautiful, valuable, aesthetically pleasing or any
>> perversions thereoff.
>>> So
>>> if you ask yourself what is your take on random, you are
>> perhaps required
>>> to
>>> ask yourself a question that goes to the core of what
>> you're trying to
>>> accomplish. It's about how much control you want to have
>> over what you are
>>> doing, the inner/outer balance of it, the IOwhy of an artist.
>>>
>>> There are times when you don't want to be face to face with these
>>> questions.
>>> I can write poetry or nag on art like this for ages without getting
>>> emotionally affected when i don't want that. Merely calling the
>>> Math.random
>>> class in my actionScript sometimes gives me the creeps,
>> involuntarily.
>>>
>>> I can't predict it, but when that happens, it take it to be a sign.
>>>
>>> greetings,
>>> dv
>>>
>>>> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
>>>> Van: Zev Robinson [mailto:[email protected]]
>>>> Verzonden: woensdag 11 januari 2006 22:30
>>>> Aan: Dirk Vekemans; 'Pall Thayer'; 'Rob Myers'
>>>> CC: 'Rhizome Raw list'
>>>> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>>>>
>>>> Dirk,
>>>>
>>>> I love randomness. Much of my art work is based on
>>>> randomness. Much of my life has been affected by seemingly
>>>> random events and coincidences. I don't know where I'd be
>>>> without randomness. I don't want it solved or defined.
>>>> Maybe randomness is an illusion, and it's all preordained,
>>>> but I don't care, I still love randomness.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Zev
>>>>
>>>> —– Original Message —–
>>>> From: "Dirk Vekemans" <[email protected]>
>>>> To: "'Pall Thayer'" <[email protected]>; "'Rob Myers'"
>>>> <[email protected]>
>>>> Cc: "'Rhizome Raw list'" <[email protected]>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:22 PM
>>>> Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> For me randomness, the concept, is a nightmare, it's
>>>> quicksand, it is the
>>>>> one thing i can think of that's worse then (pick any
>> random worst
>>>>> horror).
>>>>> The day Superman solves random we'll all go to heaven (yes,
>>>> even you
>>>>> manik).
>>>>>
>>>>> Try it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random
>>>>> They (we) can't even get the wikipedia article straightened out.
>>>>>
>>>>> dv
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
>>>>>> Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
>>>>>> Namens Pall Thayer
>>>>>> Verzonden: woensdag 11 januari 2006 15:55
>>>>>> Aan: Rob Myers
>>>>>> CC: Rhizome Raw list
>>>>>> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>> I was looking at this and find it interesting. Thanks for
>>>>>> sharing the code with us. There are a couple of questions
>>>>>> that come to mind. I'd like to know if you have any plans of
>>>>>> making the lines more "pencil"- like by creating a more
>>>>>> expressive line. I feel this is an issue that has been
>>>>>> largely overlooked by people working with automated drawing
>>>>>> processes. They tend to look really flat and dead because of it.
>>>>>> AARON, for instance, suffers from a severe case of flatness
>>>>>> that could be easily cured by some simple, maybe even random,
>>>>>> variation in line thickness and length. There's an
>>>>>> interesting project called Freestyle that's working on this
>>>>>> (among other things) at http://
>>>>>> freestyle.sourceforge.net/index.php (source available).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, I noticed this on your blog:
>>>>>> "The shapes are random. The colours are random. At worst I'm
>>>>>> showing one in every three of these images.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Randomness gives good results far more often than it should.
>>>>>> Is it the heuristics I'm coding in, or is aesthetics
>> really random?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Time to start adding rules."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it has to do with the range of data. Random is going
>>>>>> to use the whole range of data equally whereas something like
>>>>>> weather is going to be concentrated in predictable area's of
>>>>>> the full range.
>>>>>> Personally, I think it's really interesting to see what
>>>>>> happens with different types of data. If you experiment with
>>>>>> different data sources, I think you'll find that they each
>>>>>> have their own significant character which could in turn be
>>>>>> interesting to mix together.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pall
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10.1.2006, at 18:56, Rob Myers wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have been working on my program draw-something.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's a Flash version (made with MTASC):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://draw-something.robmyers.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the Lisp version now makes multiple figures and
>>>>>> coloured figures:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/11/purely-random-colour/
>>>>>>>
>> http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/draw-something-drawing/
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>> http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/a-change-of-algorithm-for-
>>>>>>> draw-something/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Source for all versions available from sourceforge CVS
>>>>>> along with some
>>>>>>> recent release bundles:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http:://rob-art.sourceforge.net/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Rob.
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> -> post: [email protected]
>>>>>>> -> questions: [email protected]
>>>>>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
>>>>>>> subscribe.rhiz
>>>>>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>>>>>> Membership Agreement available online at
>> http://rhizome.org/info/
>>>>>>> 29.php
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> –
>>>>>> Pall Thayer
>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>> http://www.this.is/pallit
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> -> post: [email protected]
>>>>>> -> questions: [email protected]
>>>>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>>>>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>>>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in
>>>>>> the Membership Agreement available online at
>>>>>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> -> post: [email protected]
>>>>> -> questions: [email protected]
>>>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>>>> +
>>>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>>>> Membership Agreement available online at
>>>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> +
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at
>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
>
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> 29.php
>

Perhaps random is "the spiritual in digital art." However, not being
of a spiritual nature, I agree with Dirk. Conceptually, random is as
empty as it gets.

Pall

On 12.1.2006, at 21:03, judsoN wrote:

> i get the giggles thinking about randomness.
>
> some folks don't like any at all, consider it is really mostly used
> as a crutch when you aren't monitoring enough input variables
> (mostly true if you use electronic sensors-serial in), or as a
> shortcut for making a decision. and folks often do use it that
> way. though it's hardly the only way to think about it.
>
> some folks think there is a purity of randomness. that a pseudo-
> random number generator (every programming language has a random()
> function, and they all work the same way) is not as purely random
> as the un-virtual version. furthermore, seeding a random()
> function with a random function is somehow "more" random.
>
>
> but if you think of randomness, not as a conscious-less choice, but
> merely as unpredictable by humans, the difference between random
> and pseudo random() is unimportant. in neither case will our
> audience guess. the end effect is the same.
>
> if you imagine that randomness is like a language for the muses/
> spirits. just because we don't recognize intentions is hardly any
> indication they don't exist. random IS intentional, but we just
> don't understand the preferences.
>
> the muses can only speak to our world via these unpredictable
> choices. it's like a prisoner tapping signals in morse code on the
> wall. but in this case, it's as if no one understands morse code.
> the tapping sounds meaningless (random) to us on the other side.
> but it's really a communication.
>
> adding randomness (unpredictability, regardless of technicalities)
> is like giving the muses some input in your work. (the more they
> are involved, the better they tend to favor it too). no one
> needn't get bogged down with anything more technical than that.
> giving up some control, an offering to the muses, is a great
> thing. probably the only thing.
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 12, 2006, at 4:31 PM, Dirk Vekemans wrote:
>
>>
>>> Namens Zev Robinson
>>
>>> If the computer can simulate at least the perception of
>>> randomness, so that, for example, the viewer cannot which
>>> image will come up next, then I can live with that.
>>
>> Well in my PCU part of my Cathedral, for instance, i can't: for
>> now i have to use pseudo-random, because i haven't found a
>> solution yet, but it is conceptually wrong. The idea of the thing
>> (however stupid that may be) calls for it to be(come) exactly
>> what the words about it say: a view (visualisation) of the
>> Cathedral over time. That might include true randomness, it
>> certainly may *not* include pseudo-random sequences, not even if
>> no-one would ever see the difference (which i doubt, in this case)
>>
>>> Our experience, tho, is that the difficult part isn't so much
>>> in the scripting (easy for me to say since it's Adrian
>>> Marshall who does the
>>> scripting) but in molding it into a creative vision,
>>> understanding what we want to do, see how it works
>>> audio-visually, deciding on the parameters of the randomness,
>>> on the nature of the imagery used, and so on and so on.
>>
>> Earlier discussions on this list have shown statements like these
>> to be rather tricky. I take it you're not downplaying the
>> programmers part in the art, but some of us believe you cannot
>> just 'outsource' your scripting part to someone who has little to
>> say in the conceptual work. Perhaps this little random topic can
>> be a good example of how the minute decisions you make as a
>> programmer do matter to the conceptual soundness of the thing.
>> Personally, i've learned some (web)programming the hard way and
>> i'm by no means a full fledge professionally trained programmer,
>> but i prefer to hack my own stuff together no matter how much time
>> i loose in the process. Entrusting a skilled programmer with the
>> task would be like writing a poem in Dutch and have someone
>> translate it to English and then claim i'm an English poet.
>>
>> But i'm a literary person, a fetishist obstinate self-indulgent
>> fool insisting authorship includes dealing with every aspect of
>> the thing. As such however i vainly venture this kind of approach
>> can be meaningful for the small audience i aim for, even in these
>> rapidly deteriorating conditions. I'm dead serious about that.
>>
>> Let us not conjecture (συμϐαλλώμεθα) at random
>> (εἰκῆ) about (περὶ) the greatest (μεγίστων)
>> things.
>> Heraclitus said that. Don't know if the Greek comes through. The
>> urgency is not about power or control and now that i'm rambling
>> anyway: not solely about art either, its about finding a perfect
>> expression at the right time. It matters because its about choice,
>> a global choice if you want, so if we're not sure we need to find
>> a way to be more so. (The choice has long been made for us but we
>> need an awareness of it so we know what, if anything, to do, …)
>>
>> Ah forget it, told you it was a bad sign…
>>
>> dv
>>
>>> I don't know any of this for sure either, tho, and nobody
>>> else does either.
>>>
>>> Zev
>>>
>>>
>>> —– Original Message —–
>>> From: "Dirk Vekemans" <[email protected]>
>>> To: "'Zev Robinson'" <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: "'Rhizome Raw list'" <[email protected]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:55 PM
>>> Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi there Zev:
>>>> once again, you're talking zen. These are pleasant thoughts though.
>>>> So yes & perhaps if you love it you get to know it in the
>>> end, as a reward
>>>> for letting it happen.
>>>> Miracles, or tales thereoff, always include some form of
>>> randomness, too.
>>>>
>>>> But the point is (i think, do correct me if i'm wrong,
>>> cause i really
>>>> don't
>>>> know any of this for sure): when you're programming,
>>> mostly either you
>>>> want
>>>> to know exactly what will happen or you want to be able to
>>> count on it
>>>> that
>>>> what will happen in the program is not determined by your
>>> previous code.
>>>> So
>>>> you want it to be a random sequence. But that's where the
>>> problems start.
>>>> First you need to deal with pseudo-random, i. e. seemingly
>>> random things
>>>> that only act truly random for a given amount of cycles
>>> before it starts
>>>> reiterating. When that happens the sequence can only be
>>> 'just' another
>>>> predetermined, programmed cycle.
>>>>
>>>> Pseudo-random is not a major problem unless you need to program
>>>> very
>>>> important encryption software. If you're involved in such a
>>> thing, you can
>>>> make your fortune by coming up with the 'cheepest'
>>> algorhythm giving the
>>>> highest degree of randomness. Cheep in processing time to
>>> run the darn
>>>> thing, that is.
>>>>
>>>> Pseudo-random is also a problem, i think, for those of us
>>> who want to
>>>> make
>>>> works of art that include randomness in its concept. In some cases
>>>> pseudo-random won't do conceptually, because it would be
>>> cheating on the
>>>> idea you're trying to present. In some of those hard cases,
>>> you might
>>>> solve
>>>> the problem by reverting to external inputs like radio static of
>>>> the
>>>> degeneration rate of radio-activity. Alan Sondheim uses a
>>> 100 year old
>>>> instrument called a Crookes spinthariscope for it. They sell these
>>>> beautiful
>>>> instruments as plastic leaded toys these days:
>>>> http://www.unitednuclear.com/spinthariscope.htm
>>>> But in a few scenario's using such equipment, or a random
>>> generating
>>>> service
>>>> like http://www.random.org/ might not be possible.
>>>>
>>>> And when you have finally succesfully included pure
>>> randomness in your
>>>> artwork, or when you're satisfied with the amount of
>>> imperfection, you
>>>> still
>>>> need to make sense of it (ok:some artists don't, but
>>> because of the random
>>>> thing they'll never know for sure just how meaningless it
>>> is). You don't
>>>> need to solve the riddle of the universe at that point, but
>>> you want to
>>>> have
>>>> a clear idea of what you're doing, how the random part
>>> strikes the balance
>>>> with the programmed part including the personal, stylish part every
>>>> programmer puts in her programming and their personal
>>> assesment of what is
>>>> beautiful, valuable, aesthetically pleasing or any
>>> perversions thereoff.
>>>> So
>>>> if you ask yourself what is your take on random, you are
>>> perhaps required
>>>> to
>>>> ask yourself a question that goes to the core of what
>>> you're trying to
>>>> accomplish. It's about how much control you want to have
>>> over what you are
>>>> doing, the inner/outer balance of it, the IOwhy of an artist.
>>>>
>>>> There are times when you don't want to be face to face with these
>>>> questions.
>>>> I can write poetry or nag on art like this for ages without getting
>>>> emotionally affected when i don't want that. Merely calling the
>>>> Math.random
>>>> class in my actionScript sometimes gives me the creeps,
>>> involuntarily.
>>>>
>>>> I can't predict it, but when that happens, it take it to be a sign.
>>>>
>>>> greetings,
>>>> dv
>>>>
>>>>> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
>>>>> Van: Zev Robinson [mailto:[email protected]]
>>>>> Verzonden: woensdag 11 januari 2006 22:30
>>>>> Aan: Dirk Vekemans; 'Pall Thayer'; 'Rob Myers'
>>>>> CC: 'Rhizome Raw list'
>>>>> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>>>>>
>>>>> Dirk,
>>>>>
>>>>> I love randomness. Much of my art work is based on
>>>>> randomness. Much of my life has been affected by seemingly
>>>>> random events and coincidences. I don't know where I'd be
>>>>> without randomness. I don't want it solved or defined.
>>>>> Maybe randomness is an illusion, and it's all preordained,
>>>>> but I don't care, I still love randomness.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Zev
>>>>>
>>>>> —– Original Message —–
>>>>> From: "Dirk Vekemans" <[email protected]>
>>>>> To: "'Pall Thayer'" <[email protected]>; "'Rob Myers'"
>>>>> <[email protected]>
>>>>> Cc: "'Rhizome Raw list'" <[email protected]>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:22 PM
>>>>> Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> For me randomness, the concept, is a nightmare, it's
>>>>> quicksand, it is the
>>>>>> one thing i can think of that's worse then (pick any
>>> random worst
>>>>>> horror).
>>>>>> The day Superman solves random we'll all go to heaven (yes,
>>>>> even you
>>>>>> manik).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random
>>>>>> They (we) can't even get the wikipedia article straightened out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dv
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
>>>>>>> Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
>>>>>>> Namens Pall Thayer
>>>>>>> Verzonden: woensdag 11 januari 2006 15:55
>>>>>>> Aan: Rob Myers
>>>>>>> CC: Rhizome Raw list
>>>>>>> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>>> I was looking at this and find it interesting. Thanks for
>>>>>>> sharing the code with us. There are a couple of questions
>>>>>>> that come to mind. I'd like to know if you have any plans of
>>>>>>> making the lines more "pencil"- like by creating a more
>>>>>>> expressive line. I feel this is an issue that has been
>>>>>>> largely overlooked by people working with automated drawing
>>>>>>> processes. They tend to look really flat and dead because of it.
>>>>>>> AARON, for instance, suffers from a severe case of flatness
>>>>>>> that could be easily cured by some simple, maybe even random,
>>>>>>> variation in line thickness and length. There's an
>>>>>>> interesting project called Freestyle that's working on this
>>>>>>> (among other things) at http://
>>>>>>> freestyle.sourceforge.net/index.php (source available).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, I noticed this on your blog:
>>>>>>> "The shapes are random. The colours are random. At worst I'm
>>>>>>> showing one in every three of these images.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Randomness gives good results far more often than it should.
>>>>>>> Is it the heuristics I'm coding in, or is aesthetics
>>> really random?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Time to start adding rules."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it has to do with the range of data. Random is going
>>>>>>> to use the whole range of data equally whereas something like
>>>>>>> weather is going to be concentrated in predictable area's of
>>>>>>> the full range.
>>>>>>> Personally, I think it's really interesting to see what
>>>>>>> happens with different types of data. If you experiment with
>>>>>>> different data sources, I think you'll find that they each
>>>>>>> have their own significant character which could in turn be
>>>>>>> interesting to mix together.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pall
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10.1.2006, at 18:56, Rob Myers wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have been working on my program draw-something.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's a Flash version (made with MTASC):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://draw-something.robmyers.org/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And the Lisp version now makes multiple figures and
>>>>>>> coloured figures:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/11/purely-random-colour/
>>>>>>>>
>>> http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/draw-something-drawing/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/a-change-of-algorithm-for-
>>>>>>>> draw-something/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Source for all versions available from sourceforge CVS
>>>>>>> along with some
>>>>>>>> recent release bundles:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http:://rob-art.sourceforge.net/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Rob.
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> -> post: [email protected]
>>>>>>>> -> questions: [email protected]
>>>>>>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
>>>>>>>> subscribe.rhiz
>>>>>>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>>>>>>> Membership Agreement available online at
>>> http://rhizome.org/info/
>>>>>>>> 29.php
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> –
>>>>>>> Pall Thayer
>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>> http://www.this.is/pallit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> -> post: [email protected]
>>>>>>> -> questions: [email protected]
>>>>>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>>>>>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>>>>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in
>>>>>>> the Membership Agreement available online at
>>>>>>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> -> post: [email protected]
>>>>>> -> questions: [email protected]
>>>>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>>>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>>>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>>>>> Membership Agreement available online at
>>>>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> +
>>> -> post: [email protected]
>>> -> questions: [email protected]
>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>> +
>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>> Membership Agreement available online at
>>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> +
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
>> subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
>> 29.php
>>
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> 29.php
>



–
Pall Thayer
[email protected]
http://www.this.is/pallit

just to be clear, no I'm not downplaying a programmers part in creating
anything, and, also I'm not outsourcing the programming. Adrian Marshall and
I collaborate on our projects with a lot of testing things out, back and
forth on ideas, how it is working, etc.

I know people who outsource their paintings, let assistants make all sorts
of decisions including what colors to use, and then claim it as their own,
and sell it for a lot of money. Movies and medival cathedrals are huge
collaborative efforts, with various people contributing their various areas
of expertise. Some photographers insist on doing their own
developing/darkroom work, others are happy to let others do it for them.

It's a question of choices and priorities. So how you, Dirk, Pall, or anyone
else, are, what you do, or create, is up to you, but doesn't mean that it
should apply to anyone else. I may find something interesting or not, I
might like something or not, but it's the variety of approaches that is
interesting.

I've also had repeated experiences with works of art over the years, mainly
paintings that I go back to look at, but also music, literature, films. Each
time my perception of them is different, so in that sense there is no
repetition.

I'm also not sure if true randomness exists or not, or if it's all
fate/destiny, or a combination of the two. But much, much better pseudo
randomness than pseudo certainty.

Zev

—– Original Message —–
From: "Dirk Vekemans" <[email protected]>
To: "'Zev Robinson'" <[email protected]>
Cc: "'Rhizome Raw list'" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:31 PM
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something



> Namens Zev Robinson

> If the computer can simulate at least the perception of
> randomness, so that, for example, the viewer cannot which
> image will come up next, then I can live with that.

Well in my PCU part of my Cathedral, for instance, i can't: for now i have
to use pseudo-random, because i haven't found a solution yet, but it is
conceptually wrong. The idea of the thing (however stupid that may be) calls
for it to be(come) exactly what the words about it say: a view
(visualisation) of the Cathedral over time. That might include true
randomness, it certainly may *not* include pseudo-random sequences, not
even if no-one would ever see the difference (which i doubt, in this case)

> Our experience, tho, is that the difficult part isn't so much
> in the scripting (easy for me to say since it's Adrian
> Marshall who does the
> scripting) but in molding it into a creative vision,
> understanding what we want to do, see how it works
> audio-visually, deciding on the parameters of the randomness,
> on the nature of the imagery used, and so on and so on.

Earlier discussions on this list have shown statements like these to be
rather tricky. I take it you're not downplaying the programmers part in the
art, but some of us believe you cannot just 'outsource' your scripting part
to someone who has little to say in the conceptual work. Perhaps this little
random topic can be a good example of how the minute decisions you make as a
programmer do matter to the conceptual soundness of the thing. Personally,
i've learned some (web)programming the hard way and i'm by no means a full
fledge professionally trained programmer, but i prefer to hack my own stuff
together no matter how much time i loose in the process. Entrusting a
skilled programmer with the task would be like writing a poem in Dutch and
have someone translate it to English and then claim i'm an English poet.

But i'm a literary person, a fetishist obstinate self-indulgent fool
insisting authorship includes dealing with every aspect of the thing. As
such however i vainly venture this kind of approach can be meaningful for
the small audience i aim for, even in these rapidly deteriorating
conditions. I'm dead serious about that.

Let us not conjecture (συμϐαλλώμεθα) at random (εἰκῆ) about (περὶ) the
greatest (μεγίστων) things.
Heraclitus said that. Don't know if the Greek comes through. The urgency is
not about power or control and now that i'm rambling anyway: not solely
about art either, its about finding a perfect expression at the right time.
It matters because its about choice, a global choice if you want, so if
we're not sure we need to find a way to be more so. (The choice has long
been made for us but we need an awareness of it so we know what, if
anything, to do, …)

Ah forget it, told you it was a bad sign…

dv

> I don't know any of this for sure either, tho, and nobody
> else does either.
>
> Zev
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Dirk Vekemans" <[email protected]>
> To: "'Zev Robinson'" <[email protected]>
> Cc: "'Rhizome Raw list'" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:55 PM
> Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>
>
> >
> > Hi there Zev:
> > once again, you're talking zen. These are pleasant thoughts though.
> > So yes & perhaps if you love it you get to know it in the
> end, as a reward
> > for letting it happen.
> > Miracles, or tales thereoff, always include some form of
> randomness, too.
> >
> > But the point is (i think, do correct me if i'm wrong,
> cause i really
> > don't
> > know any of this for sure): when you're programming,
> mostly either you
> > want
> > to know exactly what will happen or you want to be able to
> count on it
> > that
> > what will happen in the program is not determined by your
> previous code.
> > So
> > you want it to be a random sequence. But that's where the
> problems start.
> > First you need to deal with pseudo-random, i. e. seemingly
> random things
> > that only act truly random for a given amount of cycles
> before it starts
> > reiterating. When that happens the sequence can only be
> 'just' another
> > predetermined, programmed cycle.
> >
> > Pseudo-random is not a major problem unless you need to program very
> > important encryption software. If you're involved in such a
> thing, you can
> > make your fortune by coming up with the 'cheepest'
> algorhythm giving the
> > highest degree of randomness. Cheep in processing time to
> run the darn
> > thing, that is.
> >
> > Pseudo-random is also a problem, i think, for those of us
> who want to
> > make
> > works of art that include randomness in its concept. In some cases
> > pseudo-random won't do conceptually, because it would be
> cheating on the
> > idea you're trying to present. In some of those hard cases,
> you might
> > solve
> > the problem by reverting to external inputs like radio static of the
> > degeneration rate of radio-activity. Alan Sondheim uses a
> 100 year old
> > instrument called a Crookes spinthariscope for it. They sell these
> > beautiful
> > instruments as plastic leaded toys these days:
> > http://www.unitednuclear.com/spinthariscope.htm
> > But in a few scenario's using such equipment, or a random
> generating
> > service
> > like http://www.random.org/ might not be possible.
> >
> > And when you have finally succesfully included pure
> randomness in your
> > artwork, or when you're satisfied with the amount of
> imperfection, you
> > still
> > need to make sense of it (ok:some artists don't, but
> because of the random
> > thing they'll never know for sure just how meaningless it
> is). You don't
> > need to solve the riddle of the universe at that point, but
> you want to
> > have
> > a clear idea of what you're doing, how the random part
> strikes the balance
> > with the programmed part including the personal, stylish part every
> > programmer puts in her programming and their personal
> assesment of what is
> > beautiful, valuable, aesthetically pleasing or any
> perversions thereoff.
> > So
> > if you ask yourself what is your take on random, you are
> perhaps required
> > to
> > ask yourself a question that goes to the core of what
> you're trying to
> > accomplish. It's about how much control you want to have
> over what you are
> > doing, the inner/outer balance of it, the IOwhy of an artist.
> >
> > There are times when you don't want to be face to face with these
> > questions.
> > I can write poetry or nag on art like this for ages without getting
> > emotionally affected when i don't want that. Merely calling the
> > Math.random
> > class in my actionScript sometimes gives me the creeps,
> involuntarily.
> >
> > I can't predict it, but when that happens, it take it to be a sign.
> >
> > greetings,
> > dv
> >
> >> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
> >> Van: Zev Robinson [mailto:[email protected]]
> >> Verzonden: woensdag 11 januari 2006 22:30
> >> Aan: Dirk Vekemans; 'Pall Thayer'; 'Rob Myers'
> >> CC: 'Rhizome Raw list'
> >> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
> >>
> >> Dirk,
> >>
> >> I love randomness. Much of my art work is based on
> >> randomness. Much of my life has been affected by seemingly
> >> random events and coincidences. I don't know where I'd be
> >> without randomness. I don't want it solved or defined.
> >> Maybe randomness is an illusion, and it's all preordained,
> >> but I don't care, I still love randomness.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Zev
> >>
> >> —– Original Message —–
> >> From: "Dirk Vekemans" <[email protected]>
> >> To: "'Pall Thayer'" <[email protected]>; "'Rob Myers'"
> >> <[email protected]>
> >> Cc: "'Rhizome Raw list'" <[email protected]>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:22 PM
> >> Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
> >>
> >>
> >> > For me randomness, the concept, is a nightmare, it's
> >> quicksand, it is the
> >> > one thing i can think of that's worse then (pick any
> random worst
> >> > horror).
> >> > The day Superman solves random we'll all go to heaven (yes,
> >> even you
> >> > manik).
> >> >
> >> > Try it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random
> >> > They (we) can't even get the wikipedia article straightened out.
> >> >
> >> > dv
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
> >> >> Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> >> >> Namens Pall Thayer
> >> >> Verzonden: woensdag 11 januari 2006 15:55
> >> >> Aan: Rob Myers
> >> >> CC: Rhizome Raw list
> >> >> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi Rob,
> >> >> I was looking at this and find it interesting. Thanks for
> >> >> sharing the code with us. There are a couple of questions
> >> >> that come to mind. I'd like to know if you have any plans of
> >> >> making the lines more "pencil"- like by creating a more
> >> >> expressive line. I feel this is an issue that has been
> >> >> largely overlooked by people working with automated drawing
> >> >> processes. They tend to look really flat and dead because of it.
> >> >> AARON, for instance, suffers from a severe case of flatness
> >> >> that could be easily cured by some simple, maybe even random,
> >> >> variation in line thickness and length. There's an
> >> >> interesting project called Freestyle that's working on this
> >> >> (among other things) at http://
> >> >> freestyle.sourceforge.net/index.php (source available).
> >> >>
> >> >> Also, I noticed this on your blog:
> >> >> "The shapes are random. The colours are random. At worst I'm
> >> >> showing one in every three of these images.
> >> >>
> >> >> Randomness gives good results far more often than it should.
> >> >> Is it the heuristics I'm coding in, or is aesthetics
> really random?
> >> >>
> >> >> Time to start adding rules."
> >> >>
> >> >> I think it has to do with the range of data. Random is going
> >> >> to use the whole range of data equally whereas something like
> >> >> weather is going to be concentrated in predictable area's of
> >> >> the full range.
> >> >> Personally, I think it's really interesting to see what
> >> >> happens with different types of data. If you experiment with
> >> >> different data sources, I think you'll find that they each
> >> >> have their own significant character which could in turn be
> >> >> interesting to mix together.
> >> >>
> >> >> Pall
> >> >>
> >> >> On 10.1.2006, at 18:56, Rob Myers wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I have been working on my program draw-something.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There's a Flash version (made with MTASC):
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://draw-something.robmyers.org/
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And the Lisp version now makes multiple figures and
> >> >> coloured figures:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/11/purely-random-colour/
> >> >> >
> http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/draw-something-drawing/
> >> >> >
> >>
> http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/a-change-of-algorithm-for-
> >> >> > draw-something/
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Source for all versions available from sourceforge CVS
> >> >> along with some
> >> >> > recent release bundles:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http:://rob-art.sourceforge.net/
> >> >> >
> >> >> > - Rob.
> >> >> > +
> >> >> > -> post: [email protected]
> >> >> > -> questions: [email protected]
> >> >> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> >> >> > subscribe.rhiz
> >> >> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >> >> > +
> >> >> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >> >> > Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/
> >> >> > 29.php
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> –
> >> >> Pall Thayer
> >> >> [email protected]
> >> >> http://www.this.is/pallit
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> +
> >> >> -> post: [email protected]
> >> >> -> questions: [email protected]
> >> >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> >> >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >> >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >> >> +
> >> >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in
> >> >> the Membership Agreement available online at
> >> >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > +
> >> > -> post: [email protected]
> >> > -> questions: [email protected]
> >> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >> > +
> >> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >> > Membership Agreement available online at
> >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

I'm not sure that as a concept random is any more empty than any other
concept. Just because something cannot be defined (if that's what you're
saying, Pall) doesn't mean it's empty. If you reflect on the events on your
life that are (seemingly) random (but may be fate or predestiny) then you
won't come up empty, I would guess.

Zev

—– Original Message —–
From: "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]>
To: "judsoN" <[email protected]>
Cc: "listserv Rhizome" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 3:25 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something


Perhaps random is "the spiritual in digital art." However, not being
of a spiritual nature, I agree with Dirk. Conceptually, random is as
empty as it gets.

Pall

On 12.1.2006, at 21:03, judsoN wrote:

> i get the giggles thinking about randomness.
>
> some folks don't like any at all, consider it is really mostly used as a
> crutch when you aren't monitoring enough input variables (mostly true if
> you use electronic sensors-serial in), or as a shortcut for making a
> decision. and folks often do use it that way. though it's hardly the
> only way to think about it.
>
> some folks think there is a purity of randomness. that a pseudo- random
> number generator (every programming language has a random() function, and
> they all work the same way) is not as purely random as the un-virtual
> version. furthermore, seeding a random() function with a random function
> is somehow "more" random.
>
>
> but if you think of randomness, not as a conscious-less choice, but
> merely as unpredictable by humans, the difference between random and
> pseudo random() is unimportant. in neither case will our audience guess.
> the end effect is the same.
>
> if you imagine that randomness is like a language for the muses/ spirits.
> just because we don't recognize intentions is hardly any indication they
> don't exist. random IS intentional, but we just don't understand the
> preferences.
>
> the muses can only speak to our world via these unpredictable choices.
> it's like a prisoner tapping signals in morse code on the wall. but in
> this case, it's as if no one understands morse code. the tapping sounds
> meaningless (random) to us on the other side. but it's really a
> communication.
>
> adding randomness (unpredictability, regardless of technicalities) is
> like giving the muses some input in your work. (the more they are
> involved, the better they tend to favor it too). no one needn't get
> bogged down with anything more technical than that. giving up some
> control, an offering to the muses, is a great thing. probably the only
> thing.
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 12, 2006, at 4:31 PM, Dirk Vekemans wrote:
>
>>
>>> Namens Zev Robinson
>>
>>> If the computer can simulate at least the perception of
>>> randomness, so that, for example, the viewer cannot which
>>> image will come up next, then I can live with that.
>>
>> Well in my PCU part of my Cathedral, for instance, i can't: for now i
>> have to use pseudo-random, because i haven't found a solution yet, but
>> it is conceptually wrong. The idea of the thing (however stupid that may
>> be) calls for it to be(come) exactly what the words about it say: a
>> view (visualisation) of the Cathedral over time. That might include true
>> randomness, it certainly may *not* include pseudo-random sequences, not
>> even if no-one would ever see the difference (which i doubt, in this
>> case)
>>
>>> Our experience, tho, is that the difficult part isn't so much
>>> in the scripting (easy for me to say since it's Adrian
>>> Marshall who does the
>>> scripting) but in molding it into a creative vision,
>>> understanding what we want to do, see how it works
>>> audio-visually, deciding on the parameters of the randomness,
>>> on the nature of the imagery used, and so on and so on.
>>
>> Earlier discussions on this list have shown statements like these to be
>> rather tricky. I take it you're not downplaying the programmers part in
>> the art, but some of us believe you cannot just 'outsource' your
>> scripting part to someone who has little to say in the conceptual work.
>> Perhaps this little random topic can be a good example of how the minute
>> decisions you make as a programmer do matter to the conceptual soundness
>> of the thing. Personally, i've learned some (web)programming the hard
>> way and i'm by no means a full fledge professionally trained programmer,
>> but i prefer to hack my own stuff together no matter how much time i
>> loose in the process. Entrusting a skilled programmer with the task
>> would be like writing a poem in Dutch and have someone translate it to
>> English and then claim i'm an English poet.
>>
>> But i'm a literary person, a fetishist obstinate self-indulgent fool
>> insisting authorship includes dealing with every aspect of the thing. As
>> such however i vainly venture this kind of approach can be meaningful
>> for the small audience i aim for, even in these rapidly deteriorating
>> conditions. I'm dead serious about that.
>>
>> Let us not conjecture (συμϐαλλώμεθα) at random (εἰκῆ) about (περὶ) the
>> greatest (μεγίστων) things.
>> Heraclitus said that. Don't know if the Greek comes through. The urgency
>> is not about power or control and now that i'm rambling anyway: not
>> solely about art either, its about finding a perfect expression at the
>> right time. It matters because its about choice, a global choice if you
>> want, so if we're not sure we need to find a way to be more so. (The
>> choice has long been made for us but we need an awareness of it so we
>> know what, if anything, to do, …)
>>
>> Ah forget it, told you it was a bad sign…
>>
>> dv
>>
>>> I don't know any of this for sure either, tho, and nobody
>>> else does either.
>>>
>>> Zev
>>>
>>>
>>> —– Original Message —–
>>> From: "Dirk Vekemans" <[email protected]>
>>> To: "'Zev Robinson'" <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: "'Rhizome Raw list'" <[email protected]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:55 PM
>>> Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi there Zev:
>>>> once again, you're talking zen. These are pleasant thoughts though.
>>>> So yes & perhaps if you love it you get to know it in the
>>> end, as a reward
>>>> for letting it happen.
>>>> Miracles, or tales thereoff, always include some form of
>>> randomness, too.
>>>>
>>>> But the point is (i think, do correct me if i'm wrong,
>>> cause i really
>>>> don't
>>>> know any of this for sure): when you're programming,
>>> mostly either you
>>>> want
>>>> to know exactly what will happen or you want to be able to
>>> count on it
>>>> that
>>>> what will happen in the program is not determined by your
>>> previous code.
>>>> So
>>>> you want it to be a random sequence. But that's where the
>>> problems start.
>>>> First you need to deal with pseudo-random, i. e. seemingly
>>> random things
>>>> that only act truly random for a given amount of cycles
>>> before it starts
>>>> reiterating. When that happens the sequence can only be
>>> 'just' another
>>>> predetermined, programmed cycle.
>>>>
>>>> Pseudo-random is not a major problem unless you need to program very
>>>> important encryption software. If you're involved in such a
>>> thing, you can
>>>> make your fortune by coming up with the 'cheepest'
>>> algorhythm giving the
>>>> highest degree of randomness. Cheep in processing time to
>>> run the darn
>>>> thing, that is.
>>>>
>>>> Pseudo-random is also a problem, i think, for those of us
>>> who want to
>>>> make
>>>> works of art that include randomness in its concept. In some cases
>>>> pseudo-random won't do conceptually, because it would be
>>> cheating on the
>>>> idea you're trying to present. In some of those hard cases,
>>> you might
>>>> solve
>>>> the problem by reverting to external inputs like radio static of the
>>>> degeneration rate of radio-activity. Alan Sondheim uses a
>>> 100 year old
>>>> instrument called a Crookes spinthariscope for it. They sell these
>>>> beautiful
>>>> instruments as plastic leaded toys these days:
>>>> http://www.unitednuclear.com/spinthariscope.htm
>>>> But in a few scenario's using such equipment, or a random
>>> generating
>>>> service
>>>> like http://www.random.org/ might not be possible.
>>>>
>>>> And when you have finally succesfully included pure
>>> randomness in your
>>>> artwork, or when you're satisfied with the amount of
>>> imperfection, you
>>>> still
>>>> need to make sense of it (ok:some artists don't, but
>>> because of the random
>>>> thing they'll never know for sure just how meaningless it
>>> is). You don't
>>>> need to solve the riddle of the universe at that point, but
>>> you want to
>>>> have
>>>> a clear idea of what you're doing, how the random part
>>> strikes the balance
>>>> with the programmed part including the personal, stylish part every
>>>> programmer puts in her programming and their personal
>>> assesment of what is
>>>> beautiful, valuable, aesthetically pleasing or any
>>> perversions thereoff.
>>>> So
>>>> if you ask yourself what is your take on random, you are
>>> perhaps required
>>>> to
>>>> ask yourself a question that goes to the core of what
>>> you're trying to
>>>> accomplish. It's about how much control you want to have
>>> over what you are
>>>> doing, the inner/outer balance of it, the IOwhy of an artist.
>>>>
>>>> There are times when you don't want to be face to face with these
>>>> questions.
>>>> I can write poetry or nag on art like this for ages without getting
>>>> emotionally affected when i don't want that. Merely calling the
>>>> Math.random
>>>> class in my actionScript sometimes gives me the creeps,
>>> involuntarily.
>>>>
>>>> I can't predict it, but when that happens, it take it to be a sign.
>>>>
>>>> greetings,
>>>> dv
>>>>
>>>>> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
>>>>> Van: Zev Robinson [mailto:[email protected]]
>>>>> Verzonden: woensdag 11 januari 2006 22:30
>>>>> Aan: Dirk Vekemans; 'Pall Thayer'; 'Rob Myers'
>>>>> CC: 'Rhizome Raw list'
>>>>> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>>>>>
>>>>> Dirk,
>>>>>
>>>>> I love randomness. Much of my art work is based on
>>>>> randomness. Much of my life has been affected by seemingly
>>>>> random events and coincidences. I don't know where I'd be
>>>>> without randomness. I don't want it solved or defined.
>>>>> Maybe randomness is an illusion, and it's all preordained,
>>>>> but I don't care, I still love randomness.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Zev
>>>>>
>>>>> —– Original Message —–
>>>>> From: "Dirk Vekemans" <[email protected]>
>>>>> To: "'Pall Thayer'" <[email protected]>; "'Rob Myers'"
>>>>> <[email protected]>
>>>>> Cc: "'Rhizome Raw list'" <[email protected]>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:22 PM
>>>>> Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> For me randomness, the concept, is a nightmare, it's
>>>>> quicksand, it is the
>>>>>> one thing i can think of that's worse then (pick any
>>> random worst
>>>>>> horror).
>>>>>> The day Superman solves random we'll all go to heaven (yes,
>>>>> even you
>>>>>> manik).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random
>>>>>> They (we) can't even get the wikipedia article straightened out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dv
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
>>>>>>> Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
>>>>>>> Namens Pall Thayer
>>>>>>> Verzonden: woensdag 11 januari 2006 15:55
>>>>>>> Aan: Rob Myers
>>>>>>> CC: Rhizome Raw list
>>>>>>> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>>> I was looking at this and find it interesting. Thanks for
>>>>>>> sharing the code with us. There are a couple of questions
>>>>>>> that come to mind. I'd like to know if you have any plans of
>>>>>>> making the lines more "pencil"- like by creating a more
>>>>>>> expressive line. I feel this is an issue that has been
>>>>>>> largely overlooked by people working with automated drawing
>>>>>>> processes. They tend to look really flat and dead because of it.
>>>>>>> AARON, for instance, suffers from a severe case of flatness
>>>>>>> that could be easily cured by some simple, maybe even random,
>>>>>>> variation in line thickness and length. There's an
>>>>>>> interesting project called Freestyle that's working on this
>>>>>>> (among other things) at http://
>>>>>>> freestyle.sourceforge.net/index.php (source available).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, I noticed this on your blog:
>>>>>>> "The shapes are random. The colours are random. At worst I'm
>>>>>>> showing one in every three of these images.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Randomness gives good results far more often than it should.
>>>>>>> Is it the heuristics I'm coding in, or is aesthetics
>>> really random?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Time to start adding rules."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it has to do with the range of data. Random is going
>>>>>>> to use the whole range of data equally whereas something like
>>>>>>> weather is going to be concentrated in predictable area's of
>>>>>>> the full range.
>>>>>>> Personally, I think it's really interesting to see what
>>>>>>> happens with different types of data. If you experiment with
>>>>>>> different data sources, I think you'll find that they each
>>>>>>> have their own significant character which could in turn be
>>>>>>> interesting to mix together.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pall
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10.1.2006, at 18:56, Rob Myers wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have been working on my program draw-something.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's a Flash version (made with MTASC):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://draw-something.robmyers.org/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And the Lisp version now makes multiple figures and
>>>>>>> coloured figures:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/11/purely-random-colour/
>>>>>>>>
>>> http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/draw-something-drawing/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/01/08/a-change-of-algorithm-for-
>>>>>>>> draw-something/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Source for all versions available from sourceforge CVS
>>>>>>> along with some
>>>>>>>> recent release bundles:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http:://rob-art.sourceforge.net/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Rob.
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> -> post: [email protected]
>>>>>>>> -> questions: [email protected]
>>>>>>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
>>>>>>>> subscribe.rhiz
>>>>>>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>>>>>>> Membership Agreement available online at
>>> http://rhizome.org/info/
>>>>>>>> 29.php
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> –
>>>>>>> Pall Thayer
>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>> http://www.this.is/pallit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> -> post: [email protected]
>>>>>>> -> questions: [email protected]
>>>>>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>>>>>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>>>>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in
>>>>>>> the Membership Agreement available online at
>>>>>>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> -> post: [email protected]
>>>>>> -> questions: [email protected]
>>>>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>>>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>>>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>>>>> Membership Agreement available online at
>>>>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> +
>>> -> post: [email protected]
>>> -> questions: [email protected]
>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>> +
>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>> Membership Agreement available online at
>>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> +
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/ subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/ 29.php
>>
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/ subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/ 29.php
>



–
Pall Thayer
[email protected]
http://www.this.is/pallit





+
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

Pall Thayer wrote:

> Perhaps random is "the spiritual in digital art." However, not being
> of a spiritual nature, I agree with Dirk. Conceptually, random is as
> empty as it gets.
>
> Pall
>
Hi Pall, Dirk,Zev, and others

here you can find another funny contemplation about randomness:
http://www.musicoftheprimes.com/gauss.htm

nad

On 11 Jan 2006, at 14:54, Pall Thayer wrote:

> I was looking at this and find it interesting. Thanks for sharing
> the code with us.

The reason for this (above the usual Free Software ethics) is that
AARON, Harold Cohen's drawing program, is closed source. That's
Harold's right, but I wanted to see the source code to AARON. I
decided I would put my money where my mouth is and let other people
see the source code to whatever I came up with.

> There are a couple of questions that come to mind. I'd like to know
> if you have any plans of making the lines more "pencil"-like by
> creating a more expressive line. I feel this is an issue that has
> been largely overlooked by people working with automated drawing
> processes. They tend to look really flat and dead because of it.

Part of the idea behind draw-something is that it is a model of my
own drawing, and I tend to use Tria markers. So my own drawings are
often actually quite flat with fairly "lifeless" lines.

> AARON, for instance, suffers from a severe case of flatness that
> could be easily cured by some simple, maybe even random, variation
> in line thickness and length.

IMO I'm not sure I agree with that. Even if the earlier monochrome
lines were more pen-and-ink than pencil-and-paper, they had an
expressive quality. And AARON functions as a kind of aesthetic
"proof": what you see is what AARON has done with a pen or a brush in
the same way as you would have to.

I am considering varying the line width, though. :-)

> There's an interesting project called Freestyle that's working on
> this (among other things) at http://freestyle.sourceforge.net/
> index.php (source available).

Thank you for the link, this is a very interesting project. I regard
Non-Photorealistic Rendering (NPR) as the opposite of a drawing
program: it is a post-processing step rather than an embodied
process. But the simulation techniques are useful.

> Also, I noticed this on your blog:
> […randomness…]
> I think it has to do with the range of data. Random is going to use
> the whole range of data equally whereas something like weather is
> going to be concentrated in predictable area's of the full range.

Yes, a commenter on my weblog pointed out that the way I am using
randomness will tend to statistically converge towards the middle of
the range, which explains some of how the shapes and colours look.

> Personally, I think it's really interesting to see what happens
> with different types of data. If you experiment with different data
> sources, I think you'll find that they each have their own
> significant character which could in turn be interesting to mix
> together.

I do like the idea of using different data sources. I have another
project called paintr ( http://paintr.robmyers.org/ ) that uses
colr.org and flickr.com for source material. draw-something is
intended as a self-contained system, but there are different ways of
generating numbers for it to use.

- Rob.

On 13 Jan 2006, at 06:31, Zev Robinson wrote:

> I'm also not sure if true randomness exists or not, or if it's all
> fate/destiny, or a combination of the two. But much, much better
> pseudo
> randomness than pseudo certainty.

The choice of randomness is a determined choice. The choice of
determination is random.

I could use perlin noise, or a number of different ways of
constraining or processing the randomness, and I may, but always to a
particular end. Randomness has no particular profundity for me, and
I'm happy using a pseudo-random number generator. I remember seeing
the algorithm for a none-line random number generator in a computer
magazine as a child, and I recently typed one out from a book on
Prolog. So I know how simple and how unreliable they are. I wish
Silicon Graphics still had their lava-lite camera feed online. That
was really random.

In draw-something I use draw-something to generate forms that are
unpredictable (but statistically will fall into interesting
arrangements) for the drawing algorithm to tackle. And I use it to
simulate human perceptual fallibility in the drawing algorithm. What
I don't do is generate a form then add noise to it to make it wobbly
once it's been drawn properly: the randomness is a factor in the
generation of the drawing with a specific purpose, not an after-effect.

Duchamp faked his stoppages. :-)

- Rob.