Machines..

Theo Jenson is both artist and engineer. He creates mechanical creatures that are intended to live on their own on the beaches, propelled by the wind. I find his work fascinating- he believes that these beasts have a life of their own. He acts as a god, designing the creatures, which then are released into nature to be given life by the wind. The video explains different survival traits he has given them over the years so that they are not destroyed by the ocean or storms. He still has a level of involvement in their lives, but says that ultimately, they should one day be able to sustain themselves without him.

If they can sustain themselves, does it mean that they are living?
What makes these creatures different species?
Can we really say that they have evolved, or is it just Theo's development of their design that is evolving? What is the difference?





"Marius Watz is a Norwegian artist and curator who originally took his point of departure doing graphics for the raves of the early nineties. In his current artistic practice he focuses on computationally generated form, describing his own style as a particular brand of visual hedonism, marked by colourful organic shapes and a 'more is more' attitude. His work has been shown at many international festivals and exhibitions. Marius is currently organizing the conference and exhibition Generator.x in Oslo, Norway. This event deals with the current role of software and generative strategies in art and design."

This article is worth looking over- Marius makes some interesting points. At first, he's commenting on Generative Art and defining it, then gets more into his art and some of his projects. One in particular is a web spider he created that analyzes information from any and all kinds of sources online. It constantly reads websites, analyzes them, and prints out a receipt. Eventually the room is filled with these receipts, which become ridiculous to attempt to understand. He says, "There is something magical yet pathetic about this smart machine doing such an obviously unintelligent thing..." I thought there was some irony to the idea that the machine is smart- we think of it as an intelligent organism because it can analyze data quicker than and without the bias of human beings, but its capabilities are limited to just that.


At a Digital Art Symposium at UNCG last year I got to experience the artwork of Chris Baker. His Urban Echo Series consists of some kind of program that projects text messages onto buildings. The texts, which can be sent from anyone, anywhere, appear long enough to be read before tumbling and interacting with the architecture (falling around windows, etc.).
This isn't a great video but it gets the point across-



So what or where is the art in this process? The designer, Chris, doesn't send the text messages - that's up to public interaction. Is it the public involvement? Is this art?