On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You also get the showing-off-the-tool syndrome. Yes, you can generate
> some really flashy images in photoshop with almost no effort.
That's because the programmer has done so much good work for you. The
programmer is often being more creative than the end-user 'artist'. In my
opinion the programmer is the artist in this instance. His ideas live in
his code, and the graphic artist is reduced the role of channelling the
programmers creativity.
Of course a good graphic designer learns the tool well enough to be able
to add in their own artistic ideas into the process. The programmer of a
graphics tool is a graphic artist and a good graphic artist works at the
same level as the programmer. They're working together without otherwise
knowing each other at all.
But anyway, I'm rambling..
> Have you seen the algorithmic music by Andrew Bulhack?
I have now :) I like the ideas very much, they're similar to some of my
own, only his came a few years earlier.. AFAIK (mpg123 is rejecting his
mp3's for some reason) he is trying to replicate the feel of existing
music. I think that's the easiest route.. It's challenging to try to
synthesise what already exists but do you really gain much? I like to
create sounds that I haven't heard before.. I think generative music can
explore new music better than old.
But I really like the idea of giving the code away with the music. There
is not _nearly_ enough openess in the art world at the moment.
Alex
