In Philip Galanter’s ‘Generative Art Theory’, he thinks that there is no solid definition for the Generative Art.  He also mentioned some of the artists claimed that Generative art is created by the coding.(Galanter.P 2016)  However, I cannot fully agree with this idea.  In my opinion, Generative art is an art form that created with some set of rules or kinds of method.  It does not limit to computer art.  Computer is just a tool that can let the artist create artwork in a more convenient and an automatic way.  For example, Fractals.  If you want to make a Fractals art, it is difficult to finish by hand.  But with the help of computer, you can make a precise or ‘infinite’ picture.  That is the reason why there are many computer arts in Generative Art.  Just like my project, in fact, I can generate sentences by hand.  However, I choose Rita to help me finish the work, as it can decrease my work time.  Also it will choose words without emotion.  If I choose it by myself, I may disturb by the meaning.  But if I care for the context, I cannot present the core idea of the context-free grammar.

 

 Galanter thinks that not all rule-based art is generative art.(Galanter.P 2016)  Before I read the article, I just think of Generative Art is art created by rules, but I did not realize that not all the rule-based art is Generative Art.  Then I think of Participatory art which is similar to Generative Art.  Since it also has to set some ‘rules’ and require the participation to follow the rule to make the artwork.  However, it is not Generative Art.  Therefore, I think that one of the important points of Generative Art is that after setting the rule, it can run the work by itself.  Also, the result of the work can be predicted in a certain extent.  However, other rule-based art like Participatory art, the result cannot be predicted, as it is controlled by the participation. 

​

​

​

​

​

Reference:

Galanter, P. (2016). An introduction to complexism. Technoetic Arts, 14(1-2), 9-31.