authorship & control in generative design
DESCRIPTION
Generative Design, ProcessingTRANSCRIPT
Authorship & Controlin Generative Design
Field Of Study Generative design is a design method that uses
an algorithm or a set of rules to create an output.
The algorithm/rules allows the design to create
complex forms with the means of creating
permutations and selecting outputs though a set
of rules or variables. Today’s technological ability
allows artists and designers to create something
new and surpass the human hand and create
works that are generated at least in part by
some process that is not under the artist’s direct
control. Control can come from a multitude of
factors such as; the variables within the system
which can be controlled via users, therefore
creating a relationship between user and art.
Interaction and Generative design has been
combined together which has caused authorship
of design to involve the users. This project will
explore the relationship between designer and
user in design and how much of an effect and
uniqueness a user can have on the design.
Focus
Context Generative design can allow the audience or a
user to get involved and create alternatives to the
current settings of a certain project, removing the
control of perception from the designer to the
audience. Roland Bathes challenged the concept
of authorship altogether by suggesting there is
a new authorial structure through “the death of
the author” where he disconnected the creation
from the author and “assigns to it autonomous
voice in the realm of a multi- dimensional space,
where it is in the consciousness of its interpreters
to be attributing a meaning. Once the creation
comes to light, the author, according to Barthes,
“enters into his own death”. [Barthes, 1977, p.142]”
(Theodoropoulou, 2007). This implies that once
the user or audiences receive the messages from
the artefact it is the perception of the individual
that is considered the connection, not author
to audience. This is supported by the idea that
“early models of graphic design were built on
ideals of anonymity, not authorship.” (Armstrong,
2009) and how technology has allowed the
development of design to put “…creation,
production and distribution into the hands of the
designer, enabling such bold assertions of artistic
presence. These acts of the graphic authorship
fit within a broader evolving model of collective
authorship that is fundamentally changing the
producer-consumer relationship.” (Armstrong,
2009). The development of collective authorship
has enabled the ‘free culture’ to grow to allow
individuals to become generators or producers
of content. Laser Tag – Graffiti Research Lab
(2007), Video Grid (2009), We Feel Fine (2005),
Study of a Mirror (2008), and House of Cards
(2008). All these examples use set designs and
then allows the user to apply their ‘preferences’.
With all this in mind the examples still leave
a graphic mark. “As a designer working with
generative processes, one may still wish to leave
a recognizable mark on a creation” (McCormack,
2004).
The history of generative design is believed to
be as old as art itself. There are many examples
of historical persona who have used generative
design towards production of their artefacts.
“Mozart developed a “musical game of dice“… …
Mozart composed 176 bars of music, from which
sixteen were chosen from a list using dice, which
then produced a new piece when performed
on a piano. Sixteen bars, each with eleven
possibilities, can result in 1,116 unique pieces of
music.” (Ihmels, 2011). Similarly John Cage laid
out rhythms and sequences using traditional
notation. His performances were unplanned and
were produced through the elements of chance
and variation, differing the results. “Through the
performance process, the individual’s freedom to
modify the structure results in a social interaction
in the group of musicians. This non-hierarchic form
of creativity can be compared with the ‘bottom-
up’ structure by which an open source software
such as Linux is constantly further developed by
its users. In either case, it is possible to vary and
re-interpret a specified code with the result that
the boundary between author and user become
fluid.” (Daniels, 2000).
Rationale Looking into control and authorship is important
to me because I have always been interested
in creating interactive products and this study
will allow myself to understand the relationship
between the user and the designer. Hopefully it
will allow me to understand how to control this
relationship, of users and designer, for the future.
This is an important problem within Graphic
Design: New Media because interaction and
generative designers need to know how to relate
to the audience sufficiently.
Two exhibitions that influenced my original
interest in interaction and generative design the
most were V&A Decode and the Offf Festival in
Lisbon. The Offf festival was the first experience
of seeing major designers in one place, and it
enabled me to see work from Joshua Davis,
Karsten Schmidt, Multitouch Barcelona and
lots more. Before that festival I did not know a
lot about interaction within design and how it
could be represented. The Decode exhibition
allowed me to see more designers and the range
of different types of interaction. Over the past
few years projects have appeared on Creative
Applications website that have inspired me in
previous projects.
Methods Throughout this project I will need to research
and revisit sources because of the amount project
being shown to the public allowing possible
influence and enabling my project not to go in
one direction once the development stage has
begun.
The project will have to begin with experimenting
and generating prototypes that challenges
authorship of the artefact and I will need to find
ways of doing this. There are many types of
interactions that can be looked into such as; the
human-computer interaction and self-regulating
systems. Also, the varieties of user experience
design could inspire branches that this project
could go down. Testing the final result will be
vital because of the variations that the artefacts
could produce.
Skills Practical Skills
Empathy (“the power of entering into another’s
personality and imaginatively experiencing his
experiences” [Beardsley, 2004])
Learn coding within Processing or some other
programming package.
Testing and recording feedback.
Time keeping and organisation.
Theoretical Skills
Understanding of the types of interaction.
Revisiting research from previous project and
applying it to this project.
Break down the relationship of the designer, user
and design.
Understanding the feedback from experiments
and applying it to a final outcome.
PredictedResolution
I am aspiring to generate artefacts that
investigates or shows a relationship between the
designer, user and design. As I am dealing with
the aspect of the ‘user’ it may have an interactive
component to show the results of the findings of
how much of an effect and uniqueness a user can
have on the design.
Whatever the outcome of the major project, a
designed booklet containing research, processes,
experiments and the final outcome will be
produced. This will show the progression of the
project and promote the design problem and the
resolution.
Armstrong, Helen. (2009). Graphic Design
Theory. Princeton Architectural Press.
Beardsley, Sally (2004). Interactive generative
design: A living language? AsiaLink Seminar on
Generative Design.
Craemer, A (2010). Can information design create
social change? (And should it even try?). Central
Saint Martins College of Art and Design
Cramer, F. (2002). Concepts, Notations, Software,
Art.
Creative Applications (2011)
http://www.creativeapplications.net/
Cox, G. (2006). Generator: about Generative Art
and/or Software Art.
Daniels, Dieter. (2000). Media Art Interaction,
The 1980s and 1990s in Germany. Springer.
Dubberly, H., Haque, U., Pangaro, P. (2009) What
is interaction?
Freyer, Conny., Noel, Sebastien., Ruck, Eva. (2011).
Digital By Design. Thames & Hudson.
Galanter, P. (2003). What is Generative Art?
Complexity Theory as a Context for Art Theory.
New York University, New York.
Heller, Steven. (2007). Become a Digital Designer.
Wiley.
Ihmels, T,. Riedel, J. (2011). The Methodology of
Generative Art. http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/
themes/generative-tools/generative-art/
Bibliography
Kitchen Budapest. (2011).
http://www.kitchenbudapest.hu/en
Maeda, John. (2004). Creative Code: Aesthetics
+ Computation. Thames & Hudson
Maeda, John. (2006). The Laws of Simplicity. MIT
Press
McCormack, J., Dorin, A., and Innocent, T. (2004).
‘Generative design: a paradigm for design
research’. Proceedings of Futureground, Design
Research Society, Melbourne.
Noble, Ian., Bestley, Russell. (2004). Visual
Research. AVA Publishing
Offf Festival. (2011). http://www.offf.ws/2011/
Osbourne, P. (2002). Conceptual Art. Phaidon
Press.
Reas, Casey., McWilliams, Chandler. (2010).
Form+Code in Design, Art, and Architecture.
Princeton Architectural Press.
Reas, Casey. Fry, Ben. (2010). Getting Started
with Processing. Make.
Theodoropoulou, A. (2007) Architectural
Authorship in Generative Design. University
College London.
V&A Decode Exhibition (2011)
http://www.vam.ac.uk/microsites/decode/
Ward, Adrian., Cox, Geoff. (1999) The Authorship
of Generative Art. Sidestream, London & CAiiA-
STAR, School of Computing, University of
Plymouth, UK.
Project Deadline12 May
EasterStarts
16 Apr
EasterEnds
3 May
Research/Development
SectionsCompleted
16 Apr
Budapest Trip
13 Apr - 18 Apr
ImageMaking
Workshop 28, 29 Mar +
5, 7 Apr
Mid PointCrit 4 Apr
FMP Briefing24 Feb
FinaliseProposal
11 Mar
IdentifyProblem
25 Feb
Work in Progress
Crit24 Mar
Experiments15 - 23 Mar
SubjectResearch
1 Mar
ListExperiments
2 Mar
Timetable
Project Deadline12 May
EasterStarts
16 Apr
EasterEnds
3 May
Research/Development
SectionsCompleted
16 Apr
Budapest Trip
13 Apr - 18 Apr
ImageMaking
Workshop 28, 29 Mar +
5, 7 Apr
Mid PointCrit 4 Apr
FMP Briefing24 Feb
FinaliseProposal
11 Mar
IdentifyProblem
25 Feb
Work in Progress
Crit24 Mar
Experiments15 - 23 Mar
SubjectResearch
1 Mar
ListExperiments
2 Mar
Generative Design
The method of generative design was first
introduced to me by Joshua Davis during his
presentation during the Offf festival in Lisbon
2009. Joshua Davis’ style within his designs are
not what I am most interested in but more on the
methods and processes he used to produce his
work. His presentations of showing his step by
step methods towards his final pieces was very
impressive. The reason that I liked his methods
was because it created something new with
endless variations and did not always have a
producers control over the outcome.
Its well worth looking at the history and future
of generative design to see where it began and
what possible directions the future of this design
area could take. The history of generative design
is believed to be as old as art itself. There are
many examples of historical persona who have
used generative design towards production of
their artefacts. “Mozart developed a “musical
game of dice“… …Mozart composed 176 bars of
music, from which sixteen were chosen from a
list using dice, which then produced a new piece
when performed on a piano. Sixteen bars, each
with eleven possibilities, can result in 1,116 unique
pieces of music.” (Ihmels, 2011).
Similarly John Cage laid out rhythms and
sequences using traditional notation. His
performances were unplanned and were produced
through the elements of chance and variation,
differing the results. “Through the performance
process, the individual’s freedom to modify the
structure results in a social interaction in the
group of musicians. This non-hierarchic form of
creativity can be compared with the ‘bottom-
up’ structure by which an open source software
such as Linux is constantly further developed by
its users. In either case, it is possible to vary and
re-interpret a specified code with the result that
the boundary between author and user become
fluid.” (Daniels, 2000).
In the 80’s, John Whitney who was an inventor,
animator and early computer art pioneer was
able to produce a generative piece that visualised
music and it was called ‘Permutations’.
Generative Design
Output = Image / Sound / Animation
Generated by Algorithms / Rules
Design Method
Implemented in Art, Architechture, Communication Design, Product Design
1. A Design Schema2. Means of creating variation3. Means of selecting output
“There is broad agreement that generative art is a term
applied to artwork that is automated by the use of
instructions or rules by which the artwork is executed.“
(Cox, 2006).
Joshua Davis is one of the leading designers
within generative design and was a pioneer by
developing an area previously unexplored within
graphic design. Although, Davis’ primary tool is
action scripting and flash because he is a graphic
web designer his influence to generative design
development over the past ten years have been
vital. Programming environments are the reason
that generative design is becoming more and
more important and have made it very easy for
designers with little programming experience to
implement their ideas.
Idea
Rule/Algorithm
Source Code
Output
Designer
Abstraction
Formalisation andstarting parameters
Interpretationby the computer
Designer judgesthe output
Modifiessource code or parameters
Modifies rules
Idea
Rule/Algorithm
Source Code
Output
Designer
Abstraction
Formalisation andstarting parameters
Interpretationby the computer
Designer judgesthe output
Modifiessource code or parameters
Modifies rules
Generative Design Process
The generative design process allows me to
visualise the stages of development that a
product will require. I will be able to show the
development through these stages and will know
where to go from each stage by having a choice
of modification.
Ben FryCasey ReasJohn MaedaGolan LevinToxiEskimobloodJonathan HarrisMarius WatzEd Burton
PuristUsing codeto createthe visuals
Ben FryCasey ReasJohn MaedaGolan LevinToxiEskimobloodJonathan HarrisMarius WatzEd Burton
PuristUsing codeto createthe visuals
HybridMapping artworkto code
HybridMapping artworkto code
During my first year of Graphic Design: New
Media I had the opportunity to go to the design
festival Offf. The year that I went it took place
in Lisbon which has a great design culture. This
festival was important to my own development
because it allowed me to hear from designers
that have already mastered the industry just as I
was entering it. Also, the breadth of the festival
enlightened and expanded my view within design.
From different types of motion, interaction, print
and more...
The festival topic was quite useful to me as a
student because it was all about trying new
things with the possibility of failing, an aspect of
design that I did not recognise until then.
Although, the festival topic was about the failures
that the speaker have had, it was also about how
these failures could become innovative pieces
of design. I attended presentations from Neville
Brody, Multitouch Barcelona, Karsten Schmidt,
Joshua Davis, Paula Scher and PES. Before
attending I did not know who they were as my
knowledge of design was very limited although I
had seen some of their works around.
“OFFF is an entity in continuous transformation, alive and evolutionary. More
than a decade ago, it was born as a post-digital culture festival; a meeting place to host
contemporary creation through an in depth programme of conferences, workshops and
performances by the most relevant artists of our time.” - Offf
Davis states that the code is his artwork although
all the components in his design are drawn
in illustrator and coded together to produce
a many pieces of art. His development and
decision making throughout a project is what I
find impressive as at each stage it is not possible
to tell what the final outcome will be.
His presentation at Offf showed step by step
his approach and it was similar to John Maeda’s
Laws of Simplicity by breaking the project into
really small tasks. For example he had to create
interesting stream of colours and shapes around
the canvas. He started the project by having a
ball and making it ping from point A to point B.
His development to this was creating methods
that changes the path.
Joshua DavisAs stated before I first noticed Davis’ work and
methods at the Offf festival in Lisbon. Visually, I
really like the work that Joshua Davis’ produces
but I that is not what intrigues me the most about
his work. The processes and methods that he has
and applied it with code.
On his website he has the quote “Among modern
artists, I conceptually identify with Jackson
Pollock — not that I’m a particular fan of his
visual style, but because he always identified
himself as a painter, even though a lot of the time
his brush never hit the canvas. There’s something
in that disconnect — not using a brush or tool in
traditional methods.” This probably sums up what
I like about his work; that avoiding traditional
methods in creating something new.
“20 years ago... Computing couldn’t replicate what human
hand could achieve.
Today... Technology wielded by artists and designers surpasses
the human hand.“ - Joshua Davis
The Decode exhibition was something I heard
about from a tutor and decided to check it out.
The festival had three different sections within it;
code, interactivity and network.
This exhibition was very interesting to me because
of the focus on works that were “innovative, often
interactive, displays use generative software,
animation and other responsive technologies to
instil a ‘live’ element into contemporary artworks.
Some works exist in a state of perpetual
evolution other are altered by the behaviours
of the spectator.” - V&A Decode. This was
interesting to me then and is very important to
this project because of the relationship between
the exhibition manifesto and this project.
The relationship that exists between Decode and
this project is that the themes are related such
as this project focuses on control and authorship
with generative design and these have themes
of coding, interactivity, networking, behaviour
modification.
“Code presents pieces that use computer code
to create new works and looks at how code can
be programmed to create constantly fluid and
ever-changing works.
Interactivity looks at works that are directly
influenced by the viewer. Visitors will be invited to
interact with and contribute to the development
of the exhibits.
Network focuses on works that comment on and
utilise the digital traces left behind by everyday
communications and looks at how advanced
technologies and the internet have enabled new
types of social interaction and mediums of self-
expression.” - V&A Decode Website.
V&A Decode
Karsten SchmidtAs part of the University of Creative Arts designer
lecture program, Karsten gave a presentation
about his works and methods. Karsten uses
a unique way of producing his content which
merges various fields towards a project using
code, design, art & craft skills. During his talk he
suggests that society has created experts within
fields and that there should be more designers
that have skills in many fields. The reason for this
is because experts see problems from their own
niche.
Karsten introduced toxiclibs which is a library
that can be used within processing. Also, he
explained how easy it was to get a varied image
of a tree through three simple rules. This was
done on Context Free.
Postspectacular Manifesto
Learn by doing.
Become literate in systems thinking
Use the right tool for the right job - make those
tools!
Encourage creative flow in your process
Be part of networks
Allow for recombination of ideas by adopting
modular development
Be open to new influences
Benefit from and accept that you’re working
towards moving targets (caused by your own
doing and that of others)
Use clear language without hype & buzzwords
Be self-critical to promote quality & positiveness
Ask the important, uneasy questions if you’re in
doubt
Attempt to move away from isolated projects
towards a continuous flow of activity
Aaron Koblin
Aaron Koblin is an artist who specialises in
combining data and digital technologies. The
House of Cards project for Radiohead was the
first piece that I saw of his work and was really
interested on how he was able to capture the data
and then turn it into two pieces of work; a video
and an interactive piece. This method was made
available to download and has been developed
into other projects such as electro artist Krause’s
music video -
(http://www.optixdigital.de/followme/).
“Aaron’s work takes real-world and community
generated data and uses it to reflect on cultural trends and
the changing relationship between humans and
technology.“
The second trip that I was able to attend with the
Graphic Design: New Media course was to a new
media festival called Transmediale which takes
place in Berlin. I was also fortunate to revisit the
festival a year later with the course. The first
year the festivals theme was called ‘Futurity
Now!’. The aim of the festival was to see what we
have in store for the future, not what the future
has in store for us. Talks that really interested
me was the one that was called ‘Art 2.0’ which
involved Michelle Teran, Jens Wunderling, Jamie
Wilkinson, Aaron Koblin and Daniel Massey. The
main focus of this talk was ‘different strategies
of artistic appropriation such as crowdsourcing,
the direct invitation of a group of people to
participate in an artwork, or retroactive gathering
and recycling of foreign contents and forms.’
The second years theme was called ‘Response:
Ability’ and it explored “...the qualities of liveness
that are fundamental elements of our digital
culture and discusses the ability required to
respond to the social, political and economical
processes formed by the intensity of our
participation and interaction.” The performances
this year were really good and I enjoyed
performances from Eboman with the SenSor Suit
and Ei Wada with the Braun Tube Jazz Band. The
Sensor Suit investigates the possibilities opened
up by the medium of sampling by capturing it
audiences and then remixing it to a collection.
The Braun Tube Jazz Band works by tapping
the TV screens and it produces primitive, cosmic
electrical music. You could say that these are
very similar to John Cage and how he produced
his works.
This mini documentary was produced during the
Transmediale festival 2011 to discuss the issues
of the future of art. I’m sure this discussion could
go on for many hours and in many directions but
these are the questions that were answered by
these participants.
Ken Wahl discusses how that if you have a set of
data which could be interpreted in many ways
such as through different mediums or different
techniques it brings in the question what is the
art as the only original thing is the set of data.
So, what is the artwork? Is it the data or the
produced outputs?
In interaction design, this is a problem because if
there is confusion on what the art is, it is going to
raise questions about the authorship especially
when the interactive piece will be generated by
a participant.
“What are the defining aesthetics of art in the
networked era?
How is mass collaboration changing notions of
ownership in art?
How does micropatronage change the way artists produce and distribute
artwork?”
Jamie Wilkinson
Jamie Wilkinson is an internet culture researcher
and software engineer, who I saw at the
Transmediale festival presented his pieces of art
that involved participants.
His most famous piece of work would be Star
Wars Uncut which won an Emmy for ‘Outstanding
Creative Achievement in Interactive Media -
Fiction‘. He has also produced ‘Know Your Meme’
which is a database of viral internet memes. He
later introduced what Free Art and Technology
Lab are about, what they produce and how he is
involved (See next page).
“The Free Art and Technology Lab is an
organization dedicated to enriching the
public domain through the research and
development of creative technologies
and media. The entire FAT network of
artists, engineers, scientists, lawyers,
musicians and Bornas are committed to
supporting open values and the public
domain through the use of emerging
open licenses, support for open
entrepreneurship and the admonishment
of secrecy, copyright monopolies and
patents.”
The Free Art and Technology Lab’s
attitude towards their target is
something to be appreciated and their
work relates to my investigation as they
give the control back to the people.
“Dedicated to enriching the public domain one mutha-fuckin LOL at a time”
Graffiti Research Lab
The Graffiti Research Lab is something I came
across while looking at the Digital By Design
book. “…Graffiti Research Lab explore how
technology can contribute to street art and
urban communication and empower individuals
creatively to alto and reclaim their surroundings.”
This enables users to show their creativity
through the technology allowing the control
to be with the user, this in turn gives the user
a majority of the authorship because they are
creating the message and using the technology
as a tool similarly as designers use Photoshop or
any other design package.
Strategies of Interactivity
While this project is about investigating
authorship and control in generative design, we
must look at the strategies that are available to a
designer on how a participant can interact with
a process using the Strategies of Interactivity by
Dieter Daniels’ Media Art Interaction book.
“Most of Cage’s compositions do not define a
precise musical human-instrument interaction,
but open up a field of possibilities to be
interpreted by the performer of his composition
and producing each time, through elements of
chance and variation, differing results. Some
pieces modify the instruments (prepared
piano) or leave the choice of instruments up
to the performers. Through the performance
process, the individual’s freedom to modify the
structure results in a social interaction in the
group of musicians. This non-hierarchic form of
creativity can be compared with the ‘bottom-
up’ structure by which an open-source software
such as Linux is constantly further developed by
its users. In either case, it is possible to vary and
re-interpret a specified code with the result that
the boundary between author and user becomes
fluid. The opposite model would be a ‘top-
down’ structure as represented by the precise
notation of a classical composition as well as the
proprietary software developed by Bill Gates’
Microsoft Corporation, for which the secrecy
of the source code is the basis of a capitalist
monopoly. Program users work in line with the
patterns of interaction decreed by the software
industry, just as the classical musical composition
specifies as exactly as possible the usage of
musical instruments.
The purpose of composition, as Cage saw it, was
not to deliver an optimum ‘operating system’ for
musical instruments, but to initiate an individual
and social creative process which successively
detaches itself from the intentions of its author.
By contrast, the software of Bill Gates and other
proprietary systems keeps users in the dark about
the structures ‘inscribed’ by its writers. A model
derived from the time-honoured, idealistic notion
of art — that of the deep mystery inherent to all
creativity — is being kept alive solely by artificial
secrecy. Instead of serving the sacred goals of the
genius, it panders to the mammon of monopolists.
Cage’s concept of interactivity stems from an
aesthetic and ideology leading to the dissolution
of the boundary between author, performance
and audience. That was why he deployed media
technologies like radio, record, tape and, later,
computer — through the information structures
of such apparatus, the interference of musical
production and reception became possible.
Technology could not only replace human labour,
but also open up a creative sphere. For Gates,
by contrast, interactivity is an economically and
technologically determined pattern according
to whose specifications millions structure their
workflow — a view he pinpointed in an in-house
paper stating that Microsoft treats human users
like it does computers: it programs them. While
the computer is indisputably replacing the
piano as the most-used keyboard instrument
in the home, liberation from the often tortuous
obligation to practise has not reached young
people in an open, Cagean form but instead in
the voluntary self-conditioning of interaction
with industrial software such as computer
games. This admittedly bold comparison serves
to bridge the gap between Cage’s art and Gates’
technology in order to show that ultimately their
conflicting models of interactivity stand for two
different blueprints of society. The respective
principles of openness and closedness could act
as a leitmotif for the changing meaning of the
term ‘interactivity’ from the ’60s to the ’90s.”
Using the ‘bottom-up’ model with this project
would be perfect as it will allow users to become
part of the authorship. Also, as the main property
of interaction design is the user, it means that
designers must understand humans and human
behaviour. “One of the essential skills of an
interaction designer is empathy. Empathy: The
power of entering into another’s personality
and imaginatively experiencing his experiences:
the power of entering into the feeling or spirit
of something... and so appreciating it fully.”
(Beardsley)
Fluxus
Fluxus designers use the intersection of medias
and see what reaction that results from it. Most
results are simple and use everyday object to
create new combinations. Fluxus designers
worked through instructions to produce their
works. Yoko Ono exhibited ‘instructions’ for
paintings which allowed the audience to complete
the artwork through certain methods.
The Museum of Contemporary Art, Roskilde
curated an exhibition called ‘Fluxus Scores and
Instructions The Transformative Years.
“Most of the scores and instructions are
complete original manuscripts or the earliest
printed versions of the works. There are also
performances of scores recorded in photographs
and realizations presented in other forms,
alongside scratchy audio from the 1960s and
blurry films of early Fluxus performances. The
exhibition will also include germinal pre-Fluxus
scores by George Brecht, John Cage, Marcel
Duchamp, Yves Klein, Walter de Maria, Yoko Ono,
Karlheinz Stockhausen, and La Monte Young.”
(E-flux, 2008).
Fluxus allows a participation which causes me to
query the role of the designer because of how
much input the participant could have on these
pieces allowing the authorship to shift. This piece
was set through Ono’s set of instruction therefore
becoming a ‘bottom-up’ model and allowing a
collective authorship.
Role of the Designer
Looking at the role of the designer is important
because it allows us to see how over time the
role has changed and why it has changed. The
development of collective authorship and open
source has allowed the designer to become more
of an author to start a product or a process.
Due to the emergence of open source and
collective authorship this has had to happen as
“...designers position and reposition themselves
in relation to the discourse of design and the
broader society.“ - Armstrong. Heller states
that the basic goal of the designer is to “...help
people understand the world through the visual
interpretation of complex information“ and this
is still case whether the designer is part author,
part translator or part director. For example; a
designer who codes, sets parameters and rules
for a participant or system to abide by which will
most likely not change (unless it is in by another
coder in open source) and the participant will be
able to interact or change these parameters to
get an output they produce. This is very similar to
what Yoko Ono did with her instructions.
“The role of the Graphic Designer expanded in the last decades. In times of information explosion,
climate change, obesity and the financial crisis stepping
into the forefront of common interest, the influence of
the contemporary Graphic Designer addressing these
issues has been raised.”- Craemer.
Role of the Designer
by Anna Craemer
Collective Authorship
Collective Authorship is an evolution from the
development in digital technology where “...
content generation by individuals has never been
easier. (Consider the popularity of the DIY and the
“Free Culture“ movements.) As more and more
designers, along with the general population
become initiators and producers of content, a
leveling is occuring.“ - Armstrong.
Wordpress is a prime example of collective
authorship as user are able to download or sign
up to a service and upload content similarly
to the content within Jamie Wilkinson’s Know
Your Meme. More directly with this project and
generative design we could look at Karsten
Schmidt’s Toxiclib as it uses libraries collectively
built and developed to improve the outcomes of
the project.
In an interview with Joshua Davis, he explain why
he shares his knowledge and code. He states
that if he were Rembrandt and showed you his
methods and ways he mixes his pallets you still
would get the same result as the original author
but you would get a recognisable creation. “As a
designer working with generative processes, one
may still wish to leave a recognizable mark on a
creation.” - McCormack.
Death of the AuthorRoland Barthes theory on the ‘Death of the
Author’ is something that I was taught during
Contextual Studies during first and second years
of the degree and it probably a major theory
that should be recognised. “Roland Barthes in
“the death of the author” in 1968, challenges the
notion of authorship altogether. Barthes suggests
the emergence of a new authorial persona. He
disconnects the creation from the Author and
assigns to it autonomous voice in the realm of
a multi- dimensional space, where it is in the
consciousness of its interpreters to be attributing
a meaning. Once the creation comes to light, the
author, according to Barthes, “enters into his own
death”. [Barthes, 1977, p.142]” - Theodoropoulou.
This theory could be connected to collective
authorship where there is no one author but
many and that “once published, the text is no
longer under the control of the author” making
the author have a limited control on the future
of the text. Although, this can be argued within
generative design where the designer can
set parameters to leave his mark on the work
therefore displaying that his original code is the
art not the outcome.
Behavioural Influence
As designers it is our job to ultimately sell,
influence and create behaviour. I was unaware
to look at this subject until I saw a video of
Dan Ariely on TED. “Behavioural economist
Dan Ariely, the author of Predictably Irrational,
uses classic visual illusions and his own counter
intuitive (and sometimes shocking) research
findings to show how we’re not as rational as we
think when we make decisions.” This video was
very interesting and I was able to find out how to
previous designs have thought about controlling
the user to outcome by using various methods
like adding additional preferences that causes
our perception to change
“Dan Lockton is a designer and researcher from
the UK, and has come to specialise in design for
behaviour change – applying techniques from a
range of psychological and technical disciplines
to the problems of influencing human behaviour
for social benefit, via the design of products,
systems, services and environments.” (http://
architectures.danlockton.co.uk/dan-lockton/).
Through the design with intent website I found
about Dan Lockton who specialises in design
that influences user behaviour. This presentation
progresses the talk from Dan Ariely. Although
Dan Lockton discusses about architectural
products but the issues are the same.
Dan Ariely
Dan Lockton
Behavioural Influence
“In his 2003 book Persuasive Technology, BJ
Fogg lists some reasons why using technology to
influence behaviour is different from persuading
people using other forms of media like traditional
advertising. For example the anonymity of
interacting with a machine can encourage people
to be more open in their responses to questions
which could allow a computer to present more
tailored responses. Computers can also sift
through enormous volumes of data to present
people with an overpowering case – or find the
one fact in millions that they find most persuasive.
Another reason Fogg gives that I find convincing
is that computers can present people with a rich
variety of text, video, audio and the ability to
interact and simulate, allowing people to select
the media that they find most engaging.”
Decode wasn’t an exhibition about changing
behaviour of course, but it was interesting to read
an interview with one of the artists, Golan Levin,
who when asked “what do digital technologies
allow you to do or investigate that other tools do
not?” replied “I can create ‘behaviour’”.
BJ Fogg
Golan Levin
History of Processing“Processing is a programming language,
development environment, and online community
that since 2001 has promoted software literacy
within the visual arts. Initially created to serve as a
software sketchbook and to teach fundamentals
of computer programming within a visual
context, Processing quickly developed into a tool
for creating finished professional work as well.”
“Processing was founded by Ben Fry and
Casey Reas in 2001 while both were John
Maeda’s students at the MIT Media Lab. Further
development has taken place at the Interaction
Design Institute Ivrea, Carnegie Mellon
University, and the UCLA, where Reas is chair of
the Department of Design | Media Arts. Miami
University, Oblong Industries, and the Rockefeller
Foundation have generously contributed funding
to the project.”
Reas “Casey Reas is an associate professor and chair
of the Department of Design Media Arts at UCLA.
His classes provide a foundation for thinking
about software as a dynamic visual medium
and set a structure for inquiry into synthesis of
culture, technology, and aesthetics. With Ben Fry,
Reas initiated Processing.org in 2001. Processing
is an open source programming language and
environment for creating images, animation, and
interaction. In September 2007, they published
Processing: A Programming Handbook for
Visual Designers and Artists, a comprehensive
introduction to programming within the context
of visual media (MIT Press). Reas’ essays have
appeared in the books Network Practices
(Princeton Architectural Press), Aesthetic
Computing (MIT Press), Code: The Language of
Our Time (Hatje Cantz), and the Programming
Cultures issue of Architectural Design (Wiley).”
Fry“Ben Fry received his doctoral degree from the
Aesthetics + Computation Group at the MIT
Media Laboratory, where his research focused
on combining fields such as Computer Science,
Statistics, Graphic Design, and Data Visualization
as a means for understanding complex data.
After completing his thesis, he spent time
developing tools for visualization of genetic data
as a postdoc with Eric Lander at the Eli & Edythe
L. Broad Insitute of MIT & Harvard. During the
2006-2007 school year, Ben was the Nierenberg
Chair of Design for the Carnegie Mellon School of
Design. At the end of 2007, he finished the book
Visualizing Data for O’Reilly. He currently works
as a designer in Cambridge, MA.”
Image Making Workshop
This workshop was preparation tool to make our
knowledge of Processing and Arduino ready for
a workshop with Kitchen Budapest. I was very
fortunate to have this workshop on processing
as my project will probably be primarily based
within that programming environment.
The workshop started with showing us the
basics to processing and common programming
techniques. We learnt the basics to processing
such as; setting the canvas size, drawing shapes,
use of variables and the different types, integers,
floats, boolean, the structure of a sketch and
more. We then were put through various small
projects to develop our coding skills.
The Brief
We want you to design and prototype a
mechanical or computational image making
machine. Neither the input nor the output is
required to be photographic, and in fact we
urge you to avoid this. You are free to let your
imagination go wild so long as you produce a
mechanical or computationally generated image
at the end.
Serial Communication
Serial Communication II
Import Library
Declare movie capture
Integer ‘space’ = 13
Project Setup
Canvas Size
Smooth Quality
Movie capture information
Background = white
Circle sizes with int space
Stroke colour = random
Stroke weight = random
Add a frame to movie
If space bar pressed finish movie capture
Declare properties for x, y, px, py
Project Setup
Canvas Size
Smooth Quality
x & y = mouse with easing
If left clickdistWeight = distance of x, y, px, py propertiesdraw stroke with distWeight class properties
If right click fill screen with background colour
Draw line
Declare properties for x, y, px, py
Declare easing property
Project Setup
Canvas Size
Smooth Quality
x = (mouseX co-ord - x) * easing
y = (mouseY co-ord - y) * easing
Print Line
The Drawing Machine
The Drawing Machine & Outcome
Kitchen Budapest
The Graphic Design: New Media course provided
the opportunity to go to a workshop run by
Kitchen Budapest that was to involve noise
production. The workshop were led by László
Kiss and Márton András Juhász.
The first day we did not know what to expect and
we were introduced to what they produced and
what they were about. After that we discussed
individual ideas in what object could make
interesting sounds. With nearly everyone filling
pages full of ideas the best were selected and
then we chose what groups we wanted to be
in to produce an instrument for a performance.
The rest of the day was experimenting with the
making of the instruments with everyday objects.
We found it quite difficult to locate certain
objects as we did not know the area well (until
the last day!).
On the last it was time for the performance and
the nerves were alive and kicking. We originally
had the idea to perform in an underground
station but had to move due to being moved
along! Some instruments out performed others
and gained some interest from the public.
Kitchen Budapest were very kind with giving us a
free bag and book on all the projects.
“Detach them from their usual habitat and they can
push that envelope into the endless depth of Ligeti’s
Volumina! At first they were a little bit skeptical, of course, but when they all started building their
instruments the following day, they really got the taste of it. Black and white pattern
recognizing noise baggage, bit crushed salad spinner
guitar, 4 channel scratch-able book cover tower, gesture
controlled compressed air canister whistles and
recorders, ultrasound acid harmonica, spinning Pringle’s
machine! They were loving it!”
Why is this topic important within wider design?
The importance of this project in wider design
is quite interesting as it helps to explain many
issues that designers must be aware of. All types
of design are able to influence our behaviour
but the designer must know how to do this; for
instances in advertising the design must influence
the viewer to buy the product. Technologies are
also effecting behaviour and designer have the
opportunity to influence behaviour by using
them to their advantage.
Also, looking at how participants can effect or
control interfaces and understanding why choices
are made will allow the designer to effectively
control the direction that the participant will take.
The growth of open source and collective
authorship has allowed the issue of a participant
to become apart of the piece of art which
provides a new avenue of design possibilities.
Creating something from code shows that
designers do not have to depend on traditional
tools and that an coded approach can create
something unique and very different to what
could be produced by hand.
How to capture and show permutationsThis task was about finding out how it was
possible to export the outcome of the code so it
would be possible view the development. Also,
working with generative designs it would be
sensible to have a record of it as it would not be
able to replicate exactly the same image.
Stills Permutations
Using the nested for loops example from the
image making workshop I was able to find out
how to capture permutations. The PDF export
function is really good as I can export one
image to 100. (http://processing.org/reference/
libraries/pdf/index.html)
Video Permuations
I was able to export to video using the
moviemaker function. It is possible to export in
high definition to publish designs with motion.
(http://processing.org/reference/libraries/video/
MovieMaker.html)
Even though these two capture methods do not
have a lot to resemble my project it has allowed
develop my technical skills.
Find a method of creating algorithms/rules and can be easily changed
Originally I was over thinking the method of
creating algorithms and rules that a system must
abide by. I was shown the Concepts, Notations,
Software, Art article by Florian Cramer which
breaks down the way of making an algorithm.
Basically, it states that we should look at it as a
set of instructions.
“Imagine a Dadaist poem which makes random
variations of Hugo Ball’s sound poem ̀ `Karawane’’
(``Caravan’’):
KARAWANE
jolifanto bambla ô falli bambla
grossiga m’pfa habla horem
égiga goramen
higo bloiko russula huju
hollaka hollala
anlogo bung
blago bung
blago bung
bosso fataka
ü üü ü
schampa wulla wussa ólobo
hej taat gôrem
eschige zunbada
wulebu ssubudu uluw ssubudu
tumba ba-umpf
kusagauma
ba-umpf
The new Dada poem could simply consists of
eight variations of the line ``tumba ba-umpf’’.
The author/performer could throw a coin twice
for each line and, depending on the result, choose
to write down either the word ``tumba’’ or ``ba-
umpf’’, so that the result would look like:
tumba tumba
ba-umpf tumba
tumba ba-umpf
tumba ba-umpf
ba-umpf ba-umpf
ba-umpf tumba
tumba ba-umpf
tumba ba-umpf
The instruction code for this poem could be
written as follows:
Take a coin of any kind with two distinct sides.
Repeat the following set of instructions eight
times:
Repeat the following set of instructions twice:
Throw the coin. Catch it with your palm so that
it lands on one side. If the coin shows the upper
side, do the following:
Say “tumba”
Else do the following:
Say “ba-umpf”
Make a brief pause to indicate the end of the
line. Make a long pause to indicate the end of the
poem.
Since these instructions are formal and precise
enough to be as well executed by a machine
(imagine this poem implemented into a modified
cuckoo clock), they can be translated line by
line into a computer program. Just as the above
instruction looks different depending on the
language it is written in, a computer program
looks different depending on the programming
language used. Here I choose the popular
language ``Perl’’ whose basic instructions are
rather simple to read:
for $lines (1 .. 8)
{
for $word (1 .. 2)
{
$random_number = int(rand(2));
if ($random_number == 0)
{
print “tumba”
}
else
{
print “ba-umpf”
}
print “ “
}
print “\n”
}”
After looking at this I have developed the
knowledge that not all systems are going to be
the same and that I will have to take these step
when producing systems. I also was trying to
think about a final product that the generative
design would be and how it would be interacted
with. I read John Maeda’s The Laws of Simplicity
and I discovered that it is better to break down
the project into simpler pieces, especially when
coding can become so complex.
Also, to have good organisation which will save
time, learning will make tasks simpler, therefore
practicing sketches in processing will allow
programming skills to develop and speed up
tasks. These were some points I found on the
page ‘Ten Laws’ and the rest are below.
“1. REDUCEThe simplest way to achieve simplicity
2. ORGANISEMakes many appear fewer
3. TIMESavings in time
4. LEARNKnowledge makes everything simpler
5. DIFFERENCESSimplicity and complexity need each other
6. CONTEXTWhat lies in the periphery of simplicity is definitely
not peripheral
7. EMOTIONMore emotions are better than less
8. TRUSTIn simplicity we trust
9. FAILURESome things can never be made simple
10. THE ONESimplicity is about subtracting the obvious, and
adding the meaningful”
Investigate types of systems
This task was to find out whether I could use
different systems to create news ways of
processing a generative piece or how it could
be interacted with. Taking into account that the
knowledge level within processing is beginner
I would probably only be able to use a simple
system but it would be good to know what
developments could be done with my skill or with
the project. Most of this information is from the
article ‘What is interaction? Are there different
types?’ by Hugh Dubberly, Usman Haque and
Paul Pangaro.
“All man-made objects offer the possibility
for interaction, and all design activities can be
viewed as design for interaction. The same is true
not only of objects but also of spaces, messages,
and systems.”
Man-Machine System
“In 1964 the HfG Ulm published a model of
interaction depicting an information loop running
from system through human and back through
the system.”
Gulf of Execution and Evaluation
“The user turns intention to action via an input
device connected to the physical system. The
physical system presents signals, which the user
interprets and evaluates—presumably in relation
to intention.”
Seven Stages of Action
“Norman has also proposed a “seven stages of
action” model, a variation and elaboration on the
gulf model. Norman points out that “behaviour
can be bottom up, in which an event in the world
triggers the cycle...”
Linear System
“A linear system sets the goal of a self-regulating
system. In this case, the linear system may be
seen as part of the self-regulating system—a sort
of dial.”
Self Regulating System
“A self-regulating system has a goal. The goal
defines a relationship between the system and
its environment, which the system seeks to attain
and maintain. This relationship is what the system
regulates, what it seeks to keep constant in the
face of external forces.”
Learning System
“Learning systems nest a first self-regulating
system inside a second self-regulating system.
The second system measures the effect of the
first system on the environment and adjusts the
first system’s goal according to how well its own
second-order goal is being met. The second
system sets the goal of the first, based on external
action. We may call this learning—modification
of goals based on the effect of actions. Learning
systems are also called second-order systems.”
Man-MachineSystem
Man
ControlsD
isplays
Mechanisms
Input / Output
E�ectorsReceptors
Use
rP
hysi
cal
Syst
em
Gu
lf o
f E
valu
atio
n
Gu
lf o
f E
xecu
tio
n
Inp
ut D
evic
es
Act
ion
Sp
ecifi
cati
on
Inte
ntio
ns
Eva
luat
ion
Inte
rpre
tati
on
Inte
rfac
e d
isp
lay
Systems
can be Static or Dynamic
which can be Linear or Closed-Loop
which can be Recirculating or Self-Regulatory
which can be First or Second-order
which can be Self-adjusting or Learning
Create a inspiration book
This task was about developing my editorial skills
and to do this I decided to find the best or most
intriguing to me design. Most of these appeared
through my Google Reader account (http://
feeds.feedburner.com/massinghamcraig) over
the past three years and I was able to scroll back
and save the images that I thought that could be
an addition to this projects book.
Build a facial detection systemWhile researching for facial detection within
processing I found a project called ‘I am Einstein’
that was made for the British Science Festival
in Birmingham. The code was open source so I
has a browse on how they created it. I changed
the graphic image to a smile face I designed. The
code was very complex and is probably just a bit
advanced for now.
Interview a group into the understanding of the projectBackground project information for interviewee
Generative design is a design method that uses
an algorithm or a set of rules to create an output.
The algorithm/rules allows the design to create
complex forms with the means of creating
permutations and selecting outputs though a set
of rules or variables. Today’s technological ability
allows artists and designers to create something
new and surpass the human hand and create
works that are generated at least in part by
some process that is not under the artist’s direct
control. Control can come from a multitude of
factors such as; the variables within the system
which can be controlled via users, therefore
creating a relationship between user and art.
Interaction and Generative design has been
combined together which has caused authorship
of design to involve the users. This project will
explore the relationship between designer and
user in design and how much of an effect and
uniqueness a user can have on the design.
Questions
1) What is your understanding of generative
design?
2) How do you perceive something being
generative?
3) Describe a piece of interactive generative
design that you have seen lately and why do you
like it?
4) Name some generative designers that have
interested you.
5) Select one and describe a project and why you
like it.
6) How can looking into authorship and control
affect all types of design?
7) Can design control our behaviour? Explain
why.
8) How do you personally measure the authorship
of a design [between user and designer]?
9) Do you believe their can be a collective
authorship between user and design? And why?
10) Can you think of an examples of authorship
or control issues within generative design that
you have seen?
11) Has the open source community removed the
idea of authorship?
Project continued onhttp://fmp.craigmassingham.co.uk
Create uniquenessThe definition of uniqueness “...is the property of
model or program transformations to deliver a
unique result upon termination.” - wiki.ercim.eu/
wg/SoftwareEvolution/index.php/Terminology.
This definition is leaning towards a programming
context which is perfect for this project. Examples
of uniqueness could be the identity of each
person in terms of people or a QR code in terms
of visualising data. Through this development it
would be an idea to make a project that produces
a visual code through peoples identity.
Project continued onhttp://fmp.craigmassingham.co.uk
Create permutating typography
Project continued onhttp://fmp.craigmassingham.co.uk
Write a algorithm of a permutating shape and test
Step 1- Shapes
The first stage allowed me to create a system that
can easily flick from a circle to infinity, although
there is no progression between them.
Step 2 – Conversion
Olly showed me how to make the conversion
between the two shapes…
int r = 200;
void setup(){
size( 600, 600 );smooth();strokeWeight(5);
}
void draw(){
background(255);
translate(width/2,height/2);
for(int i = 0; i < 360; i+=5){
//we use map the mouse value from -1 to
1, to use it as a controller for the//cosine modulation of the points (the part that creates the infinity symbol)float p = map(mouseX, 0, width, -1, 1);
//we calculate the cosine and map it based on the mouse position//if mouseX is 0 then p= -1 so cos(radians(i)) will be mapped between -1 and 1//which is its normal range anyway. If mouseX is width, then p=1 so//cos(radians(i)) will be mapped between 1 and 1, so it can only equal 1.//This means that when we multiply the radius by this mapped value it will//result in it staying the same and therefore draw a circle.float infinityMaker = map(cos(radians(i)), -1, 1, p, 1);
//float infinityMaker = cos(radians(i));
float cX = cos(radians(i)) * r;float cY = sin(radians(i)) * r * (infinityMaker);
point(cY,cX);
}
}
During an interview from the V&A Decode exhibit
Golan Levin stated that he ....can create ‘behaviour’
through digital technologies that other design
tool can not. The definition of behaviour “refers
to the actions or reactions of an object or
organism, usually in relation to the environment.
Behaviour can be conscious or subconscious...” -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviour.
Control variations & behaviour
Project continued onhttp://fmp.craigmassingham.co.uk
ControlP5ControlP5 is a GUI and controller library for
processing that can be used in authoring,
application, and applet mode. Controllers such
as Sliders, Buttons, Toggles, Knobs, Textfields,
RadioButtons, Checkboxes amongst others are
easily added to a processing sketch.
Generative PieceI noticed that Joshua Davis sometimes created
outlines with his generative art and then filled it
with a colour pallet. This is quite a good method
that I could try.
I was watching a video which was a presentation
by Jared Tarbell at Flash on the Beach 2010 and
he discussed the process of recursion which
I found it a really interesting way of producing
visual of a subject. I searched openProcessing
for recursion and found a sketch that uses basic
circles and varies the size by where you click on
the screen. The position and colours are random.
Project continued onhttp://fmp.craigmassingham.co.uk
Export a project onto iPhoneThis task was all about getting a previous project
and uploading to an iPhone. First of all I decided
to look at the different methods of uploading to
the iPhone. I have three options, use my coding
from Processing and amend it for iProcessing.
Secondly, upload through flash and thirdly, using
xCode. Using the examples from iProcessing
it took quite a while to figure out the xCode
application but eventually got there and the
coding it slightly different to Processing and
iProcessing uses an integration of the Processing.
js library and a Javascript application framework
for iPhone. The first thing I had to do in xCode
using iProcessing was to change the current
project settings and change the Base SDK to
Latest iOS (found in Base tab) and create a
organisation name (found in General tab). I used
com.massinghamcraig as that is my Apple ID and
read that you must have com. at the beginning.
Project continued onhttp://fmp.craigmassingham.co.uk
Project continued onhttp://fmp.craigmassingham.co.uk
Craig Massinghamfmp.craigmassingham.co.uk
080041507944096092