ARTBASE (2)
BIO
Jim Andrews does http://vispo.com . He is a poet-programmer and audio guy. His work explores the new media possibilities of poetry, and seeks to synthesize the poetical with other arts and media.
voice recognition
anyone familiar with the state of voice recognition software?
more particularly, suppose you put a couple of omni-directional mics at a
table at a coffee shop. can voice recognition now recognize words spoken by
people who have not trained the voice recognition system?
would be nice for a dbcinema installation piece, ie, one or more projectors
reacting to a conversation.
ja
http://vispo.com/dbcinema
more particularly, suppose you put a couple of omni-directional mics at a
table at a coffee shop. can voice recognition now recognize words spoken by
people who have not trained the voice recognition system?
would be nice for a dbcinema installation piece, ie, one or more projectors
reacting to a conversation.
ja
http://vispo.com/dbcinema
soma fm (san francisco)
this station is on the itunes list of stations, so many will already know
it. i've been listening to this most of today at work and then at home; i
like it a lot: soma fm frm san frn cisco: http://www.somafm.com . several
radio stations rolled into one terrific enterprise (and one web page).
threaded radio.
ja
http://vispo.com
it. i've been listening to this most of today at work and then at home; i
like it a lot: soma fm frm san frn cisco: http://www.somafm.com . several
radio stations rolled into one terrific enterprise (and one web page).
threaded radio.
ja
http://vispo.com
RE: RHIZOME_RAW:
the indigenous peoples where i also am from have philosophies which tend
toward the belief that no one can own the land. and of course it makes quite
a bit of sense. for reasons somewhat related to your own reasonable ideas
concerning the nature of intellectual property and ideas. whether or not
someone can/should own land, it can, apparently, be taken from you.
ja
http://vispo.com/writings/stories/brkpt.htm
toward the belief that no one can own the land. and of course it makes quite
a bit of sense. for reasons somewhat related to your own reasonable ideas
concerning the nature of intellectual property and ideas. whether or not
someone can/should own land, it can, apparently, be taken from you.
ja
http://vispo.com/writings/stories/brkpt.htm
RE: RHIZOME_RAW:
i chanced upon a lawyer on the lawn at a cocktail party this weekend. his
group deals with intellectual property. so asked him, as we sat on the lawn,
about what is patentable.
j: what is patentable? algorithms?
l: no, not really. what's patentable is more abstract than that. because if
algorithms were patentable, it would be easy to just change it a bit to
avoid the patent.
j: ok. um, so what's patentable is what the algorithm does?
l: no, that's not patentable. because if it were, that would disallow
everyone else from doing the same thing, and we don't want that. what's
patentable is down a level in abstraction from that.
j: you'll have to describe that level to me.
l: what's patentable is the set of general steps involved in the algorithm.
not at the level of code, but of idea, concept.
j: ok. what determines whether a particular idea/algorithm is patentable?
l: there are three main things taken into consideration.
1. has it been done before? if so, it isn't likely patentable.
2. utility. is the idea sufficiently valuable that something besides
vanity is involved in patenting it?
3. is it an obvious consequence of something previous? if so, it isn't
likely patentable.
this was all before a few more cocktails, so i remember it well. this
concerns canadian patent law. not sure if it's the same idea elsewhere.
ja
http://vispo.com
group deals with intellectual property. so asked him, as we sat on the lawn,
about what is patentable.
j: what is patentable? algorithms?
l: no, not really. what's patentable is more abstract than that. because if
algorithms were patentable, it would be easy to just change it a bit to
avoid the patent.
j: ok. um, so what's patentable is what the algorithm does?
l: no, that's not patentable. because if it were, that would disallow
everyone else from doing the same thing, and we don't want that. what's
patentable is down a level in abstraction from that.
j: you'll have to describe that level to me.
l: what's patentable is the set of general steps involved in the algorithm.
not at the level of code, but of idea, concept.
j: ok. what determines whether a particular idea/algorithm is patentable?
l: there are three main things taken into consideration.
1. has it been done before? if so, it isn't likely patentable.
2. utility. is the idea sufficiently valuable that something besides
vanity is involved in patenting it?
3. is it an obvious consequence of something previous? if so, it isn't
likely patentable.
this was all before a few more cocktails, so i remember it well. this
concerns canadian patent law. not sure if it's the same idea elsewhere.
ja
http://vispo.com
Jared Tarbell's online generative art
Here is some unusually good generative visual art available for viewing on
the Net: http://www.complexification.net/gallery . This is work by Jared
Tarbell of New Mexico. I find this work quite exciting. Many of you have
probably seen this work before. I have too, but only tonight have something
to say about it.
What I like about it is the fusion of algorithm and art. Of course there is
much generative algorithmic visual art, but this work is rather
distinguished in its particular fusion.
For instance, Box.Fitting.Img is both beautiful visually and, also, the work
grows from an algorithm that one may easily infer from watching the piece.
It starts with 5 boxes. The color of the boxes is determined by the color of
the pixel of an underlying, invisible image. Though as the piece grows, one
gets other indications of the underlying image. In any case, a box grows
until it touches another box. Then it stops growing and other boxes start
growing in the interstices remaining.
Very simple algorithm. Plain to see. But brilliantly so, really, and unusual
in its visual results.
And much of his work is this way: the algorithms are evident if you watch
closely. They are simple but often generative of unusual results. And his
sense of color and shape is finely drawn. No clumsy grab bag goin on here.
The sense of composition is fascinating. Composition within a pseudo-random
generative process.
Another wonderful part of the work is that all the source code is available
to view. It's all done in a language called Processing invented not too long
ago by Casey Reas and Ben Fry. Java based. Some other strong work is
emerging from this language such as Martin Wattenberg's, and Marek Walczak's
"Thinking Machine" at http://www.turbulence.org/spotlight/thinking , which
we have discussed a bit on the list.
In Tarbell's work we see the strong abstract quality of generative computer
visuals. Strong abstract and dynamic properties/mode/process/aesthetic. Also
we see the value of the source code to the artist-programmer community.
Another *very* strong site by Tarbell is http://levitated.net/daily .
ja
http://vispo.com
the Net: http://www.complexification.net/gallery . This is work by Jared
Tarbell of New Mexico. I find this work quite exciting. Many of you have
probably seen this work before. I have too, but only tonight have something
to say about it.
What I like about it is the fusion of algorithm and art. Of course there is
much generative algorithmic visual art, but this work is rather
distinguished in its particular fusion.
For instance, Box.Fitting.Img is both beautiful visually and, also, the work
grows from an algorithm that one may easily infer from watching the piece.
It starts with 5 boxes. The color of the boxes is determined by the color of
the pixel of an underlying, invisible image. Though as the piece grows, one
gets other indications of the underlying image. In any case, a box grows
until it touches another box. Then it stops growing and other boxes start
growing in the interstices remaining.
Very simple algorithm. Plain to see. But brilliantly so, really, and unusual
in its visual results.
And much of his work is this way: the algorithms are evident if you watch
closely. They are simple but often generative of unusual results. And his
sense of color and shape is finely drawn. No clumsy grab bag goin on here.
The sense of composition is fascinating. Composition within a pseudo-random
generative process.
Another wonderful part of the work is that all the source code is available
to view. It's all done in a language called Processing invented not too long
ago by Casey Reas and Ben Fry. Java based. Some other strong work is
emerging from this language such as Martin Wattenberg's, and Marek Walczak's
"Thinking Machine" at http://www.turbulence.org/spotlight/thinking , which
we have discussed a bit on the list.
In Tarbell's work we see the strong abstract quality of generative computer
visuals. Strong abstract and dynamic properties/mode/process/aesthetic. Also
we see the value of the source code to the artist-programmer community.
Another *very* strong site by Tarbell is http://levitated.net/daily .
ja
http://vispo.com