Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Complexism and the Role of Evolutionary Art

  • Chapter
The Art of Artificial Evolution

Part of the book series: Natural Computing Series ((NCS))

Summary

Artists have always learned from nature. A new generation of artists is adapting the very processes of life to create exciting new works. But art is more than the creation of objects. It is also a progression of ideas with a history and a correspondence to the larger culture.

The goal of this chapter is to take a step back from the details of the technology and the consideration of specific works, and to view evolutionary art in the broader context of all art. This kind of multidisciplinary discussion requires one to be multilingual, and this chapter will use the language of scientists, humanists, artists, and philosophers. While doing so we will quickly visit complexity science, postmodernism in the arts, and the conflict between the cultures of the humanities and the sciences.

With this as a backdrop, I will introduce a new approach I call complexism. Complexism is the application of a scientific understanding of complex systems to the subject matter of the arts and humanities. We will see that the significance of evolutionary art is that it takes complexism as both its method and content. Evolutionary art is a new kind of dynamic iconography: the iconography of complexism. And complexism offers nothing less than the reconciliation of the sciences and the humanities through a higher synthesis of the modern and the postmodern.

To a certain extent this chapter participates in the modernist tradition of the art manifesto. The art manifesto is a form of speculative writing where the artist-author posits a new revolutionary creative direction for a group of artists who share a set of common interests, as well as a new worldview that offers a radical break with the past. Writers of such manifestos have included Marinetti, Kandinsky, Schwitters, Moholy-Nagy, Gropius, Breton, and others[1].

Like other manifestos, this chapter includes forward-looking assertions about work not yet started let alone completed. I have tried to identify the more speculative parts of this chapter as being part of this complexist manifesto.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Kolocotroni, V., Goldman, J., Taxidou, O. (1998). Modernism: An Anthology of Sources and Documents. Edinburgh University Press. Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  2. Waldrop, M. (1992). Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. Simon and Schuster. New York

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cohen, J., Stewart, I. (1994). The Collapse of Chaos: Discovering Simplicity in a Complex World. Viking. New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Flake, G.W. (1998). The Computational Beauty of Nature: Computer Explorations of Fractals, Chaos, Complex Systems, and Adaptation. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA, USA

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Cambel, A.B. (1993). Applied Chaos Theory: A Paradigm for Complexity. Academic Press. Boston

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Smith, P. (1998). Explaining Chaos. Cambridge University Press. New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Kauffman, S.A. (1995). At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity. Oxford University Press. New York

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bar-Yam, Y. (1997). Dynamics of Complex Systems. Addison-Wesley

    Google Scholar 

  9. Shannon, C.E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3): 379–423

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Gell-Mann, M. (1995). What is complexity? Complexity, 1: 16–19

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Kolmogorov, A.N. (1965). Three approaches to the quantitative definition of information. Problems in Information Transmission, 1: 1–7

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Solomonoff, R.J. (1964). A formal theory of inductive inference (part i and part ii). Information and Control, 7: 1–22, 224–254

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Chaitin, G.J. (1966). On the length of programs for computing finite binary sequences. Journal of the ACM, 13(4): 547–569

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Galanter, P. (2003). What is generative art? Complexity theory as a context for art theory. In: International Conference on Generative Art. Milan, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hargittai, I., Hargittai, M. (1994). Symmetry: A Unifying Concept. Shelter Publications. Bolinas, Calif. Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  16. Stevens, P.S. (1981). Handbook of Regular Patterns: An Introduction to Symmetry in Two Dimensions. MIT Press. Cambridge, Mass.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Washburn, D.K., Crowe, D. (1988). Symmetries of Culture: Theory and Practice of Plane Pattern Analysis. University of Washington Press. Seattle

    Google Scholar 

  18. Escher, M.C., et al. (1982). M. C. Escher, His Life and Complete Graphic Work. H.N. Abrams. New York

    Google Scholar 

  19. Meyer, J.S. (2000). Minimalism. Themes and Movements. Phaidon. London

    Google Scholar 

  20. Alberro, A., Stimson, B. (2000). Conceptual Art: A Critical Anthology. MIT Press. Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Balter, M. (2002). From a modern human’s brow – or doodling? Science, 295(5553): 247–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Schwanauer, S.M., Levitt, D.A., eds. (1992). Machine Models of Music. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bois, Y.A., Cowart, J., Pacquement, A. (1992). Ellsworth Kelly: The years in France, 1948–1954. National Gallery of Art, Prestel

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sobieszek, R.A., Burroughs, W.S. (1996). Ports of Entry: William S. Burroughs and the Arts. Thames and Hudson Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Nyman, M. (1999). Experimental Music: Cage and Beyond. 2nd edn. Music in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  26. Holmes, T. (2002). Electronic and Experimental Music: Pioneers in Technology and Composition. 2nd edn. Routledge. New York

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mandelbrot, B.B. (1983). The Fractal Geometry of Nature. Updated and augmented. W.H. Freeman. San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  28. Prusinkiewicz, P., Lindenmayer, A., Hanan, J.S., Fracchia, F.D., Fowler, D.R., de Boer, M.J.M., Mercer, L. (1991). The Algorithmic Beauty of Plants (The virtual laboratory). Springer

    Google Scholar 

  29. Casti, J.L. (1994). Complexification: Explaining a Paradoxical World Through the Science of Surprise. 1st edn. HarperCollins. New York

    Google Scholar 

  30. Steina, Vasulka, W. (2001). Instrumental video

    Google Scholar 

  31. Benthall, J. (1972). Science and Technology in Art Today. Praeger World of Art Series. Praeger. New York

    Google Scholar 

  32. Snow, C.P., Collini, S. (1993). The Two Cultures. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hicks, S.R.C. (2004). Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault. Scholargy Publishing, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Koertge, N. (2000). A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths about Science. Oxford University Press, USA

    Google Scholar 

  35. Sim, S. (1999). The Routledge Critical Dictionary of Postmodern Thought. Routledge. New York

    Google Scholar 

  36. Lyotard, J.F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Vol. 10 of Theory and History of Literature. University of Minnesota Press

    Google Scholar 

  37. Caputo, J.D. (1996). Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida. Perspectives in Continental Philosophy. Fordham University Press. New York

    Google Scholar 

  38. Sokal, A., Bricmont, J. (1999). Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science. Picador. New York

    Google Scholar 

  39. Sokal, A. (2000). The Sokal Hoax: The Sham that Shook the Academy. University of Nebraska Press

    Google Scholar 

  40. Blais, J., Ippolito, J. (2006). At the Edge of Art. Thames and Hudson Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Lovejoy, M. (1996). Postmodern Currents: Art and Artists in the Age of Electronic Media. Prentice Hall

    Google Scholar 

  42. Wilson, S. (2002). Information Arts: Intersections of Art, Science and Technology. Leonardo Books. The MIT Press. Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Gödel, K. (1934). On undecidable propositions of formal mathematical systems. In Davis, M., ed.: The Undecidable. Raven Press. New York, 41–71

    Google Scholar 

  44. Church, A. (1936). An unsolvable problem of elementary number theory. American Journal of Mathematics, 58(2): 345–363

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  45. Turing, A.M. (1936). On computable numbers, with an application to the entscheidungsproblem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 2(42): 230–265

    Google Scholar 

  46. Chaitin, G.J. (2006). The Unknowable. Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  47. Chaitin, G.J. (2002). The Limits of Mathematics: A Course on Information Theory and the Limits of Formal Reasoning. Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  48. Chipp, H.B., Selz, P.H., Taylor, J.C. (1968). Theories of Modern Art; A Source Book by Artists and Critics. Vol. 11 of California Studies in the History of Art. University of California Press. Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Independent Artist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

    Philip Galanter

Authors
  1. Philip Galanter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information and Communication Technologies, University of A Coruña Campus de Elvina, 15071 La Coruña, Spain

    Juan Romero

  2. CISUC Dept. of Informatics Engineering, University of Coimbra, 3030 Coimbra, Portugal

    Penousal Machado

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Galanter, P. (2008). Complexism and the Role of Evolutionary Art. In: Romero, J., Machado, P. (eds) The Art of Artificial Evolution. Natural Computing Series. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72877-1_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72877-1_15

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-72876-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-72877-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation