"generative"

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by corneel cannaerts on June 11, 2009 at 12:41am

two definitions of generative art (from generative.net):

Generative art is a term given to work which stems from concentrating on the processes involved in producing an artwork, usually (although not strictly) automated by the use of a machine or computer, or by using mathematic or pragmatic instructions to define the rules by which such artworks are executed.
Adrian Ward

Generative art refers to any art practice where the artist creates a process, such as a set of natural language rules, a computer program, a machine, or other procedural invention, which is then set into motion with some degree of autonomy contributing to or resulting in a completed work of art.
Philip Galanter


In that sense i think grasshopper is generative since it focusses on constructing a proces, a working parametric model, that can be used to 'generate' multiple design outcomes. I think the 'degree of autonomy' is crucial in the last quote. For me it generative modelling would be any process where you come to a design solution or artwork, that would have not been possible without the process/machine/computation. A process where you can be surprised by the media/process you use, where through conversation with this process a certain serendipity takes place.

Grasshopper makes generative modelling possible, it all depends how you use it.

Permalink Reply by Damien Alomar on June 11, 2009 at 10:49am

From the old GH Google Group...

"Although I more or less agree with that definition my personal view of
Generative Design is slightly different. For lack of a better example
I'm going to go with DNA. In its raw state, DNA contains all of the
instructions by which life can be created. It will dictate the growth
of cells as well as the type/characteristics of cells. Theoretically
you could clone someone from their DNA and get an exact "copy" of that
person (remember Dolly?). However, the end result of that clone would
not be an exact copy. Why? The growth of cells is not dictated solely
by DNA, but also by its interactions with its surroundings. Since the
clone invariably develops in conditions that were different from the
"source being" there will always be a difference between the two.

To me, this is the characteristic of generative design. Its not just
a product of the parameters that generate it, but of the conditions
that surround and interact with it. Even within that definition,
there's a very thin line that separates parametric design from
generative design, since both rely on defining their operations
through external values. That thin line, to me, is parametric design
being generated by a singular reference to an outside piece of data
and generative design being generated by a multitude of references an
some interpretation of those references in an interconnected manner.

I've moved towards defining GH as a Logical Modeler rather than
parametric or generative. The main reason is that most parametric
modelers rarely focus on the link between parameters as an artifact of
their process. Because of this, their process, though parametrically
based, is still embedded within model itself, which is certainly
fine. GH does not operate in this manner. The creation of a GH
definition is more of a representation of the logical steps used to
create a given output, where as with parametric modelers, the
representation of the inheritance of all parameters is not nearly as
evident. Considering the control, amount of information that is
immediately available by looking at a definition, and the interaction
with those logical steps I would certainly argue that THAT is an
extremely valuable aspect of the GH process. I could possibly argue
that the GH definition itself is more valuable than the output it
creates.

As to the Generative capabilities of parametric modelers and GH, it
all depends on how you structure the interactions with external data.
A 1 to 1 relationship between a value and an output is more parametric
in my book, where the interaction between a multitude of values is
more of a generative approach.

Just my 2 cents

Best,
Damien "

The link if you'd like...
http://groups.google.com/group/grasshopper3d/browse_thread/thread/5...

Permalink Reply by LML on June 11, 2009 at 11:55am

thanks for that link--I forgot to check there.

regarding the DNA metaphor: I have a bit of trouble seeing how the external influences exist in grasshopper-- while there may be fortuitous results--unintended consequences--as mentioned above, isn't the process logically and explicitly defined by a relationship of functions by the user? for instance, a GH definition transferred to a different computer will still produce an identical result (given the same GH version :)...

Permalink Reply by Damien Alomar on June 11, 2009 at 10:24pm

I think you're taking it just a little to literally in regards to external influences, but more or less, you've got my point. IMHO generative is not just a series of parameters that are inherited from a source, then used to "spit out" a given result. The interaction between a multitude of parameters that do not necessarily have rigid relationships in how they influence the final result, along with the ability to react to emergent conditions are (to me) generative.

Much of what is created in grasshopper would not be something that I would refer to as generative, but as a logical progression of steps or instructions that are based off given inputs. It is possible to create generative outputs from grasshopper, but I think this is a challenging thing to achieve, partially due the lack of ability for the definition to influence itself. It can follow instructions very well, but decision making and adjusting behavior is not easily achieved.

Permalink Reply by Brent Pauba on June 18, 2009 at 11:19am

"I'm trying to get a better understanding of the concept of generativity--it's a broad topic"

http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jonmc/research/Papers/genDesignFG04.pdf

I stumbled upon this paper a day ago. It dabbles in many realms of generative design. I came out with more questions than answers, but that's usually a good thing :D.

Permalink Reply by artur83 on August 7, 2009 at 11:04pm

I'm also into defining the differences. and after skimming through the monash.edu pdf,
it became a bit clearer to me.
So, now, my definition of Generative is:

Parametric but with "if", "or" "then" operators. Therefore, the 'system' is an adaptive one, just like a DNA, in order to select the appropriate solution.

this is still very much a WIP

Permalink Reply by artur83 on February 16, 2010 at 2:01pm

Good points, although I am missing something in your explanation. (perhaps I'm misreading something).
But after listening to the Manuel Delanda's talk on the genoform blog (thanks for the link) I think he mentions one crucial point somewhere during his speech:

Generative assumes 'activity' 'energy'.
And I think (this is where I get back to and/if/or operators) every iteration needs to be tested for 'validityl' (does the result, so far, responds to demands of 'environment'). Generative solution therefore is not established by the initial input.

Nature is generative. I saw a documentary some time ago about 'building cells' and pre-programmed cell death. Some cells use themselves as scaffolding. (the tail develops in humans only to die off a bit later during embryo development) I am not sure how and if this applies to the definition of generative design. perhaps this is only applicable to higher evolved algorithms and thus Evolutionary design.

Permalink Reply by artur83 on February 18, 2010 at 4:43am

well, when more aesthetic functions are understood, that will be possible.
symmmetry is one, also there was a theory that likeliness is another (people who look like you)
i think it's possible. (I have been actually interested in that for a while - defining criteria for "nice design" *curvature continuity, rate of change etc.. all dependent on scale of object ofcourse )

The documentary was called Death by Design
http://icarusfilms.com/cat97/a-e/death_by.html
I strongly encourage i, even if it's a bit slow in some parts.