This project aims to generate unique artworks using the same programmed system but with different parameters. It offers a variety of monochrome outputs, playing with the frontier of our perception of computer generative abstract art in terms of aesthetics but also uniqueness.
Some will remind the dynamics of drip paintings as others will evoque us old landscapes paintings.
Each Moment is a picture taken at the exact same moment of a generative system using looping noises functions moving instanced cubes on a uv-map.
The system is using variations on 6 different parameters (or group of parameters) to generate 1350 unique artworks. Each possible combination of parameters are taken.
A lot of generative projects generate their pieces using a different noise seed for each piece, so each of them looks different. In Moments I decided to always use the same to only play on the parameters.
This chosen limitation will result on artwork that will look familiar, or similar to other, but they are not, and it’s only the system processing different parameters, that combine together can do massive changes, and sometimes really minors one.
Before the picture is saved, small functions analyze if the setup matches criteria of light and darkness. If it doesn’t then the parameters combination is skipped, and the next one is processed. This elimination process takes out 304 combinations, leaving a final of 1046 Moments.
Some will be aesthetics from a human perception, some will be enigmatic, others will be really strange or minimal.
Because of this selection process, a rarity score can be set up.
The range of rarity is going from 0, the less rare, to 2000 (the maximum)
As the selection process takes out 304 possibilities, the division of parameters among the pieces is not equal. At the end of the process here is the probability of each parameters :
Harmonic 0 : 270 : 25.81 %
Harmonic 1 : 378 : 36.14 %
Harmonic 2 : 398 : 38.05 %
Period 0 : 358 : 34.23 %
Period 1 : 338 : 32.31 %
Period 2 : 350 : 33.46 %
Amp 0 : 325 : 31.07 %
Amp 1 : 292 : 27.92 %
Amp 2 : 429 : 41.09 %
Rampdisplace 0 : 533 : 50.96 %
Rampdisplace 1 : 513 : 49.04 %
Cam1 : 203 : 19.41%
Cam2 : 203 : 19.41%
Cam3 : 193 : 18.45%
Cam4 : 214 : 20.46%
Cam5 : 233 : 22.28%
Instsnum 0 : 219 : 20.94%
Instsnum 1 : 211 : 20.17%
Instsnum 2 : 206 : 19.69%
Instsnum 3 : 202 : 19.31%
Instsnum 4 : 208 : 19.89%
If you want access to all the datas, rarity score and listing :
By taking the lowest probability of appearance and the highest, all the probability scores are re-ranged to match a system point, where the most common is 0 and the rarest is 2000.
Each piece comes with a Rarity score, which does not reflect a choice of aesthetics but only matches the reality of the selective algorithm.
On a human relative scale you can see them as follow :
Score 0<1200: Common
Score 1200<1400: Uncommon
Score 1400<1800: Rare
Score 1800<2000: Super Rare
Some parameters combine with others will result in massive changes, but combined with another one it could result in a minor change. The result will be a similar piece, but for the rarity algorithm and for the computer those two items are different, as the probability of appearance.
The aim in the creation of this system is to give the audience another way of looking at generative art, by showing what rarity could be from a computer point of sight.
It’s not based on any aesthetics parameters, but only on statistics.
Is the uniqueness of a piece relative only to our perception of it, or can it also be the rarity of the parameters used to generate it?
What makes us valued an artwork ?