Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/leon_a_01476 byguest on 01 October 2021 2019 LEONARDO, Vol. 52, No.5,pp.442–447, 442 ABSTRACT related texts the term is used - in onein “system.” of Normally theheadword very the general for senses. subdivisions numerous plus meanings different 12 offers Edition) (9th least be aware of—these theories’ notions of whatvery the a at system to—or is. adhere to important is it art, to relation in systems about talking when that, argue therefore I [2]). netics (for example in the writings of Burnham [1] and Ascott course has principally come from systems theory and cyber in twentieth-century art. in art, and particularly a clearer perspective of such methods used autonomousof methods view broader and longer a is ground somewhat with respect to these questions. The result can be described or categorized. Thispaper aims to clearthe there has been little analysis of how different kinds of systems more,fromaside Philip Galanter’s below, studies, discussed usually texts rest on system; assumptions a rather than definitions.defines Further or constitutes what on agreement little is there time, that since systems of discussion spread wide the However,despite others. by up picked gradually were approaches whose Haacke, Hans and Burnham Jack ers, critics and artists such as Roy Ascott, Lawrence Alloway, brought to bear in connection with art, beginning with regularly writ- been has systems of concept the 1960s the Since made usingnonrecurrentprocedures. ofartworks survey ashort new description:recurrence.Finallyitoffers andthenotionof“opensystems”;itthenproposesa describing andclassifyingautonomousprocedures:PhilipGalanter’s of systems.Thetextlookscriticallyatthetwomajorproposalsfor definition autonomous methodsthatfallwithinthesystemstheory forthose and“systems”asamorespecificterm making anartwork description ofthosemethodsthatcanbeappliedautonomouslyto “autonomousprocedures”asageneral This paperproposestheterm LetLoose Art l a r e n e g David with thisissue. See www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/leon/52/5 forsupplementalfilesassociated Spain. What is a system? The system? a Whatis The introduction of the notion of systems into art dis art into systems of notion the of introduction The

Hosking Email:

Autonomous ProceduresinArt-Making D [email protected].

(artist, a A i v

art e l c i t r

educator), d o H

C/Kantarranas, Concise OxfordConcise English Dictionary s g n i k

14,

Orduña,

48460,

Biscay,

- - - - bear in mind the existence the ofmindcomplex in bear systems, particularly also should systems of description general Any whole. the of functioning the on bearing a elementshas the oftioning - func complex;therefore the the andelements the between relationshipa function”recognizable mustbe there and [6] propermust have behavior—it must “someperform of type system a Halsall, Francis of words the in Third, whole. a as ics of operation”) must remain despite changes in the system somerecognizable feature, pattern or behavior (or “dynam - time, in extend to is system a if Second, terms. general in least at controversial, not is this usually tem’s is; boundary sys- the where decide must observer the Here,designated? be to ever system-as-a-whole, the wholeness, is howworld, the of rest the to connected way some in are systems that three properties inasystem: identifying Bertalanffy’s, von echo or paraphrase they way some in generally but available, are definitions Manyother Bertalanffy’s: components complex interaction” of “a in [5]. to begin is where it initially entered art: with systems theory. place the us, remind [4] FrancisandHalsall Skrebowski[3] sion, to first clarifywhat we mean bythe preci word.of Asboth kind Luke any “system” with word the use to want we little to dowith systems theory. havemay that processes and functions operations,entities, one, or a combination, of a vast range of theoretical and real anymeancan systemmust usage, sucha remember that, in However,one theorists). systems not (although specialists meanings, is current and is used even by scientists and other general these of one in term, the since entirely valid is This A number of points require clarification here. First,given 3. 2. 1. von Ludwig is systems of description classic Perhaps the if crucial, be to it consider I possibilities, many so With or interdependent “interaction”) (the or parts elementsthese are related, connected “components”)(the or thought can be of as consisting of elements wholethis system into divided can be parts, propertythe of wholeness “complex”) (the https://doi.org/10.1162/leon_a_01476 ©2017 ISAST - characterized by emergence, whereby genuinely new features [11]. Approaches of this type are, however, strongly criticized or behaviors arise through the interaction of the parts. by David Bohm. Bohm proposes that notions of disorder are If “system” is to be used in this narrower, more focused in and of themselves confusing and that, rather than consider sense, I therefore offer, for broader meanings in art-making certain phenomena as examples of disorder, it is more helpful contexts, the term “procedure” or “autonomous procedure.” to consider them in terms of degrees of order [12]. To resolve Following Philip Galanter’s definition of systems in genera- this, Galanter’s order/disorder continuum can be replaced tive art [7] (looked at below in greater detail), I see a “pro- with Bohm’s notion of degrees of order. cedure” (and the words “method” and “process” are almost The second problem is that Galanter uses a broad notion synonyms in this regard) in art-making as a method applied of what a system can be, whereas I argue that it is useful— to or used in an artwork so that some significant element of indeed invaluable—to have a clear notion of the difference the visible result, or certain key decisions, result from the between a true system, with its organized behavior, and au- procedure rather than the artist’s judgment. tonomous procedures or processes. This distinction is not The term “procedure” is therefore very general; a true sys- made by Galanter. tem can be thought of in art-making contexts as a subtype or The final point to be made when talking about generative special kind of procedure that exhibits organized behavior, in art is that the term “generative” has been used for decades [13] much the same way as, in scientific discourse, true systems to talk specifically about iterative procedures in are a special kind of the more general definition of system. and other contexts such as design and drawing. This usage of Furthermore, there is a considerable gray area, which might the term “generative” is so widespread that, if we wish to use be thought of as procedures that have systemic properties. it, we must define which sense is intended: the more specific I will now look at the two major proposals for categorizing iterative sense or Galanter’s broad sense, i.e. that some kind procedures in art-making contexts: Galanter’s generative art of autonomous method is being employed. proposal and the notion of “open systems.”

“Open Systems” Galanter’s Generative Art Proposal I now discuss a categorization that appears in art contexts but A compelling—and much cited—proposal to offer a broad usually lacks much, or even any, definition: that of “open” and definition of types of procedure in art has been relatively (more rarely) “closed” systems. The most high-profile use of recent: Philip Galanter’s approach, which identifies certain this terminology is the 2005 Tate Modern exhibition Open art-making methods as “generative.” Galanter, who uses the Systems: Rethinking Art c. 1970 [14]. Despite the vague use of word “system” in a general sense, proposes that we under- the word “system” in the exhibition documentation, at one stand “Generative Art” as point something approaching a definition of “open systems” is offered: “In the mid-1960s artists . . . began introducing any art practice where the artist uses a system, such as a set variables into the system” [15], thus departing from the use of natural language rules, a computer program, a machine, of “objective systems” of geometric abstraction. Seeing this or other procedural invention, which is set into motion particular juncture of art history as characterized by a novel with some degree of autonomy contributing to or resulting use of open systems, however, is exceedingly problematic. in a completed work of art [8]. The notion of closed and open systems is well established In Galanter’s definition, the idea of the system (or what I in scientific and engineering fields to refer to a system’s open- would call “procedure”) and the principle of autonomy are ness to information, matter or energy. In these contexts, the key for the extended exploration of the subject that he carries most interesting kind of openness is openness to informa- out in the cited paper. In his text, he makes use of Claude tion, i.e. the extent to which a system’s structure can change Shannon’s and Murray Gell-Mann’s work over time. Openness to matter or energy is generally not on effective complexity (hereinafter “EC”) and posits order considered important, as these are simply possible inputs and disorder as “organizing principles.” His definition of a and outputs rather than determinants of meaningful change. kind of art using autonomous methods has been welcomed Openness in terms of organization—that is, the dynamics of by artists and theorists, as has his text and main conclusion operation or the way in which a system functions—would that complexity is exhibited as an outcome of art-making result in changes so profound that the system becomes un- methods that are “a mix of order and disorder” [9]. None- recognizable over time. theless, I wish to draw attention to some problematic issues It is in principle possible to use this notion of openness to pertaining to Galanter’s proposal. information for describing art-making contexts. However, I The first issue is related to the proposal’s dependence on propose that often the term “open system” is used carelessly, the notion of order. Galanter’s interpretation of EC, which as a kind of art world soundbite. Furthermore, it is a poor Gell-Mann and Seth Lloyd define as “roughly the length of choice for describing the difference between the autonomous a compact description of the identified regularities of an en- methods of geometric abstraction and the purportedly new tity” [10], leads him to the conclusion that “systems exist on a methods characteristic of the 1960s onward. The “open sys- continuum from the highly ordered to the highly disordered. tems” of the Tate’s exhibition title are neither true systems nor Both highly ordered and highly disordered systems are sim- in most cases open to information (or “variables”). Even one ple. Complex systems exhibit a mix of order and disorder” of the exhibition’s works that actually does constitute a true

Hosking, Art Let Loose 443

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/leon_a_01476 by guest on 01 October 2021 Fig. 1. The creation of a square has an important autonomous Fig. 2. The square, repeated, shows high recurrence, visibly component: the repetition and rotation of the outlines. differing only in terms of its location.

system, ’s Condensation Cube (1963–1965), is a ted on a graph). Given measurements of some of a dynamic closed one (Color Plate A). The work, with its organization procedure’s variables, it is possible to plot a phase space tra- of the behavior of the evaporation/condensation of water, is jectory; a number of mathematical tools, such as recurrence closed in terms of new information and only open to the en- rate, exist for the analysis of recurrence thereafter, giving an ergy needed to power its dynamics. What is interesting about indication of the probability that a certain state will recur. Condensation Cube is not just its status as a true system, fore- A procedure with many close recurrences, i.e. one that is grounded in the elegant circularity of the evaporation/con- predictable and shows little variation, can clearly be distin- densation and the obvious and yet transparent boundary of guished from one with few or none, and this distinction can the plastic box, but also its variation. This variation, however, act as a way of characterizing procedures. is a result not of openness to new variables but of the chaotic Even without taking measurements, recurrence can easily nature of the process occurring within. It is a deterministic be apprehended in a simple and intuitive manner through system whose variety is inherent in natural processes within a procedure’s visual recurrence (i.e. whether or not the pat- a closed system. tern of a dynamic artwork recurs, or whether that of a static When writers talk about open or closed systems, they often artwork would recur if the artwork were repeated). In other incorrectly assume that variation means openness and that words, using close observation plus some common sense, we closed systems are predictable. The Tate exhibition’s failure can judge for ourselves approximately how recurrent, and to distinguish between a true system and other kinds of au- therefore predictable, a procedure is [16]. tonomous methods also undermines attempts to distinguish A theoretical example for consideration is the printing out between “open” and “closed.” Since a true system has orga- of a black square, as in Fig. 1. nized behavior, it is usually possible to identify its boundary In order to demonstrate the degree of recurrence of the at least approximately. In the case of a procedure or method, procedures involved, I repeat the “artwork.” If repeated, as- a boundary is harder to identify and therefore determining suming little variation in the paper or printer used, another whether it is “open” or “closed” to information becomes cor- square is created that is identical for all practical purposes, respondingly more difficult. varying only in its location (Fig. 2). Evidently, the degree of recurrence is very high, and this Recurrence would be obvious even without repeating the printout. It is In the absence of a classification of art-making systems worth bearing in mind certain limits to this recurrence, how- other than effective complexity—which is of limited inter- ever. Notice here that scale is important. If the two squares est in cases where EC is low—and open/closed—which is were magnified, they would gradually lose their similarity, much more problematic than it appears to be at first sight—I and the inevitable variations that exist in the world of re- propose an indicator that describes the variation or predict- alized images would become more and more visible as the ability of a procedure: recurrence. This is an indicator used scale increased. in the physical sciences for describing dynamic systems (in We turn now to an imaginary artwork made using a non- the general sense of the term “system”) that refers to a sys- recurrent procedure. If a sheet of paper were held by a naked tem’s return to a previous state and, specifically, the recurring flame for just long enough to make a burn mark, but not so behavior of the system’s phase space trajectory (which shows the paper actually caught fire, the resulting pattern would be the system’s behavior when some of its variables are plot- somewhat unpredictable: It would be impossible in practical

444 Hosking, Art Let Loose

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/leon_a_01476 by guest on 01 October 2021 terms to make the same pattern recur. Note that, although a European art with a concern for that complicated and un- precise quantification of recurrence has not been obtained, predictable accumulation of contingencies that is commonly this partially recurrent procedure has less recurrence than known as “chance.” A keen awareness of chance among late- the repeated figure, but more than, say, a bucket of paint nineteenth-century writers and artists is well attested by dropped from a height onto a canvas. Dario Gamboni [19]—who demonstrates interest among figures such as Odilon Redon, August Strindberg and Sté- A Survey of Art Made phane Mallarmé—and Lynn Gamwell [20], who identifies Using Nonrecurrent Procedures inspiration for this concern in Alfred Jarry’s use of aleatory The descriptive power of recurrence/nonrecurrence, together methods in the play Ubu Roi (1896), well-considered in with a distinction between procedures and true systems, is avant-garde circles. By 1913, Marcel Duchamp was working demonstrated when applied to the history of art. Galanter this vein when he made 3 stoppages étalons [21]. This work in- has already done interesting work on offering a historical re- volved constructing three measuring sticks using the shapes view of art made using autonomous methods, with particular made by three threads dropped from a height. Duchamp is emphasis on the age-old importance of, in his words, “highly muddying the waters of the scientific method of comparing ordered simple systems” [17], or what I would call recurrent natural occurrences with (supposedly) objective yardsticks procedures. However, this review almost completely ignores by creating his yardsticks according to the occurrences. Thus what I have called nonrecurrent procedures in the visual he uses chance ironically, to critique science’s claims to ob- until the mid-twentieth century and even then pays scant at- jectivity, and specifically does this by using a nonrecurrent tention to the wealth of experimentation that was occurring procedure—dropping threads—to stand in for the natural at this time. Therefore I offer a brief survey from the point of world that is supposedly being “measured.” This technique view of nonrecurrent procedures. of allowing falling objects to engage with the surrounding Galanter’s survey indicates how old recurrent procedures medium after leaving the artist’s hand, adding an impersonal are in art. Yet nonrecurrent procedures have also been used and unpredictable element, has been much used since that throughout history. Perhaps the earliest form of nonrecur- time. Within just a few years Jean Arp was employing the rent procedure used in making what we now consider to technique for his paper collages. be art is Paleolithic hand stencils, which involved blow- Another pioneering figure in the use of autonomous pro- ing pigment to create the image [18]. Other nonrecurrent cedures is Max Ernst, who invented or adapted a number procedures with a long history include the crackle glazing of procedures (sometimes called “indirect procedures” or of ceramics (Fig. 3), gilding to emphasize light variations, “indirect techniques” in the literature) from the mid-1920s fireworks, fountains and others. However, the use of such onward. Although perhaps the most famous of these tech- procedures has usually been secondary to other concerns niques, frottage, is relatively recurrent, Ernst would later ex- such as form or iconography within a given image or object; periment with less recurrent methods: letting paint fall on if primary, they were used in types of artwork that have been a canvas or letting falling items apply paint to a surface. He peripheral in terms of their symbolic importance within a also practiced (although he did not invent) decalcomania, given culture, for example in the case of fireworks. However, letting pools of gouache or oil paint dry to create patterns nonrecurrent procedures start to come to the forefront in on paper or canvas [22]. European art after about 1910. Following Ernst’s example, many more nonrecurrent tech- Nonrecurrent procedures begin to feature centrally in niques were developed (or recovered) by Surrealists or by artists with links to the Surrealist sphere. A very brief and incomplete list of such techniques will suffice here: Wolf- gang Paalen’s fumage (an application of smoke to a stainable surface); Jimmy Ernst’s soufflage (blowing paint onto a recep- tive surface); coulage, a nonrecurrent technique operating in three dimensions (the action of pouring melted wax into water); David Hare’s photographic experimentation with heatage (the application of heat to negatives); and Alexan- der Calder’s mobiles, dependent on unpredictable local air currents to obtain their full dynamic effect. From the 1950s onward, nonrecurrent procedures become central to the practice of several influential and high-profile artists and movements around the world. Such practice was often, although not always, done with Surrealism in mind as a precedent. In Japan, the artists linked to the Gutai group carried out a

Fig. 3. Contemporary example of crackle glaze which, when deliberately varied application of procedures of all kinds, including those induced, constitutes a nonrecurrent procedure with a long history. Menear that are nonrecurrent and those that exhibit systemic behav- Ceramics, Raku crackle glaze bowl, diameter 13 cm, 2014. (© Keith Menear) ior. The Gutai manifesto of 1956, itself a fascinating document

Hosking, Art Let Loose 445

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/leon_a_01476 by guest on 01 October 2021 in terms of thinking about procedures, gives examples such as Toshiko Kinoshita’s use of “chemicals . . . on filter paper” and the work of “Sadamasa Motonaga . . . with water” [23], possibly referring to his remarkable Work (water) (1956) [24]. In Europe, nonrecurrent procedures were explored by the Gruppo T in Italy. Davide Boriani used magnets and iron filings in his Superficie Magnetica of the late 1950s and early 1960s. These works could be (and were!) manipulated by viewers to create changing patterns. Gianni Colombo showed a clear appreciation of the difference between non-

recurrent and recurrent procedures in his Plexiglas and metal Fig. 4. Fujiko Nakaya, Fog Sculpture #08025 (F.O.G.), water vapor, foil works; in them, simple geometric patterns are reflected in dimensions vary, 1998. Collection of the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao. foil, giving distorted versions of that pattern that are depen- (© Fujiko Nakaya.) dent on the unevenness of the foil itself: A pattern based on a recurrent procedure is recreated through a nonrecurrent randomization as a tool in the kit of that brings one (Strutturazione fluida—ottica, 1963) [25]. a nonrecurrent procedure into the otherwise highly predict- A number of artists associated with the Zero group, the Ki- able situation of the computer program. Vertical-Horizontal netic Art movement and Nouveau Réalisme used nonrecur- Number Three (1964) by A. Michael Noll, for example, was rent methods. Yves Klein’s career was dedicated, among other composed on a computer using random numbers to plot co- things, to exploring procedures from the very recurrent (in ordinates. This practice of using random variables, and other his monochromes) to the highly nonrecurrent (the use of ac- nonrecurrent procedures, is now widespread, for example in cidental, environmental or indirect methods to create marks the artwork of Leonardo Solaas and Matt Pearson [26]. on his canvases). Hans Haacke’s Condensation Cube, men- The use of nonrecurrent procedures is also prevalent in tioned above, constitutes a milestone in art using systems. architecture and design. The results and effects of such pro- In the United States and Europe in the 1960s, nonrecurrent cedures are present in contexts significantly removed from procedures appear through a performative and improvisa- traditional art exhibition sites, from the design of advertise- tory thread in work by artists linked to the Black Mountain ments to the rippling, wind-blown building facades of Ned College, the New York Happenings and Fluxus, while the Kahn. interrelated movements of and Process Art This most brief of genealogies places the use of nonrecur- brought unpredictable natural phenomena to bear on the rent procedures, unusual and peripheral before the modern artwork in different ways. period, as central within the art practice of certain groups Although in the 1980s and 1990s there was a decrease in the since the early twentieth century and now part of the main- use of nonrecurrent procedures by artists recognized by con- stream. A reason commonly given for the rise of such pro- ventional art histories, in the new millennium such proce- cedures is that artists were seeking to minimize authorial dures have returned to the fore. Ernesto Neto, Fujiko Nakaya presence as a way of bypassing, dismantling or critiquing the (Fig. 4) and Tom Friedman are just three of the many artists subject. Treated extensively in artists’ writings and the criti- who make use of nonrecurrent procedures and who enjoy cal literature [27], this is seen as parallel to the techniques of great acceptance among major art museums. Richard Serra, incorporation, integration and quotation so common in art celebrated in institutional circles, combines the use of geo- since and Dadaism. However, there is more to the metric, recurrent procedures (the designs of the shapes of his rise of nonrecurrent procedures. steel panels) with highly nonrecurrent procedures, namely Galanter—alert to the wider implications of a rise in au- different levels of oxidation and weathering on these panels. tonomous methods—has identified, along with a current of Recently the art market has been taking great interest in art art that shows EC, a corresponding outlook or attitude that made using autonomous procedures. This trend is exempli- he calls “complexism”: “the projection of the world view and fied by such artists as Ryan Estep, whose work is made with attitude suggested by complexity theory into the problem a variety of nonrecurrent procedures such as sifting ground space of the arts and humanities” [28]. He sees this view as material onto canvas, and Jacob Kassay, who electroplates attuned to networks, distribution and emergence, and else- silver onto canvas to create ghostly, reflective clouds. where puts an emphasis on process [29]. I strongly concur In contexts relatively unconnected to the institutional art and add that I interpret the widespread implementation of world we encounter artists and designers using first machines nonrecurrent procedures and the harnessing of the results and later computers to employ partially or even very non- also as evidence of a change in attitude to the world around recurrent procedures to make art. Nicolas Schöffer’s work us. By involving nature (or its proxy, random generated vari- CYSP 1 (1956) was a cybernetic machine that formed the hub ables) directly in the art-making process, allowing it to share of a system, making it a pioneer in this field. Feedback would a stage with the author, artists are heralding a change toward act on the machine, making it interactive and therefore both a more ecological worldview: Nature is no longer seen as dynamic and nonrecurrent. something to be dominated or essentially separate from the From the very beginning, computer artists have employed human sphere [30].

446 Hosking, Art Let Loose

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/leon_a_01476 by guest on 01 October 2021 Conclusion I have proposed that autonomous procedures (which may from nonrecurrent autonomous procedures, which involve or may not have organized behavior), as well as true sys- chaotic behavior, or environmental or generated variables. tems (which do), used in art-making may be categorized not A look at the use of nonrecurrent procedures in art-making only according to their EC, as Galanter proposes, but also reveals isolated examples of these throughout history and the according to their recurrence. In this way, it is now possible rise of a specific tendency in modernism that gained strength to differentiate recurrent autonomous procedures, such as over the course of the twentieth century, and is important in geometrical transformations and mechanical techniques, much present-day art-making practice.

References 19 Dario Gamboni, “ ‘Fabrication of Accidents’: Factura and Chance in Nineteenth-Century Art,” RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 36 1 Jack Burnham, “Systems Esthetics,” Artforum 7, No. 1, 30–35 (Sep- (Autumn 1999) pp. 205–225. tember 1968). 20 Lynn Gamwell, Exploring the Invisible (Princeton, NJ: Princeton 2 Roy Ascott, “The Construction of Change,” Cambridge Opinion 37 Univ. Press, 2002) p. 282. (1964) pp. 37–42. 21 A. d’Harnoncourt and K. McShine, eds., Marcel Duchamp (New 3 Luke Skrebowski, “All Systems Go: Recovering Jack Burnham’s York: MoMA, 1973) p. 273, plate 101. ‘Systems Aesthetics,’ ” Tate Papers 5 (Spring 2006): www.tate.org.uk /download/file/fid/7301 (accessed 13 June 2016). 22 For example, L’Europe après la pluie (1940–1942) in W. Spies, ed., Max Ernst (Paris: Editions de , 1991) pp. 244–245, 4 Francis Halsall, Systems of Art (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2008). plate 216. 5 Ludwig von Bertalanffy,Robots, Men and Minds (New York: George 23 Jiro Yoshihara, “The Gutai Manifesto,” in K. Stiles and P. Selz, eds., Braziller, 1967) p. 69. Theories and Documents of Contemporary Art. A Sourcebook of Artists’ Writings (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996) 6 Halsall [4] p. 23. pp. 822–823. 7 Philip Galanter, “What Is Generative Art? Complexity Theory as a 24 Ming Tiampo and Alexandra Munroe, Gutai. Splendid Playground Context for Art Theory” (2003) p. 4: www.philipgalanter.com/down (New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications, 2013) p. 93, plate 10. loads/ga2003_what_is_genart.pdf (accessed 9 June 2016). 25 Abstraction-Creation: Post-War Geometric Abstract Art from Europe 8 Galanter [7] p. 4. Galanter later updates his definition in his 2008 pa- and South America (London: Austin/Desmond Fine Art, 2010) p. 23. per, “What Is Complexism?” [28] to emphasize the range of possible autonomous methods. However, and given that I interpret his earlier 26 For example, Pearson’s Ghost Triangle, written using Processing, definition in the broad sense he clearly intended, for the purposes of uses (“noiseoff = random(1);”) which contributes to making the art- this paper both definitions are considered to be equivalent. work different every time the program is run: www.zenbullets.com /abandonedart.org/?p=1046 (accessed 1 June 2016). 9 Galanter [7] p. 11. 27 Hal Foster, Rosalind Krauss, Yve-Alain Bois and Benjamin Buchloh, 10 Murray Gell-Mann and Seth Lloyd, “Information Measures, Effec- Art Since 1900 (London: Thames & Hudson, 2004) p. 157. The writers tive Complexity, and Total Information,” Complexity 2, No. 1, 44–52 see artists’ use of chance as essentially Duchampian: “undoing the (1996) p. 44. role of composition in the making of the work.”

11 Galanter [7] p. 11. 28 Philip Galanter, “What Is Complexism? Generative Art and the Cul- tures of Science and the Humanities” (2008) p. 1: www.philipgalanter 12 David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order (New York: Rout- .com/downloads/ga2008_what_is_complexism.pdf (accessed 9 June ledge, 2002) pp. 146–149. 2016). 13 M. Boden and E. Edmonds, “What Is Generative Art?” Digital Cre- 29 Philip Galanter, “Systems in Art Making and Art Theory: Com- ativity 20, Nos. 1–2, 21–46 (2009). See: A Terminological History. plex Networks from the Ashes of Postmodernism,” NMC Media-N: Journal of the New Media Caucus 10, No. 2 (2014): www.median. 14 www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/exhibition/open-systems newmediacaucus.org/caa-edition/systems-in-art-making-and (accessed 2 February 2016). -art-theory-complex-networks-from-the-ashes-of-postmodernism (accessed 13 June 2016). 15 www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/exhibition/open-systems /open-systems-room-1 (accessed 21 February 2016). 30 A full description of a worldview that has many parallels with “com- plexism” but from a systems perspective is Fritjof Capra and Pier 16 As an indication of variability, the advantage of recurrence over in- Luigi Luisi, The Systems View of Life. A Unifying Vision (Cambridge: formation measures is that it is specific to systems variables rather Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014). than data; furthermore, visual recurrence has a strongly intuitive quality.

17 Galanter [7] p. 13. Manuscript received 14 June 2016.

18 A.W.G. Pike et al., “Uranium-Series Dating of Upper Palaeolithic Art David Hosking is a practicing artist and art educator af- in Spanish Caves. U-Series Dating of Paleolithic Art in 11 Caves in filiated with the Guggenheim Bilbao’s Department of Educa- Spain,” Science 336, No. 6087, 1409–1413 (2012). The article ascertains a minimum age of “37.3 thousand years for a hand stencil” in the tion and Interpretation. In his art he makes use of a range of Spanish cave of El Castillo, Cantabria. autonomous procedures.

Hosking, Art Let Loose 447

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/leon_a_01476 by guest on 01 October 2021 Color Plate A: Art Let Loose: COLOR PLATE A Autonomous Procedures in Art-Making

System as art: Hans Haacke, Condensation Cube, methacrylate and water, 76 × 76 × 76 cm, 1965 (2006) (2013), Barcelona Museum of Contemporary Art (MACBA). (© Hans Haacke, VEGAP, 2016. Photography courtesy of Hans Haacke.) (See article in this issue by David Hosking.)

475

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/leon_a_01476 by guest on 01 October 2021