2d:null 2e:["$","title",null,{"children":"SM2220 Assignment 10 | ychsu6 | Observable"}] 33:T56e,md` ## [NaNoGenMo](https://nanogenmo.github.io/) (National Novel Generation Month) ### [2020 Horror Story with Monster #22](https://github.com/NaNoGenMo/2020/issues/22) [Code](https://github.com/verachell/Horror-Story-with-Monster-NaNoGenMo-2020/blob/main/horror.rb)
[Example Output](https://github.com/verachell/Horror-Story-with-Monster-NaNoGenMo-2020/blob/main/example-output/The-Thing-of-Ingelhoven.md)
A horror novel with a coherent plot; however, the author still wants to be "surprised" by what the characters do. Programmed in Ruby. ### Features - A random number of main characters (2-6) are generated each time the program is run - A specific "environment" is assigned to the story each time the program is run (2 types of animals, 2 types of trees, and 2 types of landforms) - Characters receive text messages during the course of the novel - Character-specific: 1 favorite verb + contact lists + specific job - Long-range changes: Adjectives change from all positive, to neutral, to all negative. The distribution of positive and negative words available at any time is a mix that is dependent on how far through the story we are at that time. Thus, the story vocabulary in general becomes more hostile over time. - Long-range changes: Text messages, Weather descriptions, and Adverbs are also changed in long-term `34:Ta98,md` ## Reading Response ### [Should generative art be political?](http://generativeart.com/ga2012/boris.pdf) Due to the fact that generative art encompasses a far greater range of artistic practices and works than has typically been recognized over the last decade, it is easily characterized as being "retina" according to one's appreciation of very restricted collections of works. Critiques of generative art very commonly consider the aesthetic qualities of the visual product rather than the entire process or the "system" itself, where it takes "strict, cold, logical processes and subverting them into creating illogical, unpredictable, and expressive results". To think about the position generative art hold in the new media art field, it is important to address the term new media. With the current critical approach to media art tending to "shift the focus to the medium itself, subverting technologies (I suppose it shouldn't always be subverting?), commenting on the world and society". However, I also think it shows no direct relevance for how generative art commonly represents dialogue and symbiosis between art and technology, thus acquiring merely little space in new media? In the article, the author mentioned two artworks “MEART – The Semi Living Artist" and "Wrong Browser". In “MEART – The Semi Living Artist", it tries to suggest future scenarios where humans will "create/grow/manufacture intuitive and creative “thinking entities” that could be intelligent and unpredictable beings". And in the other interesting work "Wrong Browser", the program aims at doing "everything wrong on the internet that can be done wrong". And this is where such political impulse comes in, questioning one's expectations and the goal of controlling and producing the technology. To some extent, we could possibly find similar "autonomy" created by the "system' in other generative artworks. But it is somehow true that not all of the traditions of purely abstract and conceptual production tackle or suggest a more critical approach to these technologies. I find it interesting to think about whether the so-called critical and political values of new media work are very commonly depend on how explicitly such dialogue is publicly presented? And if there's such a clear cut for whether such approaches in generative art are merely manipulations of technology in the creative process and serve no subversion purpose, or the fact that generative art builds the dialogue between Art and Technology already helps reveal a new understanding of life and power structures it operates with? `35:T86a,md`### [A CRITIQUE OF SURPRISE IN GENERATIVE ART](https://www.leoalmanac.org/a-critique-of-surprise-in-generative-art-braxton-soderman-daniel-c-howe/) Surprise occurs when a sudden change is produced, or the subjective feeling of being "taken". Such cognitive assessment could be not only based on the probability of an event but also the intensity of emotions change. And because it is pretty much about subjective feelings, the experience of surprise varies with the importance of the outcome, as well as individuals' beliefs about the outcome. As for in generative art, to reach such a perfect balance between completely predictable(pure repetition/redundancy) and unpredictable(pure randomness), the so-called “complex” allows both the author and viewers to perceive the surprise to the most. However, further to a larger scale, such unpredictability is also highly influenced by our historical situation or belief. This article especially argues that Capitalist modernity has trained us to be surprised even when expecting the surprise. Individuals are trained to constantly be surprised by the mere repackaging of the old as something new. And generative art actually internalized this process. Reflecting on the culture today that is very much driven by “the need for constant renewal”, the focus on surprise in generative art results in the tired re-use of certain generative algorithms. Therefore, the article also asks how we may still get the pleasure of surprise by the constant cycle of creative destructions under the influence of Capitalist modernity. Looking for methods to make old algorithms ROCK, trying to create larger possibilities of surprise by inputting individuals' subjective intensity of emotion changes for having "feelings" as the most unpredictable factor, or even as suggested in the article: with the fact that we only seem to be subjectively experiencing surprises or feeling it the most in the surprising moments when they break down, or when the outputs fail to meet our expectations for what is normal or functioning. `36:[] 31:{"id":"b42770b0622b6995","slug":"sm2220-assignment-10","title":"SM2220 Assignment 10","thumbnail":"cbc92837625ef4f4e5df70160564acd26764a782f19922f1597e4bfae1e7c212","access_level":"public","create_time":"$D2021-11-14T17:23:19.371Z","update_time":"$D2021-11-17T00:06:57.861Z","view_time":null,"first_public_time":"$D2021-11-16T15:33:05.318Z","has_unpublished_edits":null,"fork":false,"stars":0,"starred":false,"owner":{"type":"team","id":"c3d91d7db2867b4d","login":"betahsu","name":"ychsu6","avatar_url":"https://avatars-next.observableusercontent.com/197b7792c36f626b9fe391a472486b8b6dc3cf3503a2bb52e365e7916c324a9e","tier":"starter_2024"},"version":72,"publish_version":72,"role":null,"authored":false,"authors":[{"type":"individual","id":"8205ffe96d046f8c","login":"betahsu","name":"ychsu6","avatar_url":"https://avatars-next.observableusercontent.com/197b7792c36f626b9fe391a472486b8b6dc3cf3503a2bb52e365e7916c324a9e","tier":null}],"members":[{"type":"individual","id":"8205ffe96d046f8c","login":"betahsu","name":"ychsu6","avatar_url":"https://avatars-next.observableusercontent.com/197b7792c36f626b9fe391a472486b8b6dc3cf3503a2bb52e365e7916c324a9e","tier":null,"role":"editor"}],"comments":[],"custom_thumbnail":false,"trashed":false,"lapsed":null,"subscribed":null,"forks":0,"collection":null,"type":"notebook","body":{"title":"SM2220 Assignment 10","cells":[{"id":0,"value":"# SM2220 Assignment 10","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"$undefined","database":"$undefined"},{"id":6,"value":"$33","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"$undefined","database":"$undefined"},{"id":22,"value":"$34","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"$undefined","database":"$undefined"},{"id":62,"value":"$35","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"$undefined","database":"$undefined"}],"files":"$W36","stdlib":"1","titling":"auto"}} 32:"$31:body"