Letters

Letters Readers’ comments on texts published in Loonurdo are welcomed. The Editors reserve the right to shorten letters. Letters should be written in English and sent to the Main Editorial Office. Comment on David Carrier’s “TheoreticalPerspectives on the Arts, Sciences and Technology” As a creative artist actively concerned with the uses of artificial intelligence in modeling and extending perceptual and compositional processes, I feel that David Carrier’s Theoretical Perspectives section (Leonardo 19,77-80, 1986) raises some important questions. I have not yet had the opportunity to read either Rosenberg’s or Schiffs work, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment on them or make critical judgements on Carrier’s treatment of these works. Nonetheless, I think Carrier’s excellent consideration of these two works points to some critical issues in our concern with the interaction of technology and the creative process (and its results). The field of artificial intelligence, viewed in terms of where it must certainly progress, cannot be described as nascent. Until now, far too much of our time and effort has been spent simply understanding the tools (computer languages and architecture, mass storage technology , input devices and sensors) and the fundamental techniques (searching and parsing algorithms, pattern recognition , and even the theory of information itself). We have not truly had the chance to produce many results that will give us new notions of art and perception. There are, of course, faint but significant indications of what the future will bring. In my own discipline, music (I am a composer), the work of such artists as James Tenney, David Rosenboom, Iannis Xenakis and even John Cage have suggested an astonishing field of compositional possibilities. Within the next century, highly intelligent processes and technology will significantly change our notions of musical form and perception. Currently, the available technology hinders our efforts (though less and less every day), and we labor hard and long to make small progress in obscure venues. But Minsky’s definition of artificial intelligence is, above all, a hopeful one. If applied to art it might read: an intelligent composing (perceiving) machine is onein which the results might be confused with those of human composition (perception ). Curiously, this iswhere1 very much agree with Carrier’s evaluation ofSchiff s work. We must first seek and develop new psuedo-logical languages for the description of perceptual and creative processes. Some of our best sources for this are radical and visionary ‘non-formal’ descriptions of art. We have found that unusual and radical critical languages may often be translated to clear and fertile algorithmic ones. In this way, Carrier’s dissatisfaction with Rosenberg’s theorizing creates a resonance for me. It is perhaps too early to formulate general theories in this field; most of them may be doomed to be only mildly interesting or challenging for a very short period of time. What we need are experiments, algorithms, devices, equations and, more than these, languages for dealing with art in new and visionary ways - ways that will evolve our own perception in much the same way that Cezanne’s personal language did. Further, it is now of great importance that the workers in this field be kept aware of each other’s progress, as small and slow as it might be. For the grand results will not come at once, from any one composer, artist, dancer, writer or theorist. Rather, the revolution in our thinking, hearing and seeing will emerge from the cumulative efforts of artists and scientists attacking small problems in novel ways. Larry Polansky Centerfor Contemporary Music Mills College Oakland CA 94613, U.S.A. Comments on Carrier on Art Versus Gombrich on Art The argument between Carrier and Gombrich [I] about whether theories of language or theories of representation and ornament are more relevant to contemporary art can only be settled after that otherwise elastic label [2] has been defined. Carrier, who admits to finding the world very verbal, confines himself to modern art, Gombrich, who takes “the visual creations of all ages and culturesas [his] province” and who says he is “bound to see [our] own age in the perspective of this millennia1 history”, is free to lay claim to...