Transition, a short animation, was created using a system that overlays an audio spectrum onto a spatialized representation of cellular automata. The forms generated shift from one representation to the next, constantly inhabiting a state of change.
The software used to generate Transition was written in processing. I created the music for this video with a few tracks of classical guitar and a bent electronic toy.
I'm still debating whether the software or the result of its processes is considered art. It's touchy, because as I think about it, I can feel my thoughts getting bound up in what portion can be commodified, whether one can preserve the work, and 'would I hang it on my wall.'
In the end: does it matter? Isn't the satisfaction brought to the maker of primary importance, the satisfaction of a audience secondary, and the dialogue between them to enrich both the existing experiences and future ones the tertiary? If we have to rank them, that is.
Currently, I am debating whether the work to present consists of a piece of software, capable of running perpetually, or as an animation with fixed duration. Animation tends to be easier to distribute, despite its tendency toward significantly larger filesize. Obviously, the distribution of one form doesn't prevent distribution of the other, and perhaps they are mutually beneficial.
