Effective complexity is somewhat illustrated by game theory. In particular, I’d like to examine the specific browser based game “The Evolution of Trust,” which seeks to predict human behavior regarding a certain game that essentially is a sort of prisoner’s dilemma but with coin rewards instead of jail time. By categorizing players into a few differing strategies, the game shows us a streak of predictable outcomes depending on the players present in the game. However, to simply try and predict human behavior is a tricky business that differs greatly from the game’s simple templates. Therefore, this demonstrates a certain balance between order and randomness, predictability and chaos.
I personally find myself wondering about the “Problem of Locality, Code, and Malleability”. This dilemma posits questions that affect the display, interpretation, and somewhat authorship of the art piece. If the art is in the code, then the code would have to be displayed along with the art, which doesn’t usually happen. If the art is in the logic, audiences would need it to be explained to them to really understand the art. If the art is in the program generating itself, then the artist would not be truly the artist behind the art. Of course, art outside of code can also be entangled with this question, such as performance art that blends display and action. Should we be present for it to be art?
Such questions really may undermine the value of the art, however. Do we really need to ask where the art lies in the generally large and varied category of generative art? It may very well be more of an individual’s dilemma to ask about their own work, and in that case it may be easily answered.