Editorial by Frieder Nake

“One might justifiably question the artist’s role in images that are not merely assembled by the computer in its capacity as a tool, but generated directly by it. Where is the human input?” Lambert, Latham and Leymarie recently raised this question [1].

The core of their question is as old as computer art (about 50 years). I prefer calling such work algorithmic art; although algorithmic art does not necessarily involve a computer, this term is more distinctive.

Editorial by Jack Ox and Richard Lowenberg

It is as difficult in 2012 to successfully implement artist/scientist collaborations as it was in the early 1990s for John Seely Brown, director of Xerox PARC, and Rich Gold, founder of PAIR (PARC’s artist-in-residence program). They had to ask and explain many of the same questions we grapple with today while trying to create atmospheres that enable interdisciplinary collaborations. Brown was actually surprised that scientists volunteered part of their research time in order to engage with artists.

Editorial by Sue Denham

I use life forms as artistic media to comment on their phenomenal nature, bring intrigue to the species at hand, and illustrate the diversity of life. I propose the following  questions: How does human manipulation of life impact the viewer’s perception of  themselves as a species and the organisms involved? Will working with living media  with relation to their environment call the viewer’s attention to environmental fragility? How does human manipulation of the natural environment affect the function, structure, and aesthetics that each species displays?