In an era where everything seems to revolve around interactivity and perpetual change, two fascinating artistic currents have come back into focus: Process Art and Generative Art. Both grapple with the factor of time, both put transformation center stage, and both can—given sufficient space—go even further and become fully-fledged cybernetic systems. But what exactly does that entail?

Process Art often conjures images of materials in flux: an ice block slowly melting in a gallery, paint drying on a canvas, or malleable substances deforming under the forces of gravity and temperature. Sometimes the audience directly—or indirectly—intervenes. From a journalistic standpoint, it’s as if a romantic dialogue unfolds between human and material. Observers witness the evolution of something, watching time itself define the artwork while the notion of a ‘finished piece’ fades into the background. Chance elements, whether they be ambient temperature or audience interaction, become the heartbeat of this art form, which is less tied to strict codes than it is guided by nature, circumstance, and spontaneity.

At first glance, Generative Art seems to stand on the opposite side of the spectrum: algorithms, code, and programmed processes shape an unending stream of images, sound worlds, or three-dimensional models. The artist sets the parameters—the rules—and then steps aside to let the system develop its own life. Yet unpredictability is also woven into this approach: random number generators or shifting parameters introduce an element of surprise. Even the artist may not know exactly how the next image or musical passage will emerge.

So, how do both forms turn into cybernetic systems? The short answer: through feedback loops. A cybernetic system responds both to itself and to its environment. In Process Art, this might mean a piece that doesn’t simply melt or dry passively, but actively interacts with and alters its surroundings. The effect may loop back, adjusting the artwork’s ongoing transformation. In Generative Art, an algorithm might analyze its own output to determine the next step, or rely on audience reaction—perhaps a nod or a raised eyebrow changes a parameter, prompting an entirely new visual direction.

Ultimately, both forms are not only time-based but dialogical. They maintain a constant discourse with their environment—be it physical forces or lines of code—and elevate the act of transformation above the fixed endpoint. Their unpredictability is precisely what captivates artists and audiences alike.

The core idea is that art does not merely ask ‘What?’ or ‘Who?’ but ‘How?’ and ‘Why?’: How does transformation happen, and why are we so drawn to it? Whether a motor propels the mechanical sculptures of Tinguely, or generative algorithms paint ever-changing patterns in a light show, it all comes down to the allure of the unfinished, the self-renewing. In a world brimming with interfaces and torrents of information, these art forms seem almost like prophetic models of our social reality—thriving on interaction, embracing change, and reminding us that there is no such thing as a final, completed state, in art or anywhere else.

BACK