A fixed list of attributes is more limited than the set of all geometric
manipulations you can perform on an 100 x 100 mesh. At any rate, this
is technical detail and is irrelevant.
The only way that either system (although I believe we mean the same
thing), could be truly "freeform" would be if the system could apply
its own interpretation of what a given requirement meant. This could
quite easily lead to chaos, with the users' requests becoming quite
meaningless.
Then maybe that is surreal?
No, that is Dada. Surrealism is concerned with meaning, Dada isn't.
There are some references to Dada on the Surrealism home page, I believe.
>For instance, I have occasionally played a game of "free association"
>with people at a local coffee house. Each person says a word, one
>person after the other. There are no particular rules for what word
>will be said. I find that when you get a random mix of personalities
>together to play this game, you tend to get a "least common
>denominator" string of word associations. People invariably get stuck
>on talking about sex. In the limited time they are alotted to come up
>with a word, they most often cannot come up with anything else.
Perhaps a similar approach could be adopted when the user selects their
plot devices - this has an air of "automatic writing or painting?"
Your phrase is very illuminating as to the fundamental problem at work
here. It is one of audience labor. Many audiences do not take the
time, or do not know how, to "select" thematic information and make it
interesting. That is often what we need artists and artistic intent
for. If you allow anyone to select anything, without any
environmental conditioning, you will get the Art of the least common
denominator. Some people revel in this, but I find that it has a
predictable form, mainly sex.
Cheers,
Brandon