How would you interpret the work of Brian Eno, or other algorithmic/generative artists? Steve Reich’s compositions are algorithmic (but not stochastic), and are

How would you interpret the work of Brian Eno, or other algorithmic/generative artists? Steve Reich’s compositions are algorithmic (but not stochastic), and are widely considered to be masterpieces. Another example: Eno’s Reflection, which exists as both a 54 minute version and an endless generative ambient composition. > The creation of a piece of music like this falls into three stages: the first is the selection of sonic materials and a musical mode – a constellation of musical relationships. These are then patterned and explored by a system of algorithms which vary and permutate the initial elements I feed into them, resulting in a constantly morphing stream (or river) of music. The third stage is listening. Once I have the system up and running I spend a long time – many days and weeks in fact – seeing what it does and fine-tuning the materials and sets of rules that run the algorithms. It’s a lot like gardening: you plant the seeds and then you keep tending to them until you get a garden you like. > Moving the composition into software allowed an extra opportunity; the rules themselves could change with the time of day. The harmony is brighter in the morning, transitioning gradually over the afternoon to reach the original key by evening. As the early hours draw in, newly introduced conditions thin the notes out and slow everything down. [https://pitchfork.com/news/70448-brian-eno-details-generative-editions-of-new-album-reflection/ https://pitchfork.com/news/70448-brian-eno-details-generativ...] To me, crafting a system that itself crafts endlessly novel music or art requires significant level of intention, understanding, and meaning.