Devenir Interferencia

The production of “becoming interference” attempts to explore the field of signification (articulation of ideas) in a experience in front of a Work of Art, starting from the idea that interpretation arises from subjective processes from those who experience it, thus distancing themselves from the work as a closed entity.

Technical, aesthetic and conceptual development

When addressing the thematic set proposed by the chair, several authors and aesthetic currents, particularly Dadaism, questioned me and thus opened a set of questions. They were subject to interpretation, that is, what did the artist want to express with this Work? What are you trying to convey? What invites us to reflect? Among many others.

“Becoming Interference” attempts, in a sort of somewhat precarious essay, to explore the effects of meaning and the mechanisms that are articulated to achieve it. Now, what do we understand by meaning? In any case, it would be more precise to refer to signification, which is the act of articulating ideas or concepts to situations, affects, facts or things in order to understand them. Without a doubt, significance is not an isolated act (of a subject) but is found within a context and as a result of historical processes.

In this exploratory attempt, Nathalie HEINICH offers me some keys to advance in the production of the work and in particular regarding this writing. Is it possible to explore this aesthetic effect without naming or telling what the work is about? It is at this point where the pretext (the name of the Work or its history) allows the articulation of ideas in order to understand what the thing is about. However, it is at this point where I prefer to doubt, the inertia of meaning tends to be articulated without the need for a pretext.

In relation to the technique and (digital) materiality of “Becoming Interference”, the P5.Js tool was used. The elements put into play tried to be the minimum and essential. For this we use the point, the smallest unit with which the image is composed, to go on to work with it in a pseudo generative image that is based on randomness, with this I am trying to say that the development of the work tends not to construct a concrete image by printing points on the digital canvas but rather to use Chance1, as Peter BÜRGER maintains, to thus make a montage of random points that tend to break the order or stability, somehow forcing the interpretative production of those who use it. they experiment, thus seeking an aesthetic effect, which in this case is that of the production of meaning.

At the same time, “Becoming Interference” proposes interaction with the experimenter. Using the mouse buttons you can increase and decrease the size of the dots that are printed constantly and randomly on the canvas, thus trying to ensure that something happens in this game between the montage and the field of articulated senses (experiencer). That, in the best of cases, they only see dots on the screen!!!

1 We understand that the attempt at chance from an algorithm is somewhat fictional.

Biography

• BÜRGER, Peter. ([1974], 2010). “III. The avant-garde work of art”, in Avant-garde Theory. Buenos Aires: Las Cuarenta, pp. 79-117.
• AGAMBEN, Giorgio. ([2017], 2019). “I. Archeology of the work of art” in Creation and anarchy. The work in the era of capitalist religion. Buenos Aires: Adriana Hidalgo, pp. 9-47.
• HEINICH, Nathalie. ([2014], 2017). “The work beyond the object” in The paradigm of contemporary art: structures of an artistic revolution. Madrid: Casimiro, pp. 95-119.