Frecuencia en órbita

“Frequency in orbit” is a work developed based on 3 criteria: observation, exploration and interaction. It is an abstraction that seeks to simulate the movement of particles (charged with frequencies of visible light and sound waves), orbiting each other and forming a set of cube systems that connect in space.

Instructions:

What you can do here:

1.- Observe how the boxes orbit between apparent chaos and harmony. 2.- Explore, delve into the work, immerse yourself, change your point of view and also orbit, moving within it with the MOUSE. 3.- Interact, play a rhythm or base track: RIGHT ARROW: STOP. UP ARROW: Beat 1.
LEFT ARROW: Beat 2. DOWN ARROW: Beat 3. 4.- Play with the sound frequencies in the numbers from 1 to 7 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). 5.- Be part of the work and enjoy!!!

Technical, aesthetic and conceptual development

“Frequency in orbit” is a work developed based on 3 criteria: observation, exploration and interaction. It is inspired by the phenomenon of “seeing sounds”, present in experimental cinema films such as Dresden Dynamo (1971) by Lis Rhodes. It also emulates in part, a certain continuation of the work “Vibración”, seeking to increasingly enrich this search for symbiosis between art and science, in addition to trying to answer the question of GALANTER, P. (2011) “How can we bring the world of art to where we already are?”

Brief description of the status of the work:

Observation: It is the first state, the visual. The work is composed of several systems of cubes, which float in 3 dimensions and orbit each other. Each system is composed of a central white cube, which is surrounded by 6 colored cubes that orbit around it.

Exploration: It represents the moment in which the viewer begins to have control of the point of view of the work with the help of the mouse. You can navigate through moving cubes, change angulation, and zoom into neighboring systems.

Interaction: It is the final state, where all the created functionalities are put into operation, the viewer ends up having control of the work, immersed in a game of visual and sound frequencies.

GALANTER, P. (2011) defines generative art “as the practice that, at the border of art-science, maximizes both scientific understanding and artistic endeavor”, starting from here, and knowing that the work crosses this border, ambiguities often arise when using the term art-science, but why this ambiguity? Did art really want to get rid of that term? GALANTER (2011) also explains in the article “Between two fires: art-science and the war between science and humanities”, that the gap between the sciences and the humanities began in the late 1950s, basically due to the position of modernity taken in the culture of science and the postmodern position in the culture of the humanities.

“Science has its roots in the values ​​of enlightenment and modernity… it equally places its faith in experience and reason as ways of accessing knowledge” (GALANTER, P. 2011). In this sense, the author declares that science continues to advance in its process of understanding things, of investigating, of perfecting, while the humanities adopted a point of view of skepticism, of simultaneous circulation of ideas and contradictory values, and an understanding of language as something unfixed, not anchored in stable representations (GALLANTER, P. 2011).

For its part, the world of art followed the rest of the humanities, since long before, art had already been questioning and evolving, moving away from what was traditional and correct. Since the appearance of Duchamp and contemporary art, “it is as if a race had been started between the work of art and the technical possibility of its reproduction” (AIRA, C. 2013). Nowadays, the versatility in the reproduction of digital works has made this career almost disappear. The ubiquity of technology allows for virtually unlimited access to works, images and information. AIRA, C. (2013), states that “reproduction technology” has been perfected, incorporating movement, sound and time in all its alterations. We can compare this phenomenon or see it represented, in the state of interaction of “Frequency in orbit”, it is here where beyond reproducing the work, movement, sound and the intervention of the viewer in space converge.

For “reproduction technology” to develop, science has had to contribute directly or indirectly. Not only about the reproduction of the work, but also in the methods of artistic production themselves. In this sense, the code was the tool used for the production of this work. For ARNS, I. (2005), “Code as an effective speech act, is not a description or representation of something, but, on the contrary, directly affects, and literally becomes action”, this gives a performative character to the code, since it performs and executes actions according to the terms of its writing.

Returning to the art-science border crossed by the work, and to the question posed by GALANTER, P. (2011) “How can we bring the world of art to where we already are?”, the answer to this question seems to be developed by the author in the same article, where he expresses that “contemporary generative art technology-based research explores the same territory as complexity science. This is how the gap between art and science is increasingly closing; without a doubt, the balance between the two will continue to give great advances in the way of producing and perceiving artistic expressions.

“Frequency in orbit” is a work that proposes to expose the viewer to 3 situations that are common in everyday life. First, observe and appreciate until curiosity is awakened, then explore, approach and recognize; to finally interact and be part, to the point of modifying the work and having total control of this small universe of orbiting frequencies.

Literature

AIRA, César. ([2013], 2016). “Sobre el arte contemporáneo” en Sobre el arte contemporáneo. Buenos Aires: Literatura Random House, pp. 11-56.

ARNS, Inke. (2005). “El código como acto de habla performativo”. En Revista Artnodes, Julio de 2005.

GALANTER, Philip. (2011). “Entre dos fuegos: el arte-ciencia y la guerra entre ciencia y humanidades”. En Revista Artnodes, Noviembre 2011.