Monotonía, simetría y sorpresa

Monotomy, symmetry and surprise is the best description I can give to this representation by the artist Vera Molnár. “There is a concept called ‘intuition’. It does what it does, sometimes it creates something good and sometimes it doesn’t. Intuition has gone out of fashion. But there is something that can replace intuition. ‘Randomness’.” This explains Vera Molnár in an interview with the Museum of Digital Art (MuDA) in the city of Zurich. Indirectly it manages to explain my intention. Achieve the allusion to the random mode indefinitely. I wanted to attribute evanescence to a work already composed by Vera, alternating its factors and pushing the happening, adding movement and intrigue. The action and not the object as north, assured me an oscillation in the nonconformity of the original work. I wanted to put aside my prejudice to the technical status of production and try not to assign it a trait relevant to its aesthetics. Trying to find a way around the things I wanted to achieve, through trial and error with different algorithmic functions. That too, ends up being something random.

Technical, aesthetic and conceptual development

I immersed myself fully in the interview archive of the artist to be discussed, which caught my attention with her use of lines and her allusion to other forms, using surprising colors and angles. I started by using a function to automatically create all the shapes. It didn’t come to fruition, since it took away the surprise. It maintained the monotomy and symmetry, but removed all nonconformity so well achieved in Vera’s original work. Finally I decided to draw the shapes independently. Then, working with sets of shapes and moving these sets in space, I quickly managed to get very close to the artist’s idea. When I finished the basic structure, I began to touch up its movement (my contribution to monotomy, symmetry and surprise) in a random way. I changed the colors and I automatically took more ownership of the work. One can customize the work with the use of certain keys. It gives a sensation that causes vertigo until the work finally explodes into the air. Or maybe it destroys the computer that stores and plays it. Accompanied by their interviews, Heinich and Brea’s texts contextualized me. I adored the concept of happening and performance that the author Heinich names in “The Work Beyond the Object”, which caused me to delve deeper into the “Gutai Group” that she vaguely names and that ended up having great importance when it came to reflecting on the meaning of the work. Also name Brea, who in her glossary seems to bring down to earth the very abstract conceptuality of digital art. It managed to calm the restlessness I felt when trying to tame the random factor and the algorithmic generation of shapes. “It does not seem that any technical specification of the support should ever be considered a relevant feature for an aesthetic categorization.” In short, upon reading this I reopened the project after spending time forcing paths and tried again in a different way. And so I achieved something more similar to what my mind projected. It can be said then that between Molnár, the Gutai, Heinich and Brea, they tormented my mind for a few weeks to force me to create from a different point of view a reversal of the Hungarian artist’s concept of monotomy, symmetry and surprise.

Literature

BREA, José Luis. (2002). Breve -y desordenado- antiglosario-o diccionario de tópicos-sobre el arte electrónico

HEINICH, Nathalie. (2014). La obra más allá del objeto.pdf