Ant(i-An)ónimo
This production has as its first purpose a collapse of the solemn profile of artistic works, its intention, more than being admired, is to be used for entertainment, ego and mockery. It is an almost hypnotic gradient background on which it is drawn, from four directions, through the user’s interaction with the canvas. It responds to both a computer mouse and a cell phone touch, so it is not problematic. The creation possibilities are endless whether they are limited to 512 pixels by 512 pixels, ignoring that detail, thousands of productions are within reach of a touch.
Technical, aesthetic and conceptual development
To make it I was inspired by the aesthetics of Herbert Franke’s work KAES 1, seeking to imitate that symmetry, reformulated, but with the same intentionality of curves replicated in four opposite directions. Also, instead of leaving it as a fixed image, I decided to make it interactive, since it seemed much more interesting to me. And since the white background seemed boring to me, and to increase the absurdism, I tried to imitate an illusion of a screen (although the work exists yes or yes through one) that towards the center degrades into white. Thus, the closer the brush is to the middle, it becomes unified with the background, losing the difference of where one ends and the other begins.
”Ant(i-An)onym” It is a game of concepts between the antonym (understood as opposite) that represents the image resulting from tracking the mouse and its opposite sides in three directions and the anti-anonymity that the work presents, since it is created (in addition to me, clearly) by the person who uses it, so it has more than one name in its authorship.
From this initial concept, the author already seeks to get into a complicated place. Whenever this production is executed, a new image will be created that whoever intervened in it can boast of having created, but the means that has been produced are mine, and I have produced it through someone else’s library. Even more, it is delusional to think that it will always be a new image; being human beings, it is very likely that two different people believe the same thing. And thus the discord is born about the originality so typical of the century, whose idea is it, whose work is obtained. The foreseen future, “Intellectual property and copyright, as such, are going to become the main workhorse of this contemporary recentering of production relations.”1. And this production fervently longs to get into that battle and generate art and conflict.
If anything, it can be considered art. Speaking badly and quickly, ”Ant(i-An)onym” is for me “Pixel Art”. It’s like a pseudo-futuristic brush that draws in four directions at once. It is nothing more than a tool, a toy for a while, nothing that breaks its own mold and ventures to illustrate the unknown. It does not seek, nor does it want to (nor can it), be innovative. “And, if anything, it could be claimed that pixel art explores the limits of watercolor language - but never its own (which, by the way, and as far as we know, it lacks). Then not consider it seriously.”2. But well, since the intention of this production is to make fun and not to be taken seriously, it accepts not being considered worthy enough. With as little as the user pressing the screen once and, even by reflex, seeking to repeat it, this production has more than enough. If you can just calm a restless person or intrigue a bored person, even for a second, that’s enough for you. It seeks nothing more than to be fun.
Literature
- BREA, José Luis. (2008).”Redefinición de las prácticas artísticas (s. 21)*”
- BREA, José Luis. (2002).”Breve (y desordenado) anti glosario -o diccionario de tópicos- sobre el arte electrónico.”
- FRANKE, Herbert. (1970)