Sin titulo

The work, through a series of simple figures and repetitive and random patterns, seeks to reconstruct, in an analogous way, the operational images used and reproduced by drones, security cameras, facial recognition systems and other possible devices of the current cybernetic military-security system. This work consists of 5 large objects: firstly, we can observe a crosshair that moves according to the movements of our mouse. When left clicking, a series of recursive patterns are displayed from the crosshairs that bring to mind the idea of ​​data, readings, asemic text or code on some object located beyond our field of vision. Secondly, you can see, in the four vertices of the canvas, an infinite number of recursive figures that resemble bar, radar or statistical graphs. These are in constant movement, recreation and disappearance.

Technical, aesthetic and conceptual development

According to Brea, the time of the figure of the artist, of the artistic object and of the idea of art as negativity/self-criticism has come to an end. As a result of the transformations of work in 21st century society, that is, the primacy of immaterial work, this has configured a new form of symbolic production. This consists of the dissemination of affective experiences and meaning (“In 21st century societies, art will not be exhibited. It will be produced and distributed, it will be disseminated.”), based not on the possession, collection, circulation and exchange of artistic objects, but on the generation of “specific content intended for social dissemination.” In this framework, symbolic workers escape the traditional representational/objective time of art and enter a “time of synchronization of experience, shared time and encounter between the subjects of knowledge and passion […] the artist is a live producer.” If we pay attention to the terms used by the author, we could say that if there is a contemporary artist today, he or she is more like an influencer or streamer than the romantic genius of the past in his workshop. Brea seems to synthesize a process of social and artistic transformation that begins in Andy Warhol and reaches its conclusion in characters such as the Kardashians or Paris Hilton. What unites these very disparate characters (only in appearance) is that their immaterial work, their work, does not focus on the possession of a particular object, but on the dissemination of a concept, an experience, a quantity of affection or content associated with their public figures commodified in their brands or media characters.

In this context, Brea concludes that what is at stake, in a world where “the power of the image, of visual culture, is almost absolute,” is the construction of alternative social imaginaries that discuss and are critical of the aesthetic justification of itself that contemporary capitalism proposes through its merchandise and the entertainment industries. Taking this into account, this work tries to focus on the aestheticization of the code. By this we refer both to the aesthetic justification carried out on its very existence, and that carried out by it on that of contemporary capitalism. The careers of the authors were taken as reference: Frieder Nake, Michael Noll and Georg Nees. In a strictly formal aspect, works such as Zufälliger Polygonzug – 13/9/65 Nr. 7 and Polygonzug 16/3/65 Nr. 2 by Frieder Nake were taken as reference; 23-Ecke and 8-ecke, by Georg Nees and Gaussian-Quadratic by Michael Noll. This influence can be seen in the use/abuse of recursiveness and repetition, as well as in the simple forms chosen to construct the work. At the same time, various representations of pop culture (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzcdPA6qYAU) and the aforementioned drones (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwZkldacuuw) were taken as references, hence the analogy with the digital sight.

However, in addition to their artistic production, what we want to highlight about these authors is their original training in mathematics, engineering or computer science and their work links with various telecommunications companies such as Bell Laboratories and Siemens. In his 1967 text, “The Computer and the Visual Arts,” Michael Noll emphasizes the disagreement between digital technologies and the visual artists of his time due to the latter’s lack of training in programming. What Noll indicates is that computers were clearly not designed with art producers in mind. So what were the engineers thinking when they put together the computers? In an aspect that is quite literal, the aim of the work comes to propose a possible answer to this question. It seems significant to us to think about the red thread that these companies and these sciences trace between the developments in telecommunications, cybernetics and cryptography during the Second World War and the emergence of “digital or computer art” at the end of the 1960s. In this sense, Frieder Nake’s refusal to continue making computer art, expressed in his 1971 text, “Computer art should not exist,” is illustrative. His position centered on two arguments: first, computers did not produce any fundamentally new aesthetic results and, second, they were being used for the exploitation of labor rather than for its liberation. If we add the above to the ideas expressed by Brea, we could speak of a process of aestheticization of technologies originally oriented towards war (and whose main motive never ceased to be war itself). Although it does not propose an alternative imaginary, the work postulates a critical vision of the aestheticization process that shaped generative or computer art in its early stages. Relying on the above and mobilized by current events, the work produced seeks to put on the table the unconscious content that is found within the act of programming itself, the code, the AI ​​and the various contemporary computer architectures.

Literature

BREA, José Luis. (2002). “Breve (y desordenado) antiglosario –o diccionario de tópicos- sobre el arte electrónico” en La era postmedia. Acción comunicativa, prácticas (post)artísticas y dispositivos neomediales. Salamanca: CASA Editorial, pp. 4-8.. BREA, José Luis. (2008). “Redefinición de las prácticas artísticas (s. 21)” en El tercer umbral. Estatuto de las prácticas artísticas en la era del capitalismo cultural. Murcia: CENDEAC, pp. 106-113. NOLL, Michael. (1967). “Computer and the visual arts”. Accedido desde http://dada.compart-bremen.de/docUploads/noll_computers_and_the_visual_arts.pdf NAKE, Frieder. (1971). “There Should Be No Computer-Art”. (Bulletin of the Computer Arts Society, London) No. 18, Oct. 1971, 1-2. – Reprinted in: A. Altena, L. van der Velden (eds.): The anthology of computer art. Amsterdam: Sonic Acts 2006, 59-60