Tristan Perich reminded me a different approach that I didn’t think in general, maybe because I was taking it granted as it is what it is:An Interactive piece. The question arised from his post to the list asking for an example of successful interactive art. The thoughts are generally collected around the transparency of the piece, how much easy it is to grasp for the audience, how smart it is by its message. Tristan’s reply to me was interesting. He mentioned when the user understands the piece is interactive it puts whole relationship into different level, more like a product-consumer relationship. So the idea is interacting with the piece without understanding it is actually interactive. He gave the example of Bruce Naumann’s video corridor. I googled it and come with different readings.
The piece which is dated early 70’s, is a 50cm wide corridor, where the user sees a video at the end of the corridor which turns out he is seeing himself from the rear. Kinda disturbing experience as Chris Gibbins puts it. This article is also good for showing different kinds of internet based art from Lieberman and Napier. So the question that still left in me is: What kind of relationship, or better yet, what kind of experience does an art piece bring?
I am also going back to Cage back and forth these days. I am interested in his approach to an art as an experimentation, disabling the intention, subjectivity of the artist.
With having a great excitement I started to explore and go back in art history reading different sources which reveals how we come here today’s generative art. Yesterday a term that I already knew but never digged, fluxus[Ihaven’t prepared the sources yet], and today op-art and kinetic art which happens to be revealed from the interview I was reading in artificial.dk with Marius Watz.
He mentions about abstract painters from 1960s. One name is Bridget Riley who happens to be one of the pioneers of Optical Art. Her interview with BBC is quite explanatory and here is a site which shows examples of her works. She mentions about Georges Seurat and his pointillism technique which uses solid colors and reveals a different aspect of the picture which is called Neo-Impressionism. One point about Seurat is, he is a typical scientist, researcher type of artist. Also she mentions about Stravinky’s definition of rhytm in his 6 lecture series in Harvard.
Another artist that Marius Watz mentioned is Victor Vasarely whose named is coined with op-art. Another tiny detail about Vasarely is, he studies medicine in his early years and then quits, but his later works are inspired from this background. Another example of scientist artist.
last name he mentions is, Sol LeWitt whom we all know. Actually Reas has a great exploration and tries to comment about this artist’s work in his work called software structures at Whitney.
more to come.