![]() ![]() Over the years I have also begun to use digital processes to capture this process. Most of my works are the result of a long process of metamorphosis where shapes are constantly transformed, in search of a more “authentic” and, as I was saying, more “necessary” formal result than what arises from the traditional illustrative process. Randomness is a fundamental element in my work. From this line of thinking, I must ask if you believe perfection to be something actual? If so, is perfection only flawed if and when computers produce it? Isn’t flaw itself as a classification as homogeneous as perfection? In your very informative and interesting TedxTalk, you spoke about artificiality and its mechanical perfection, about how human creative manifestation embraces happy accidents and imperfection, which becomes a sign of a purer creativity. I believe that much of the art world hit a dead end from that moment on. Perhaps right up to Duchamp’s provocation with his “Fontain”. We all agree that, although styles have changed continuously over time, the premise of a human being, with just a few colours, covering a surface with different shapes to leave a message or face the idea of death, has always remained unchanged. I love it in every way, and I would say there is no semantic difference between it and the great art that we have seen throughout the ages. If we go back to cave paintings, from 40,000 years ago, we all agree that this is the first artform of our ancestors. When a critic asked him how the “readymades” should be viewed, he replied evasively, ironically, saying that they should not be viewed, but that they are there in any case! With that in mind, it is hard to answer the question, since the word Art defies all definition. ![]() Then again, he didn’t take it seriously himself, even if his critics didn’t realise this. Returning to your question, though, I never took the “readymade” aspect of Duchamp seriously. You may also be referring to “Mixerpiece” app, where I tried to make this concept accessible to everyone, especially children. ![]() If you mean my collage and mixed media production then it’s true - it’s amazing how combining selected elements can create incredible new formal universes. Now, in seeing how easy it is to form beautiful depictions from the correct constituents, and also how easy it is for anything today to be called “art” with re-contextualisation (as demonstrated by Duchamp with his readymades), where does this leave Art for you, and what becomes its fullest meaning? You have also even created technologies through which novel production can occur. You have also broken down the elements necessary for wonderful artistic production. In your processes you’ve examined the diverse methodologies behind creation. To me, your entire body of work has been an investigation into art’s fundamental nature. The outcome is something the artist sees as “necessary”: in the artist’s eyes (and in the eyes of those who appreciate the result), the artwork seems to have its own disruptive “need to exist”. I interpret this as the mastery of a sign, of a style, employing a personal and mysterious procedure that is built up and refined over time (occasionally remaining a prisoner of mere virtuosity), and which leads to unpredictable but subjectively powerful formal results. Philosophy of mind, in the sense of identity, conscience and language Technology, in the choice of a medium that often allows me to express and reinterpret my imagination in an “innovative” way and finally Art. To some extent your question already contains the answer: there are three elements in my work that coexist. I don’t believe that I can explain various elements that influence my work in a scientific way, or rather, the fact that I use them does not necessarily mean that I also know how to explain them. Please discuss for us how philosophy of mind, technology and art blend together to create your original approach. Your work seems a visual outworking of an inner conversation that seeks to answer questions about creative consciousness, its processes and sensory results.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |