When form predominates…

by todoconoin Uncategorized 0 Comment(s)

“A work of art is realized when form and content are indistinguishable. When they are in synthesis. In other words, when they fuse.” – Paul Rand

Conversations with Paul Rand


The Perlin noise link  – is that connected to finding your own internal energy? I’m wondering how you will pursue the exploration to find the rhythm of your own internal energy that resonates with those of others?

This makes me think of my recent experience when I rented a vehicle that had technology which caused the steering wheel to vibrate overtime my car was within certain feet of another vehicle. The vibration felt like a shock or physical intrusion into my body. […]

Emergence. What lingers…. Ants leaving pheromones… you leaving a less ephemerous impression on the air.
The imagery and words are very poetic, and sans robots.” Sheila
I think it is fascinating the idea of electronic devices that leave a trace that act as art. It makes me think of the possibility of art and artificial intelligence. I feel for me, personally, that the “art” I make is not special. I don’t think I have tapped into something from another realm (like muses) or that I was born with a gift. So the idea that robots can also make art is fascinating to me because it knocks the wind out of the sails of all those artists who believe themselves to be “special” it gifted (which I think a lot of us do).
So I’m thinking of your art as sort of a trick or a bit of artistic trickery maybe. Maybe you do not tell your audience that the pieces are made by robots (Can you go that step further and actually create something where robots CREATE a piece?) then you create a program maybe that randomly assigns meaning to a robot-made piece. Then wait for the reaction. It would be an interesting experiment in art criticism. Would people think it’s brilliant? How will they feel once they’ve assessed it’s brilliant to the idea that it wasn’t a Rudi creation but a creation of artificial intelligence? How does that inform how we look at “real”, human-created art? Just a thought on this.
Aside from that, I also am intrigued by the idea of technology and nature. I don’t know where or how that would take shape but it is an interesting concept.” Peter
The statement for your work is the most concise description I’ve heard of your direction and work. I love the element of keeping play and creativity alive.
I’m also glad to see you experimenting and letting the work develop naturally, without rushing it or corralling it. I’m a big believer in letting the work help guide you in the direction it wants to go.
I want to hear more on your thought process and what you think that direction might be?” Sarah Jane
All these thoughts leave me to think a bit of what am I have been trying to share with others. What is that keeps me awake and constantly attracts my attention?
In the past I asked myself whether being an artist would conflict with being an engineer. This meant asking myself how could a thing be two things. And even worse, getting wrapped in time and asking myself how could I be  catholic and agnostic simultaneously. Fortunately I am not in a structured environment where questions like that are not welcome. Not anymore.
Full of questions and with an innocent view I wonder how do we work. I mean it. How we humans work. As machines we might as well be, there could be certain mechanism full or incomprehensible gears that make us think that something is alive. If there is such a thing as artificial life, there could be also a non natural creativity. The wonders of these thoughts lead me to think about art that was not created by humans. a well defined line between what is intelligent and what is not or  do we recognize in our creations life as well.
I feel there is a myriad of parallel paths that I have been trying to weave together between questioning how can it be possible we learn (2015 Plobot project) or we build new things (2012 Multiplo project). Within that fabric of questions and conclusions and wandering there has always been present play and trickery (as Peter suggests). If there is an energy flowing from my work to others, as a way to reach out and embrace change; it is not crazy to think of Perlin noise equations for who am I and who are others that I love and I want to share my work with. I have always been rushing into the next thing, both professionally and personally. One day I came to China, escaping from my tedious daily life in Argentina. I couldn’t have gone farther. And one day I decided to step out of engineering into art. Again, another big change that I didn’t allow too much thinking or many feelings. If there is a dialog with my wires, my bits and electrons, as I like to say; that dialog needs some time. If my dialog is between us and The Machine, we will know about it through the materials I work with and with some patience.
If I stop for a second to think about it, I wonder if the open ended questions stated above will lead me to find answers or more questions. And it might not matter anymore. If all I am doing is enjoying the search, finding is not more meaningful than searching.
The three open projects that I have been hesitating about are:
– an interactive poem that when you walk around, it follows you and narrates you a story. But each story is unique and generated by an A.I. M.L. algorithm. Just for you, it won’t repeat.
– a nonsensical technical jargon white paper that describes nonsensical decisions we, humans, take. As this is a fiction work, it would make sense -within the nonsense- to show data and figures to explain the unexplainable. A sidewalk width next to my house would be the first of a series.
– many robots, many colors and an insect feeling. I think it would be exciting to see drawings that learn and react to our body movements. A kind of snow angel but with colorful snow that is alive.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked*