Don Relyea |
|
Home |
Don Relyea's Blog |
||||||
Blog RSS Feed ![]() Art RSS Feed ![]() Music RSS Feed ![]() Screensavers RSS Feed ![]() Add my blog to your Google home page ![]()
|
Sun, 19 Oct 2008 Sara AKA bonzaibondo is working on a MA degree project and stumbled onto my work while doing research. Bonzaibondo wrote a nice blog post about my work and had some questions about my use of geometry in my art and my thoughts on geometry in art. I really like your work involving the generation of geometric shapes with programming in interactive applets. What would you say triggered your desire to use these types of shapes in your designs?
Since most of my work is created in some kind of programming language, it is natural to describe shapes and forms with math and both 2d and 3d geometry. I have always enjoyed math. From about 1999-2003 I developed severe sleep apnea, this deprived my brain of oxygen and meaningful sleep. Over that time I began to lose the ability to do math, solve complex problems, and even routine programming exercises became extremely difficult. I thought I was losing my mind. When I figured out what was wrong and started treatment, it was as though I had just emerged from a thick fog into daylight. I immersed myself in math and exploratory programming with a new found zeal. The recovery and subsequent rediscovery of my love for math was the catalyst for the burst of abstract geometric and space-filling curve works. And also considering how much emphasis has been placed on geometry in the past and the desire to create artwork based on exact measurements of shapes (e.g. the use of golden ratio), where do you see geometry fitting in contemporary art? And finally I would love to hear any comments you may have about the subject in general.
Geometry will always have a place in the world of contemporary art. Successful artists are successful manipulators. Geometry is a great foil for manipulation. Why is it that people are drawn to compositions with certain proportions? When something is out of proportion, why is it so jarring? I think that a lot of the answers to these questions lie in neuroscience and the way our brains are wired to recognize patterns and forms. There have been a lot of recent studies that show that we have at a minimum 2 brain functions going on at the same time, the executive mind and the habitual mind. The executive mind is what we engage when we encounter something new or need to solve a problem, the habitual mind is our autopilot. This is not a new concept, ancient Zen masters were aware of this. The habitual mind is programmed through repetition to detect patterns and shapes and it keys in on certain proportions like golden ratios, facial symmetry, etc. As an artist you can play with this feature in your viewers brains to evoke a response. Mark Mothersbaugh's current exhibit at LACDA titled "Beautiful Mutants" is great example this manipulative technique in action. http://www.lacda.com/exhibits/mothersbaugh.html In "Bottom Heavy Pug" Mothersbaugh is challenging both the executive and habitual mind simultaneously, the picture looks enough like the original that your habitual mind immediately identifies it as a dog. Your executive mind also immediately recognizes that there is something proportionally awry with the picture. The internal conflict makes the picture memorable and engaging.
Along the same line of reasoning, works that are geometrically exact are equally engaging. Geometric perfection is actually quite rare in nature and we can recognize when a form is artificially perfect. In "Bottom Heavy Pug" the vertical symmetry is exact, we recognize that this is uncommon and take note.
|
Archives:
| ||||