Assessment 2-Digital Coding

This art was influenced by workshop 6 specifically as we explored repetition and variation, an essential component to the theme of iteration. All aspects within the sketch repeat, such as the triangles which repeat diagonally, the patterns of the circles, the straight lines across the sketch, and the background which repeats on adding circles and eventually fades the red lines. There are also variations as seen with the triangle’s contrasting direction, colour and shape, and colours of the circles. Upon beginning this sketch I was influenced by Andy Warhol’s artwork and style, but as I progressed I made it my own. Workshop 7’s exploration of colours also allowed for me to determine as colour style and range for this work

 

Code:

float flash = 1; //speed of flashing
int y;
int x=0;
int diam=80;
int xax=0; //x-axis for circles

void setup (){

background (0); //black background
size (500,500); //large size of screen
noStroke(); //no dark lines accenting shapes

}

void draw (){
fill(420, 0, 0); //dark red colour
if(frameCount%(2*flash)<flash) fill(800, 0, 0); //flashing effect
ellipse(xax, 120, 50,20); //positioning of circles from left of screen to the right
ellipse(xax,220,50,20);
ellipse (xax, 320, 50, 20);
ellipse (xax, 420, 50, 20);
xax=xax+5; //rate of circles running across screen from the x axis

if(x > 800)
background(100);
fill(250);
if(frameCount%(2*flash)<flash) fill(127, 0, 0); //flashes on dark red colour
triangle(50, 50, 100, 100, 150, 50); //triangles positioned within parameters of the circles running across screen
triangle(150, 150, 200,200, 250, 150);
triangle (250, 250, 300, 300, 350, 250);
triangle(350, 350, 400, 400, 450, 350);
triangle(450, 450, 500, 500, 550, 450);

fill(800, 1000, 0); //Yellow colour
ellipse(250, 75, 50, 50); //circles positioned evenly amongst triangles
ellipse(100, 175, 50, 50);
ellipse(100, 275, 50, 50);
ellipse(250, 375, 50, 50);
ellipse(100, 475, 50, 50);

fill(255); //colour white
ellipse(400, 175, 50, 50); //circles completely opposite to yellow circles
ellipse(400, 275, 50, 50);
ellipse(400, 475, 50, 50);

fill(800, 650, 0);
if(frameCount%(2*flash)<flash) fill(700, 0, 0);
triangle(450, 100, 400, 50, 350, 100); //Triangles positioned to be completely opposite to other triangles
triangle(350, 200, 300,150, 250, 200);
triangle (250, 300, 200, 250, 150, 300);
triangle(150, 400, 100, 350, 50, 400);
triangle(50, 500, 0, 450, -50, 500);

fill((int)random(350),(int)random(480),(int)random(78),10); //bunch of colours
ellipse((int)random(width),(int)random(height), diam, diam); //positioning of these eclipses
x=x+1; //the rate of how eclipses fill the screen

}

 

Sol Lewitt-Wall Painting 118

2. Instructions and Procedural actions

Sol Lewitt once said that ‘all intervening steps, scribbles, sketches, drawings, failed work models, studies, thoughts, conversations are of interest. Those that show the thought process of the artist are sometimes more interesting than the final product.’ This phrase is a true reflection of the nature of Lewitt’s art. He attributes great importance to the creative process of an artwork rather than the end result.

“On a wall surface, any
continuous stretch of wall,
using a hard pencil, place
fifty points at random.
The points should be evenly
distributed over the area
of the wall. All of the
points should be connected
by straight lines. “ -Wall drawing 118

The instructions for this piece seem simpler than a lot of Sol Lewitt’s artworks, wherein the steps are simply to put fifty dots evenly within the surface of a canvas, and to connect each dot with straight lines. As simple enough of a premise or idea this is, it’s the execution which is what makes this artwork lengthy and difficult.

In the week 3 tutorial the group I was in were assigned this artwork. We all read the instructions and simultaneously nodded to say “It’s pretty simple”. So we placed the 50 dots evenly on the canvas and begun to connect each line to the other. Misunderstanding the instructions, we thought that we just had to make sure that each dot had to connect to to just form one long maze like line which goes through each dot, but when our tutor approached us and let us know that absolutely ALL of the dots had to be connected to each other, we then realised the difficulty.

We didn’t really have a plan, we just all began to connect dots to each other with the ruler which was frustrating. After 5-10 minutes of this we figured it would make more sense if we started with one dot and connected that one to everything else and do to the others. We did not end up completing the artwork as it would have taken many long hours to complete it, but by the end of the tutorial, this artwork’s concept was cemented into our minds.

What is interesting about this particular artwork is that by having the instructions simple, and not go specific into the procedures of creating the art, each attempt of this work will look quite different as a result. But like Lewitt has stated, the importance of his work is focused on the process. Our group during the tutorial simply had no “plan of attack”, but a more simple and less all over the place way of approaching the connection aspect is to focus on connecting the one singular dot to every other dot, and keep repeating until all dots are connected to each other. Though what is clear is that a significant amount of time will be taken creating this. This process of connecting the dots is by far the most difficult part of the artwork, but with strategic placing of dots to begin with, could be made easier. However strategic placing defeats the purpose of distributing randomly.

Here are two examples of what some completed works of this drawing looks like:

This first example seems to have followed the instructions perfectly as the dots are evenly distributed and each dot are connected to each other through straight lines. The artist strategically placed the dots so there are no clusters and spread them out to make the process of connecting dots a bit easier

This second example is different to the first as the dots don’t seem evenly distributed throughout the canvas. Whilst successful in connecting each dots through straight lines, the artist placed clusters of dots close to each other rather than spreading throughout which would have made the process of connecting each dot through straight lines more difficult.

Simplicity of instructions however does pose some problems. A criticism for the instructions for this art work is that “At random” and “Distributed evenly” contradicts each other, if we are trying to place the dots evenly along the surface of a canvas, is it really that random? This would influence one to count each dot located in one area of the canvas and using this to spread it, making the process more calculated, and in a way, less genuine and free flowing. The final instruction; “All of the points should be connected by straight lines” also could be misunderstood, my group being an example. A simple re-wording to “Every single point should be connected by straight lines” would assist in relinquishing confusion.

In conclusion, this artwork by Sol Lewitt is simple in premise, but difficult and lengthy in execution. Lewitt’s placing of great importance on the process in all of his art works tests the durability, accuracy, patience and sharpness of those who follow the instructions and shows in the final result.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY
“Work From Instructions”. Sollewittprints.org. N.p., 2016. Web. 17 Aug. 2016.
“Here Are The Instructions For Sol Lewitt’S 1971 Wall Drawing For The School Of The MFA Boston”. Observer. N.p., 2012. Web. 17 Aug. 2016.
dandelion & burdock, http://www.dandelion-burdock.com. “Sol Lewitt: 17 Wall Drawings. 1970 – 2015”. thisistomorrow. N.p., 2016. Web. 17 Aug. 2016.
Danehinchy.files.wordpress.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 17 Aug. 2016.

Human Fax Machine

• What is the picture faxed (title of work, name of artist, ? Who is the artist? 
• How does the artist ‘code’ the information in the line/ abstract drawing/ prints? For example, what information is being omitted? What is being retained? What determines this process? 
• Describe how your encoding process work.
  We had a small box with nails in them. The noises we would transmit were simply shaking the box, hitting it against the table or dropping it on the floor. We utilised a code in which combinations of shakes would determine how long a line is and the direction. Certain shapes such as circles we made clear code for such as dropping it. A long shake meant the end or start. A bang on a table followed by a second bang determines the distance of a line, so the wider the gap between the bangs, the longer the line.
• Detail the rationale for the way you designed the code. For example, what elements have you chosen to encode (e.g. lines, shapes, points, directions, distances, units etc.) and why.
  The shakes would essentially determine the line, direction and shape based ona  combination of shakes, the bangs would determine the length of the line or shape. Certain shapes like circles or squares had a combination of their own which made it easier
• Describe your transmission process. For example, what are the protocols you establish when transmitting the fax?
  A long shake meant the start and end of a singular code, two bangs on a table determines the length of the line. The receivers would simply bang on the table if they didn’t catch a message.
• What works particularly well in transmitting the information?
  The end result was a complete failure as what was conveyed by the noise wasn’t interpreted correctly and as a result an abstract shape was created.
• What doesn’t work at all?
  We thought  by making it as simple as possible that it’d work well however this was not the case, and with all the other noise of other groups occurring at the same time, nothing was interpreted correctly at all. At the most, one or two lines of the artwork was correct.
• What more is needed to make the transmission work?
  A better code to be made, louder noise or to complement, more silence in the room.

Visual Telegraph, Mediation and Communication-Week 1

During the first tutorial of Meda102 we were given a task wherein we formed a group of 3, researched a type of visual telegraph, and then were to construct our own visual code. The tutor then gave us a message that we’d have to communicate through our code to another group and vice versa.

Our group was first to deliver the message to the other group and to our liking, they understood it perfectly and when we regrouped with them they only got one letter wrong. When it was our turn however, we misunderstood the decoding guide and got their’s completely wrong. When we regrouped with them, we understood our mistake and was a lot clearer when they explained it.

What I feel works very well is making physical movements to convey a message based as it is clearer to see. Our main problem was seeing the writing on the piece of paper from the other group from a distance. Of course, what works well is simplicity, and the more simple it is, the better.

The most difficult aspect was decoding for our group as we misunderstood how to decode it, as well as actually reading the message.

What could have been done to make the transmission better is utilising larger paper if the messages were being conveyed through writing. Another is a clearer visual code which both our groups could have used.