So, I’m doing a creative workshop with Joshua Davis tomorrow. As part of my preparation I’ve been reading up on art history relating to the branch of computer art known as “Algorism” or “Algorithmic” art, which, (if you subscribe to the concept of movements), Mr. Davis could be considered part of. A lot of his ideas, especially the concept of an art making machine, are very much in line with the algorists’ school of thought. Interestingly, the movement goes back to the 1950s, and also includes artists who do not use computer displays or prints as their medium. For example, Jean Pierre Hebert works with dry sand, creating incredible intricate patterns over time. In some ways, this is an ancient idea - monuments such as Stonehenge and Newgrange could be described as algorithmic, in so far as they follow a repetetive, logical (yet intricate) patter throughout their construction. Somehow, to me, sand - which is usually seen as a symbol of impermanence (see the Tibetan Sand Mandalas) seems more permanent than purely digital art does now.
What’s unique about the Algorists though, is that their work takes “non-representational” art to another level. Most non-representational art works from emotional or temporal subjects, concepts which are very much rooted in our objective reality (happiness, abjection, a nude descending some stairs, etc.) - so in that sense, they actually are representational - just representing non-visual subjects, or visual subjects in a more expressive way. However, Algorithmic art creates a microcosm of its own, in that each algorithmic work creates a system, a closed form in itself. Algorithmic art is beautiful, because each piece creates its own frame of reference - the inherent qualities of the algorithm. These can be beautiful to us, either because we can deconstruct the algorithms which make up the ordered rigour of mathematical iteration, or because we can recognise the mysterious yet familiar echoes of the natural world.
Here’s a great quote from Roman Verostko:
For the past 40 years I have worked with pure visual form ranging from controlled constructions with highly studied color behavior to spontaneous brush strokes and inventive non-representational drawing. Such art has been labeled variously as “concrete”, “abstract”, “non-objective”, and “non-representational”. In its purest form such art does not re-present other reality. Rather “it is” the reality. One contemplates a pure form similar to the way one might contemplate a fine vase or a sea shell.
