In an act of blog-fail guilt (last post in December? Holy moly!*), herein I post a slightly altered version of a piece I wrote recently, to contribute to the first stage of a multi-phase exhibition project in which I had no actual artwork.
-
Recently,
I've been thinking a lot about analogue systems.
My
current studio work has focused on looping systems, with no start or end point. Due to the nature of
these systems, each element, both electronic (motors, relays and
switches) and mechanical (sculptural elements in motion) is crucial
to the ongoing action of the work.
Of
late, however, these systems have come to feel rigid, pre-determined,
and overtly authored.
Subsequently,
I have been attempting to create systems which are self-regulating,
with self-generated sequencing. In short: I want to make systems in
which I, as artist-creator, take little part. Unpredictable, random,
ongoing systems.
My
current experiment has proven this to be a very difficult (I am not
yet ready to concede impossible) task.
Why
should it be so difficult to make a random yet ongoing system? I
suspect that the dilemma actually lies in language. For, in actual
fact, systematic
and random
are antonyms; to be systematic is to defeat randomness. To have a
system that is ongoing and self-contained, and also
random or self-determined, has so far eluded me – and perhaps this
is why.
Quite
possibly, these two hypothetical ideals – the ongoing (and in
reality, gallery-suitable) looped system, and the self-determined,
random, unpredictable system – are mutually exclusive. The current
experiment suggests this may be the case. Hopefully the next
experiment will prove otherwise.
-
* Dictionary spelling check-up was required here. Holy moly.