My favorite art movement is Dada. I love the philosophy, the acknowledgment of a chaotic and unpredictable world, the challenge to traditional understanding, the satire of the art economy, and the humor of it. I like taking things from the world and re-contextualizing them.
The image seen here is garbage, but garbage that interests me. It is the result of feeding a computer algorithm a number of quotes regarding Dadaism by Marcel Duchamp and asking the program to create a satire of the contemporary art market. The algorithm interpreted the Duchamp quotes, references to the plastic works of Duchamp, its own referenced data of Marcel Duchamp, probably a lot of general information regarding cubism and modernism, and the wording of my request to produce this image.
One of the most famous examples of Dada art is Untitled(Collage with Squares Arranged according to the Law of Chance) created by Jean (Hans) Arp. When I say “created” I mean that in a different way than a person may normally deliberately create art which is a reflection of themselves in some way. This piece is the result of producing a work automatically with almost no effort. He cut some paper carelessly, dropped the pieces onto the canvas, and glued them where they fell. It has no inherent meaning other than to represent randomness and chance. It is fundamentally different in nature to how almost all other art is produced which is with intention. Is he the artist, or is gravity and wind resistance the artist?
Similarly, the above image has no inherent meaning. It was produced by referencing a number of values and arranging pixels algorithmically according to its program. It’s more of a mathematical sum than a painting. In my opinion, this image was produced by me dropping cut up Duchamp quotes through an extraordinarily complex pachinko mechanism and gluing them to where they fell.
I actually produced many images, but this is the one that I personally found striking and worth keeping for my personal enjoyment. Even though the only possible intentions featured in the image are second-hand from dead artists applied without understanding, I personally find meaning in this image. I think by chance this little piece of trash has some artistic merit in my own estimation.
This is my personal interpretation of the image: The design of the gallery and perspective of the image evokes modernism, Rothko in particular. On the wall are two abstract works which also evoke “modern art” as featured in museums in general. The works, however, are ajar and vastly disparate. Is this a challenge to the sensibilities of our expectations of an art gallery? I take it more cynically, as in the foreground there is a man in a suit with a posture indicating ownership (whether he is an owner or buyer is ambiguous). I think that the canvases were arranged by this individual or someone with a similar sensibility. The classic business tactic in the arts of throwing everything at the wall to see what sells. If the non-traditional arrangement of the canvases creates a niche for a specialized segment of customer taste then this move could add to the bottom line. The man stands not as an art patron in the traditional sense, but an investor calculating the monetary value of the works with a honed expertise. He is wearing sunglasses because he’s not directly looking at the art, but through a filter (lens or profit). His face is either referencing cubism, or is an ai glitch I’ve seen many times when faces are involved in general. That it could be either supports the satire, I think. The image was thrown together without understanding, and depicts that which is thrown together without understanding. Art is just an aspect of a transaction which is taking place in a system.
I’m interested in your thoughts on this piece. Honestly I’m most interested in the reaction of artists here to this image whether positive, neutral, or extremely negative.
