introduction
artists
committee
jurors
panels
working artists

 

 
Hans Dehlinger

artist statement | technical statement | process



process

For the generative act, we can identify different approaches. One of them could be described as:

"The intentional execution of a concept", and another: The probing search along an unknown road, supported by the hope to find something".

With the intentional approach, the artist tries to aim directly at the goal, it is the lucky hit which he is after. The probing search ends with a catch. Searching and finding are central concepts to this approach. "Hit" and "Catch" are two metaphors for two different generative scenarios.

In my own work I place a high value on the "Hit". The execution of an idea by a program is a direct means to a result. To catch something requires a process, which eventually will lead to a state, which by declaration (decision) is proclaimed the result. The process of development is interrupted (ended) at an arbitrary, previously unknown point, and the last "state of the system" is singled out and raised into the position of a result. The result›then suddenly stands for itself, the generating process› becomes entirely unimportant in the moment of the decision. It is (usually) not even traceable any more.

The generation of the image "baum_V14" starts with a concept for a tree ("tree11"), which is emerging as result of›a "one-shot generative process". In the "tree11" image, a dense set of points is cast into a small area. From each point one polygon emerges. As a bundle, they form "tree11", using a very simple generative rule. The strictness of this approach can (I suppose) be felt in the visual strength of the resulting image. It is this image, which then is manipulated in other programs until an arbitrary decision terminates this process and delivers the final image: "baum_V14" It can not be plotted anymore, but it can be printed.

The "strokes" image is composed in a similar way. One of its three bundles of lines, is generated in a "one-shot" operation, which is then replicated twice, and then plotted on a pen plotter.

A number of question arise at this point: Should a drawing, which was designed to be plotted, be printed at all? What significant changes do occur? What features of a plotter drawing are actually changed, when it is transferred to a printer and how does this transfer affect the image, its quality, its visual evaluation?