I work a lot with geometrical images. They are shapes based on mathematical instructions.

You can write down the equation of the circle, and imagine the circle in your mind. In your mind, the circle is absolutely perfect. It is absolutely round.

Unfortunately there is no screen, printer, or natural phenomenon that can render a perfect circle. There will always be some particles bouncing out of place. And even if we did somehow manage to create perfection for a brief moment, our imperfect eyes would not be able to perceive it. Our eyes show us a distorted image that our mind corrects.

Geometrical images are conceptual images, they only really exist in our mind.

According to Wikipedia:
“Composition is the placement or arrangement of visual elements or ingredients in a work of art.”

Works of art usually have a fixed size. The artist will carefully position all the elements until a perfect tension is found.

What if the medium does not have a fixed size? How do you deal with composition?

Everybody uses their browser in their own way. Websites are viewed in various dimensions. This is an interesting moment for artists. Composition has been exhausted, many artists in many media have explored all the options, leaving little room for invention. But now you can make art objects (websites) that adapt.
A good website acts like gas, using all available space.

I’ve always tried to make websites that work any way you want them to, small, large, square, tall, flat. Some of my websites stretch, some scale, some crop, and some rearrange according to your browser size.

My approach (vector based generative images) is one possibility, but I think there are many ways to deal with composing images for a browser. Art historians of the world, please be alert, there are probably a lot of artists right now inventing ways to deal with “the liquid canvas”.

eat more vegetables
eat less meat
make more money
work on my posture
spend more time in nature
have a political opinion
give to charity
fix my parent’s computers
not worry

What was the art that captured the spirit of the industrial age?
What will be the art that captures the spirit of the information age?

Should art capture things, freeze them?
A lot of art freezes reality, it makes time stand still so we can have a better look.
Can today’s time still be frozen? Or are things moving too fast?
Or perhaps things are not even moving that fast? Is today that different from 10 years ago?

classic subjects in new formats
new subjects in classic formats
new subjects in new formats
classic subjects in classic formats

Ideally the work is not a manifestation of an idea, the work is the idea.

email
facebook
facebook page
google alerts
google analytics
google adsense
google reader
google calendar
itunes connect
twitter
food twitter
skype

Shown above is a still from Harm van den Dorpel’s Ethereal Self .com.
This website is an interactive depiction of a diamond.

It is a depiction because it looks like a diamond, but it is not a diamond, it is a representation of a diamond in 2-dimensional space.

It is interactive because it uses your webcam to create the illusion of light reflecting through a diamond.
When you move, the image changes.

Interactive depiction has been thoroughly explored in video games. Mario starts running when you press a button, and he runs faster when you hold 2 buttons. But video games are always goal oriented.

Interactivity is usually a means to an end. What if it is a destination?

When we look into the world, we are not distant observers, we are involved. Interactivity is an important dimension of representation, and an important part of our perception. Interactive depiction is an area that has hardly been explored in art. Hopefully we have only seen the beginning of it. There are many gestures and subjects still untouched.

Am I drawn to it?
Do I feel a strong attraction or connection?
Does it trigger a series of thoughts?
Does it change my thoughts?
Does it set a mood?
Does it amplify my emotions?
Does it encourage me to make something?
Does it provide new information?
Is it beautiful?
Does it intensify perception?
What is the level of abstraction?
Does it awaken memories?
Does it make me curious?
Do I want more of it?
Does it summarize an era?
Is it innovative?
Does it stand out?
Do I remember it after 10 minutes?
Does it surprise me?

I was familiar with computers since I was small, and I had seen the internet on TV… but it’s harder to show a website on TV than to show TV on a website. My first real internet experience was at the library, I was 16 years old. I surfed a bit, mostly looking for interviews with bands. It was terribly slow, but I enjoyed it already. A few months later our home computer got a dial-up connection and I got more into it. I would write down my favorite websites on a piece of paper, I did not know about browser bookmarks…

Dutch progressive broadcasting station VPRO used to have a website with “Lifesavers”. Lifesavers were something that “does not happen in a book, does not happen on TV, an experience specific to the internet.”

It was a series of experimental websites by artists such as Peter Luining and Han Hoogerbrugge, exploring what a website could be, and playing with the slow connections of the internet, turning it into a strength.
I still love small files.

(this is part of a forthcoming interview by Johanna Bergmark)

AW: Rafaël…
RR: Andy…
AW: How are you?
RR: I’m good. I just threw away a lot of trash so I feel really good.
There’s nothing I enjoy more than throwing away things.
AW: What did you throw out?
RR: Books, T-shirts, electronics… stuff. How are you?
AW: I’m OK.
RR: What’s the after-life like?