This is an archive of an article in Human Being Journal #5.
Text by Tag Christof, Photography by Clement Pascal.

In the early 1980s, Sherrie Levine gained notoriety for her groundbreaking exhibition After Walker Evans. She had photographed a number of the FSA master’s Great Depression-era photographs (notably all taken before she was born in 1947) and then hung and presented them, in all seriousness, as her original work. She had shot and developed the actual photos on display, so in a strictly ontological sense, the work was hers. But unlike earlier appropriation work, Levine made no attempt to disguise or alter the source. Instead, she made a game of subverting originality by calling it out in the exhibition’s title. The art world bristled. Was it still life? Was it original? Was it just shameless, lazy theft? And what did any of this mean for the value of a photograph as a piece of art?

Fast forward a few decades and art history has sided squarely with Levine. But the work of a new generation of digital artists is begging a similar set of questions around reproducibility, value and ownership. Rafae?l Rozendaal is among their foremost pioneers, having worked on the web prolifically since around the turn of the millennium. He trained as a conventional artist, but since 2001 has been buying up clever domain names on which to set up interactive artworks. The sites are singular — each contains one engaging scenario rendered in bright and proudly RGB palettes, and invites the user into a bit of unexpected usability. Among them are whitetrash.nl, pleasetouchme. com, hotdoom.com, beefchickenpork.com and several others.

Someone finds a trick to simplify a task. This person finishes the task faster and has more time to relax.

Once everyone starts using the same trick, there is no time to relax any more. You have to use the trick. What used to be normal is now slow.

This is a selection of texts from my Spheres book, in collaboration with Philippe Karrer.

When we stare at the ocean, we can’t see that far because of the curvature of the earth. Clouds are not that far away either. Stars can be very far away, but a lot of stars don’t even exist any more by the time their light hits our eyes. The further something is, the longer it takes before you see it.

People always emphasize it’s good to grow and innovate, but it’s also good to repeat and refine.

In the future, people will not carry around devices to access the internet. Instead, with a pocket knife, they will cut a rectangle out of thin air, right in front of them, and there the internet will be. Unfortunately, many people will leave pieces of sky on the floor which might be dangerous.

I cannot explain why, but one of my favorite activities in the world is throwing stuff away. After graduating, I started moving to different countries, so I had to. I could only take so much with me. Possessions restrict movement. I don’t need much.

I love the idea of empty spaces. I love visualizing an empty home with big windows in an empty landscape. I imagine windows opened on either side of the house, the wind blowing from miles away entering the house and leaving quickly, hardly obstructed.

Emptiness is very elegant. It is luxurious.

The reality is that I am never in an empty house in an empty landscape. I am always in very crowded places. I live in Chinatown New York which is dense with tourists and garbage. I travel in crowded airplanes and eat while my elbows touch the passenger next to me. I sleep in hotels packed with people and their luggage. I swim at crowded beaches and walk through crowded museums and sit in crowded subways.

Emptiness seems beautiful yet I hardly ever go there. I hardly make an effort. I could take a bus to the countryside and sit in an empty field for a few hours. I could but I don’t.

I like the idea of emptiness more than the reality of it.

it’s fun
it’s new
it’s light
it’s open
it’s cheap
it’s free
it’s everything
it’s always
it’s everywhere

no history
no stress
no boss
no budget
no deadlines
no hassle

Austin Lee interviews Rafaël Rozendaal for SFAQ magazine.
New York, February 2014.

AL: Your artwork has strong ties to both painting and animation. How do you think about time in both mediums and how does it function in your work?

RR: I’m interested in movement, and I’m interested in staring. That means I want to make moving images that don’t have a beginning or ending, no specific duration. The computer makes it possible to create images that run infinitely, always a bit different but also kind of the same. Think of a fountain: it’s in motion, it’s moving, but it’s not going anywhere.

It lacks courage. It’s ugly. It’s conformist. It’s safe. It’s too easy. It’s decorative. It’s predictable. Deja vu. It’s obvious. It’s unoriginal. It lacks vision. It lacks emotion. It’s too emotional. It’s too personal. I don’t connect with it. It doesn’t surprise me. It’s dry. It’s pedantic. It’s too logical. It doesn’t make any sense. It makes too much sense. It’s repulsive. It’s nauseating. I hate it. More of the same. No innovation. It looks like vomit. It hurts my eyes. It makes me sad. It’s ignorant. It’s primitive. It’s banal. It’s too glossy. It’s too polished. It needs polishing. It lacks technique. It doesn’t do anything for me. It’s trendy. It won’t last. It’s fragile. It confuses me. It’s design. It’s theater. It’s illustration. It’s an effect. It lacks depth. It’s cold. There’s no content. There’s no concept. Too conceptual. It’s too pretty. There’s no narrative. It’s boring. It’s clumsy. It’s too much. It’s elitist. It’s populist. It’s crap. It’s not art. It’s too artistic. It’s vile. It lacks poetry. I don’t believe in it. It’s empty. It’s awful. I can’t stand it. I never want to see it again. It’s vulgar. It’s retarded. It’s a cliche. I’m disappointed. It’s racist. It’s sexist. It’s classist. It’s nerdy. It pisses me off. It’s too heady. It’s too smart. It’s not gonna go anywhere. It’s academic. It’s dead. It’s irrelevant. It’s not contemporary. It’s uninteresting. It doesn’t have any meaning. It’s too commercial. It’s tacky. It’s a scam. It’s miserable. It’s exploitative. It’s negative. It’s fake. It’s not critical. It’s not aware. It’s too ironic. It’s appalling. It’s derivative. It’s annoying. It’s atrocious. It’s naive. It’s immature. It’s childish. It’s insufferable. It’s lazy. It’s convoluted. It’s contrived. It’s bloated. It’s unnecessary. I don’t trust it. I don’t get it. Whatever.

I have always been interested in the space between painting and animation. The concentration of painting, the liveliness of the moving image. I operate in the area between those two.

Our relationship with the moving image is changing. They surround us, a bit more every day.

I imagine we will live in a world where there is no difference between a screen or any other surface. Any surface can change at will.

It is this feeling, or expectation, that drives me to create moving images.

Over the years my work became more abstract. I have no idea why. I have no idea because I have no idea what I’m doing in general. The heart wants what it wants.

An abstract work is a thing, not a picture of a thing. I like both things and pictures of things. Lately I have been making more things than pictures. But it might change in the future. Who knows?

A change of direction is a change of emphasis. There are no absolute directions. There’s always some figuration and there’s always some abstraction.

I follow my interests. I do whatever is most interesting to me at that moment. I don’t have a plan. I’m wandering. I am not in control of my interests. Just think about it… what interests you? Why are you interested in something? Why not something else? I can’t decide where my mind wanders. It would not be wandering if I decided where to go. Wandering is wonderful. You’re just moving around. Not moving to get anywhere, just moving to be in motion.

I like it when I’m somewhere and I’m not thinking too much. Just observing, not making any decisions. Kind of bored and staring at something, looking around, until something presents itself. These moments are the starting points of my work. Whether the work is abstract or figurative, they come from the same “state-of-mind”.

I’m interested in the space between Almost Nothing and Hardly Anything. Something non verbal, sub conscious, non intelligent, not-thinking-too-much. The ideas have no intention other than wanting to exist. Something that exists just because it wants to exist.

The following conversation was re-published from the book Spheres by Swiss graphic designer Philippe Karrer. Jürg Lehni and I discuss our shared interest in vector graphics, which are based on mathematically-defined geometrical entities such as lines, circles, and points, in contrast with more commonly used bitmap graphics, in which values are assigned to grids of pixels.

Rafaël Rozendaal: Vectors are based on mathematical equations. The equations are perfect. No matter how we try, we can never render a perfect circle in any medium. And even if we did, our imperfect eyes would not be able to register its perfection. Do we have to accept that such shapes can only exist in our mind?

Jürg Lehni: What a start of a conversation! This distinction between the abstract mathematical formulation of geometric shapes, and their realization into concrete, physical forms is pretty much at the core of my fascination (or shall I say obsession?) with vector graphics. The shift is always there, whether it is illuminated pixels being turned on or off, a mark-making tool being moved by motors, or a laser beam being guided by electronically-moved mirrors, burning a line permanently into a physical surface. What it boils down to is the difference between the abstract idea behind something on one hand, and its concrete form when it becomes reality. Plato’s theory of forms comes to mind, with its ideal or archetypal forms that stand behind and define the concrete, physical things.

Last night I watched this while high, and fuck this guy. Creating
shitty flash animations with abstract colors, and doing the the whole
“It’s an empty room.” artwork bullshit. Again, fuck this guy.

please stop and go get a job. you are annoying.

fuck this asshole

This guy can hardly explain his own ideas.

He’s honest.

Lazy art…

i want to do that

what a load of fucking shite

what the fuck. how does he make a living off that??

What a joke. My buddys toddler has more artistic talent. I sincerely
hope people dont support this pathetic excuse for an “artist”.

shitty haircut

solipsism

what a waste of both resources and time

I just took a shit. Is that art?

It is sad that this is considered “art”.

Completely useless

What a fucking idiot

this guy is cool. i like his stuff.

artsy fartsy unemployed-ey

These arty types all talk in riddles.

This guy has smoked himself retarded

Wtf

stunning

If this is your life…then YOUR LIFE IS SHIT!!!!

This comment is art.

its beautiful

I walk into public farting in peoples faces. It’s art!

cool story bro, tell it again

i think this is really cool.

If I was high I might enjoy his work, but unfortunately I am sober and
can say with a clear mind that this is complete bull shit

suck a bag of dicks
2deep4you…. but no seriously i agree.

so this faggot gets paid to make fart noise? FUCK THE WORLD

video tittle should be “how to make money by selling internet trolling”

This is so edgy.

Do you even art, bro?

Yes, in fact, I just arted in the bathroom 5 minutes ago.

Composition: the arrangement of elements in time and space.

The browser is very different from other media, especially when it comes to composition. I believe we are at the very beginning of the aesthetic potential of the networked image.

This is an (incomplete) list of compositional characteristics of the browser.

The internet presents artists with challenges, opportunities, and best of all, a lack of history.

The size of a browser can change at any moment. There is no fixed dimension or ratio. Think of an image, that can shrink or expand at any time. Ideally the artwork anticipates every possible dimension. Colors are rendered differently depending on hardware, software and usage. Websites are ubique yet inconsistent in appearance.

There are many kinds of devices. Some have big pixels, some have small pixels. A 1 pixel line on a smartphone is different from a 1 pixel line on an old CRT monitor. The physical experience of each device is unique.

The user is present in the pictorial space. There might be a cursor or finger that can influence the composition. Interaction is not unique to the browser but it is something that is natural to internet users.

Many people at the same time can influence an image. There is a potential for social images that change over time by allowing users to modify an image, like a wikipedia article.

Computers are good at generating random numbers. I’m not sure if those numbers are truly random, but it’s good enough. Each time the artwork is viewed, it can be slightly or dramatically different.

The networked image can keep pulling information from the web. The elements of composition can change all the time, because the web’s content changes all the time.

In the early days of the internet, bandwidth was very limited. This digital frugality created a new visual language.

Browsers do not have the same rendering power as native applications. This is a limitation and an opportunity at the same time. Challenges like these force artists to come up with new solutions.

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?