Tristan Perich: Machine Wall Drawing (Katonah Museum, 2011)
Contributors
- William Anastasi
- Carl Andre
- Stephen Antonakos
- Frank Badur
- Jill Baroff
- Robert Barry
- Suzanne Bocanegra
- Mel Bochner
- Dove Bradshaw
- Trisha Brown
- John Cage
- Anne Chu
- Bruce Conner
- William Corbett
- Russell Crotty
- Annabel Daou
- Elena del Rivero
- Mark di Suvero
- Nicole Phungrasamee Fein
- Dan Flavin
- Carter Foster
- John Fraser
- Teo González
- Eva Hesse
- Christine Hiebert
- Jene Highstein
- Kristin Holder
- Roni Horn
- Jasper Johns
- Donald Judd
- Ellsworth Kelly
- Jay Kelly
- Win Knowlton
- Barry Le Va
- Sol LeWitt
- Tod Lippy
- Alexis Evelyn Lowry
- Linda Lynch
- Robert Mangold
- Brice Marden
- Stefana McClure
- Mary McDonnell
- Kathleen McEvily
- Tad Mike
- Deborah Gottheil Nehmad
- Andrea J. Nitsche
- Jill O’Bryan
- Gloria Ortiz-Hernández
- Tristan Perich
- Sylvia Plimack Mangold
- Erwin Redl
- Edda Renouf
- Christina Rosenberger
- Robert Ryman
- Karen Schiff
- Richard Serra
- Joel Shapiro
- Mark Sheinkman
- Holly Shen
- Robert Smithson
- Sara Sosnowy
- Allyson Strafella
- Michael Straus
- Hadi Tabatabai
- Lynne Woods Turner
- Richard Tuttle
- Esteban Vicente
- Ursula von Rydingsvard
- Joan Waltemath
- Lawrence Weiner
- Anne Wheeler
- Mark Williams
- Christopher Wilmarth
- Terry Winters
- Joan Witek
- Sarah Zabrodski
- Joseph Zito
Hi Vince: yes, the drawing is not unpredictable in an absolute sense, since it is running deterministic code on a self-contained microprocessor. The randomness employed is pseudo-random, and again is predictable. These limitations of closed computational environments intrigue me, and so the drawings are an intersection between that pristine system and the messy real world around us, where pens dry out and the texture of the wall influences their motion. I don’t add interactivity to the system to keep it within those limitations, which allow me to focus on the consequences of computation in the abstract. Of course, randomly moving a human’s hand is also limited by the patterned activity of our brains. Of course, though the motion of the motors controlling the pen is perhaps predictable, no practical formula would describe the finished drawing. It could be run in simulation, but that implies a certain degree of implicit unpredictability, since the only way to foresee the outcome is to run the algorithm. Lastly, the physical aspects, like the pen running out of ink or the angle it was clipped or the speed of the motors, contribute greatly to the subtle qualities of the line and ultimately the entire drawing, which of course cannot be captured by the webcam feed here. Thank you for your question.
It seems that the finished product can’t be unforeseen because the microchip has been programmed to have the pen follow a specific pattern. I’d like to better understand how the finished product won’t be something that has been precisely defined.