Okay - I think this guy is really difficult potentially, because his work is very 'closed' and difficult to move beyond. For me, the secret to making an interesting response to Vasarley is go back to his own principles and creative development and pick out some design principles to allow you to create work from within Vasarely's ideas, without just finding yourself repeating work he's already made. I think you need to stop looking at his work as inspiration for more thumbnails, and look instead at the characteristics that organise his work.
I took a quick look at this site:
http://www.op-art.co.uk/victor-vasarely/
and picked out a few basic principles - firstly in regards to shapes:
"The basic concepts of the teaching were that all the arts and crafts and architecture should achieve a unity of purpose based on the cube, the rectangle and the circle" and "Vasarely’s fascination with the hexagon."
So, we know that Vasarely had a fascination for these basic shapes. So, I next looked at the use of these shapes in architecture:
I then looked at Vasarely's work - looked at the cell-structure type constructions of his surfaces and did another architectural search: hive architecture or cell architecture:
Elsewhere in the link, there's a fact about his use of ceramic tiles to create a mural on a wall, which made me think about real world architectural surfaces:
My point is by 'not' looking only at his paintings, I was able to determine the necessary characteristics, but also move my ideas towards structures and surfaces and 'real word' examples. You need to ask yourself 'what would buildings designed by Varsarely look like and why?' and not 'How can I make buildings etc out of Varsarely's painings'.
In terms of pushing this project along, I think you need to look at more reference that is 'not' Varsarely, but which associate with or shares his design principles. For me it seems there is an obvious link between art and science, so when it comes to thinking about the specific buildings you might be thinking about designing for your digital set, maybe think about the building's functions and how they might transmit your artist's passions - so think about special buildings that associate with art or science or indeed both.
OGR 06/11/2016
ReplyDeleteHi Karolina,
Okay - I think this guy is really difficult potentially, because his work is very 'closed' and difficult to move beyond. For me, the secret to making an interesting response to Vasarley is go back to his own principles and creative development and pick out some design principles to allow you to create work from within Vasarely's ideas, without just finding yourself repeating work he's already made. I think you need to stop looking at his work as inspiration for more thumbnails, and look instead at the characteristics that organise his work.
I took a quick look at this site:
http://www.op-art.co.uk/victor-vasarely/
and picked out a few basic principles - firstly in regards to shapes:
"The basic concepts of the teaching were that all the arts and crafts and architecture should achieve a unity of purpose based on the cube, the rectangle and the circle" and "Vasarely’s fascination with the hexagon."
So, we know that Vasarely had a fascination for these basic shapes. So, I next looked at the use of these shapes in architecture:
https://probaway.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/buckminster-fuller_geodesic-dome1.jpg
http://www.uncubemagazine.com/sixcms/media.php/1323/ALVERNIA%20STUDIOS%201_hi_res.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/8c/5d/fc/8c5dfc25e0b9de3b728fb386f32299ec.jpg
I then looked at Vasarely's work - looked at the cell-structure type constructions of his surfaces and did another architectural search: hive architecture or cell architecture:
http://www.kadvacorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/drama-lighting-night-Urban-Hive-Seoul-Korea.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6f/ce/81/6fce812b66bbe26928b84c511adf6bf1.jpg
Elsewhere in the link, there's a fact about his use of ceramic tiles to create a mural on a wall, which made me think about real world architectural surfaces:
http://www.e-architect.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/tile-of-spain-hosts-a-free-seminar-q240915-3-520x343.jpg
https://image.architonic.com/imgTre/09_13/CEIP-Cornella_7-bearbeitet.jpg
http://www.ceramicsolutions.com.au/sites/default/files/ceramic_tile_facade.jpg
My point is by 'not' looking only at his paintings, I was able to determine the necessary characteristics, but also move my ideas towards structures and surfaces and 'real word' examples. You need to ask yourself 'what would buildings designed by Varsarely look like and why?' and not 'How can I make buildings etc out of Varsarely's painings'.
In terms of pushing this project along, I think you need to look at more reference that is 'not' Varsarely, but which associate with or shares his design principles. For me it seems there is an obvious link between art and science, so when it comes to thinking about the specific buildings you might be thinking about designing for your digital set, maybe think about the building's functions and how they might transmit your artist's passions - so think about special buildings that associate with art or science or indeed both.