“at the same time that arguments for generating a homeostatic synthesis between art and science were made, another movement was generating a unique mixture of patterns, intuition, technology, symmetry, and pop culture: op art.” [1]

31/05/2012 § 2 Comments

bridget riley, white disks (1964)

….  for others, both its power and its danger lie in the sometimes pleasurable, sometimes unnerving effects that it generated.  either way, it was quickly and successfully dismissed by the art establishment as a superficial, misplaced, and dangerous gimmick.  by ignoring the categorical disparity between two areas of knowledge, reason and sensation, it allegedly denied art’s ability to act as a foil, if not an antidote to the rampant technological utopianism of the time. further, the work’s quick appropriation by the culture industry – op’s eye-bending graphics appeared on fifth avenue dresses and head shop posters in greenwich village – served to reinforce the criticism that they were both superficial and scientifically suspect.  [2]

 

complex not complicated

a young hare

 

 

notes:

[1]     Andersen, Paul, and David L. Salomon. The Architecture of Patterns. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2010. 81. Print.

[2]     ibid

[image]     for more of bridget riley’s work click here.

§ 2 Responses to “at the same time that arguments for generating a homeostatic synthesis between art and science were made, another movement was generating a unique mixture of patterns, intuition, technology, symmetry, and pop culture: op art.” [1]

Leave a comment

«

»

What’s this?

You are currently reading “at the same time that arguments for generating a homeostatic synthesis between art and science were made, another movement was generating a unique mixture of patterns, intuition, technology, symmetry, and pop culture: op art.” [1] at a young hare.

meta