2. Mathematical and computational operations centered on the cybernetic model
Epuré’s decision to “invent” rather than represent things or events left him with nothing to start with other than a blank working space. While it would have been easy to fill this space with all kinds of forms, shapes and colors—in the name of creativity—such processes may have ended in clutter and disorder. Another possibility would be to throw a point somewhere in the workspace of the computer and start fantasizing about it as growing into a family of living, breathing, and, eventually, beautiful entities. But, while in imagination one can be omnipotent, art practices impose the devising of methods for creation. One cannot invent “creative ways” without paying attention to millennia of thinking and experience dedicated to the understanding of creation. Nor can one create on a cosmic scale, but only on a human scale. If one climbs into the lap of nature while she plays her majestic symphonies one can add—here and there—a few inspired notes and obtain, for a few moments, a symphony in the spirit of nature. We have developed order, science, mathematics, arts, contemplation, and spirituality to illuminate a universe that otherwise would have surely remained in dark confusion. These branches of knowledge have often been seen as overlapping, at least partially, in many artistic endeavors.
These are the reasons Epuré looked for a formative principle that will bring coherence to his work. His choice was “art” as the goal and cybernetics as the means, because they are involved in so many dynamic processes. His idea was that this ordering principle would subject working ingredients to a game relationship in algorithmic format, which stands as a metaphor for life or a parallel nature. The game develops based on the input, output, and feedback concepts, with the assumption that this will lead—by nature’s emulation—to fluid and dynamic results. While here might be an opportunity for the art of scripting and subtlety of invention, adequate attributes in the realm of the fine arts may not necessarily result. The latter can stem only from qualities in rendering or the interface. The latter can stem only from the qualities of the rendering or the interface. Therefore, each work will have to end in an interface specifically devised for it, which presupposes the embedding of fine art attributes into all stages of development.
Here mathematics are employed to sustain fine art considerations rather than merely to graphically describe them. In this light, the work may be seen as an echo in the lineage of forebears such as Leonardo, Piero della Francesca, Giordano Bruno, Dürer, Poussin, Braque, Klee, Brancusi, and reflect some 20th century experiments in combining the arts, mathematics, and science.
A spectacular mathematical demonstration or development does not necessarily translate into a brilliant fine art image. Beauty in art and beauty in mathematics are not always the same; while both may fascinate and inspire awe, art captivates the eyes, hearing or tactility (sensual and material qualities), the heart (emotional qualities), the mind (addressing the intelligence) and perhaps the soul (spirit). Mathematics bring the joys of the mind (imagination, intuition, intelligence) and those of the soul (spirit).
In general mathematical functions are relationships involving variables. In Epuré’s algorithm they are handled and accessed from both front and end sides; in the generative process at the front and in the rendered format at the end of the process where parameters may be re-entered in order to invoque a certain look. The imediate result is the controlled migration of the geometry.