[This post gathers some preliminary ideas developed during the RHUL Research Training Programme in Interart/Intermedia methodologies]
Can movement be an effective and important characteristic of a work of art? The use of programmed movements and kinetics in art started to be crucial in Italy from the second half of the 1950s when artists felt the need to embody  the radical, technological, and multi-stimuli changes of the Italian environment of these years in their artworks. This kind of experimentations led to the birth of the Kinetic and Programmed Art movement that lasted from the end of the 1950s to the end of the 1960s. A programmed artwork can be generally described as a three-dimensional object, usually made in plastic, glass or metal. It is characterized by cyclical, programmed movements and the use of lights. This tendency, emerged during the Italian ‘Economic Boom’, has the peculiarity to promote collaborative work, reducing the single artist’s creativity to anonymity: artists become, then, modest ‘aesthetic operators’. Furthermore, the movement entrusts a completely new role to the observer: in other words, artists encourage the involvement of a pioneering type of addressee who cannot be considered a simple observer anymore, but a real ‘user’ of the artwork itself. This innovative participant is now allowed to actively interact with the artistic object.
To underscore the role of the observer’s engagement, programmed artworks can be investigated for the media and the modes involved in the artistic process. A programmed artwork can be considered a valid example of intermediality and, more specifically, of intermedial relations: the two media involved here are sculpture and programming activity. While sculpture expresses itself as a medium by the presence of three-dimensional elements that constitute the artwork, it is interesting to wonder how programming can act as a ‘medium’. Starting from its definition as a ‘material resource used in the production of semiotic products’ (C. Thurlow, Multimodality, Materiality and Everyday Textualities, p. 623 in G. Rippl, Handbook of Intermediality, 2015) programming is the means by which the artwork really ‘operates’. It pre-determines artwork movements and sounds as well as it plans the light changes. Generally, it controls the kinetic phases of the artwork, ascribing to it a defined identity.
Can an artwork be analysed by considering its programming schemes as a ‘mode’? A mode is ‘a semiotic resource that produces meaning in a social context’ (G. Ripple, 2015, p. 20): in other words, it is responsible for ‘how’ the artwork expresses itself. The modal analysis outlines in which way the object, thanks to the programming activity, ‘converses’ with the observer: what clearly emerges is that programming really communicates semiotic information to the user. For example, an artwork constituted by a tube in which a circulating coloured liquid is injected by a mechanical pump can be read in two different ways. A medial analysis identifies in the programming activity the reason why the observer can see the object moving, while the modal exploration represents the way by which the observer is engaged. To be more specific, the dynamic flux of the liquid represents the mode by which the artwork creates optical illusions in the observer’s mind.
To conclude, an intermedial approach can be a new tool in the investigation of the social and contextual features of a work of art. On the one hand, a media analysis focuses on the technological influences of the environment in which the artwork is created. On the other hand, the modal investigation can guide researchers to investigate the information transmitted to the observer and his/her possible reactions. Generally, viewing a programmed artwork via its media and modes is crucial to identify its physical characteristics, its mode of operation, and its relationship with the observer.
Photo caption: Giovanni Anceschi, Percorsi fluidi orizzontali (‘Horizontal Fluid Paths’), 1962 wood, plastic tubes, neon lamp, electric motor, coloured liquid, 192.5×63.5×129.5 cm VAF 0650 © MART, Museo di arte moderna e contemporanea di Trento e Rovereto – Archivio fotografico, VAF-Stiftung collection.
Further readings: Handbook of Intermediality, ed. by Gabriele Rippl (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015); Arte cinetica. Arte programmata. Opere moltiplicate. Opera aperta (Milano: A. Lucini, 1962).
