Thoughts on the Functional Painting Scanner
      The Functional Painting Scanner is my ‘solution’ to the theoretical problem of how to make a painting functional. The immediate issue to consider is how to define functionality. My thought is to define functionality in terms independent of human interpretation by storing data as paint marks and making a machine to read the paint marks. In this way I can demonstrate a consistent interpretation in the realm of physics if only relative to my machine. Simply putting light and dark marks on canvas and claiming that the marks are ‘data’ without a machine to read the marks seems insufficient because such an approach is merely a representation of data to be interpreted by a human mind. The caveat to my solution being that, ultimately, a human is required to determine if the machine is functioning properly. Another complication is that the interpretation of the paintings’ functionality changes depending on what frame of reference is chosen for defining functionality. I want to make the definition of functionality (with regard to painting) as precise or absolute as possible. To explore this idea further, I implemented a proprietary three state digital code rather than use the ubiquitous binary code in which data is stored in an ‘all or nothing’ manner using ones and zeros. By doing this, I further narrow the scope of functionality of the paintings because they are now even more specific to my machine in terms of their functionality. My scanner is the only machine that can interpret them. The use of a three state code also serves metaphorically to break down the concept of the absolute by alluding to the space in between the absolute extremes. Also, the implementation of a digital data structure (in which data is separated into discreet steps) refers back to the idea of a precise, discreet definition of functional painting. A specific set of machine rules governs the interpretation of the paintings. If the paintings do not obey these rules they can be considered ‘nonfunctional’.

     I see this series of paintings and scanners as an exploration of the human processes of definition and interpretation. My thesis, “THISISAFUNCTIONALPAINTING.” turns out to be a question because defining functionality in absolute terms appears to be an impossible task when considering the variable nature of human interpretation. The use of digital logic machines as interpreters serves as a contrast to human behavior and yet, taken as a whole, the paintings and scanners are ultimately subject to human interpretation presented as they are in the context of art.

Issues:

The Definition of Functionality and Definitions in General

     Are definitions digital i.e. are they discrete operations? (e.g. a chair as discrete from a table and yet they can have overlapping functions)

Scope of Functionality/Relativity of Definitions

     My paintings and scanner have narrow functional scope. The paintings are only functional relative to the scanner I have built (However, the technology could theoretically be expanded to serve the same function as a CD or hard drive.) Are all definitions relative in this way?

Absolute Meaning versus Relative Meaning/ Binary versus Analogue

     Binary digital logic versus multi-state digital logic. Can the following questions be answered with ‘yes’ or ‘no’? Are the paintings functional? Are the paintings art? Is the Functional Painting Scanner art?

Machine Rule Systems Compared to Human Thought/Rule Systems

     The way in which I designed the machines i.e. the rule system I set up, determines the formal bounds of the paintings. If the paint marks go outside this machine rule system the painting ceases to ‘function’ and could be considered to be in error. Similarly, humans who think or act outside of the generally accepted thought/belief/rule systems in which they interact are often considered in error or heretical. Is painting ‘behavior’ analogous to human behavior relative to the rule system under which each operates?

Art as Technology versus Art about Technology

     The scanner and paintings are a data storage technology.

Human Versus Machine

     The scanner strictly translates the paintings whereas human translation could result in potentially unlimited interpretations. The scanner was designed to allow for a certain amount of human imperfection in the painting, yet still read them ‘correctly’.

Code Translation

     Does translating from one very obscure code to another, more widely known code (the English language) have any bearing on functionality?