No Pattern

A random by a computer is only a pseudo-random. The need for pseudo-random is to generate no cognizable pattern.

Already the artists who published artworks under the name of "Der Blaue Reiter" - even before the time of Fordism (before the First World War) - began to reproduce in their artworks not truthfully the usual aesthetics of objects. After Fordism evolved into Neoliberalism (1970s), the art style "Neogeo" (1980s) emerged, trying to reproduce forms in such a way that they were not associated with anything. In "Neogeo" geometric shapes are presented that have no recognizable external context. "Der Blaue Reiter" and "Neogeo" were critiques of existing circumstances. The Neogeo was/is a critique of industrialism and the consumerism of modern society. But it is neo, thus a recycling.

The "Blaue Reiter" was a consequence on Expressionism, and Expressionism a consequence on Impressionism, as well as Impressionism a consequence on Realism. The "Blaue Reiter" was followed by Surrealism, in which recognizable patterns were depicted more and more unrecognizably. This stimulated the imagination of the viewer. This style of art was opposed to the Avantgarde. In the Avantgarde, a perfection of aesthetics was sought. In the countercurrent, the refraction of aesthetics. However, surrealism also used an aesthetic and an external (internal) context. This context existed to dreams, to absurdity and to fantasy. A refraction to the real was carried out, but contexts were still used. The Surrealism was followed by Dadaism. Also the Dadaism (1916) was/is not free from contexts, even if these were represented as unrecognizable as possible. Dadaism strives to break an aesthetic, but in the end achieves its own aesthetic.

At the same time, between the First and Second World Wars, the art style Pop was born. This is firmly connected with the creation of Fordism. However, the birth of Pop is dated only after the Second World War. Pop strives for perfect simplicity in aesthetics. For the purpose of simplicity, complexity is to be abolished. The term "Pop" is derived from Latin "populus" (people, plebs). Pop pursues intentions in real life. Both business and politics strive to reach a big mass. The big mass is not at the edge of society, but in its middle. With pop it is possible to inspire this middle of society. The signs are mostly enthusiasm. Complexity is counterproductive. Marketing works best with simplicity. On the political (NSDAP) and economic (Fordism) side, this shows that pop existed before World War Two, except in art.

Moreover, there were art styles that did not depict directly recognizable patterns, but rather, for example, the composition of colors or tones. Here, too, simplicity was carried out by designing paintings whose canvas was painted with only one color.

From the 1970s followed a period of recycling old art styles (Neo-). Pop remained. The 1970s was also the period in which Fordism was transformed into Neoliberalism. Moreover, in the 1970s philosophy became an institutional science and thus lapsed.

The underground came on the scene as a new level. This is the source of new inspiration in marketing. Because in neoliberalism everything is exploited. However, this is only what is called "underground" by marketing. The actual underground, on the other hand, is and remains insignificant. Something successfully underground is not underground, but marketing label "underground".

The 1970s years.
Some relevant events are dated to the 1970s years.
- Fordism is transformed into neoliberalism and capitalism becomes seemingly invincible.
- Philosophy is institutionalized and is thus eliminated.
- Science is infested with aesthetics and is at its end.
- Ethics for technological civilization is ignored and refused.
- The styles of art have reached the end of the ladder and henceforth the new art styles are only neo-art styles.

The differentiation between art and artcraftwork leads indirectly to another topic. There is the saying: art comes from able. However, it is not the word "art" (natural versus cultural / artificial) that is relevant, but the word "work". So the correct differentiation is artwork and artcraftwork. "work" is the process of an activity - here a mental one. "craftwork" is the process of a physical activity. Artwork and artcraftwork are each not an object, but an activity. Therefore, when we speak of a "artwork", we are not referring to an object, but to the artistic mental activity. With artcraftwork it is the artistic physical activity. Not infrequently the two overlap. So when a sculpture is considered, the relevant thing about it is not the object, but the (physical/mental) work. It is not the being of a thing that is relevant, but the idea and the making.

In relation to a artwork that is generated by a computer by using a software function, the question arises as to what the proportion of mental and physical activity should be. The part of physical activity is very wide, since it concerns digital artwork. There would be the production of a computer with display and also the electricity. Also, creating a large number of software, as well as the concerned function and website, needs physical activity. There are a lot of people involved. However, these are only the tools (work stuff) with which the work of art is created, such as a brush, paint and canvas, or hammer, chisel and stone. The part of the mental activity is that of the idea. This concerns two parts. One part are the people who realize the idea of programming a software function for a randomness that does not produce any recognizable pattern. The other part is the one who has the idea for this website with the Random Pixel Image Generator. So the relevant of a generated artwork is the idea behind it. However, this loses its relevance by the fact that the implementation is a tool (work stuff), similar to a photographic camera (or a video camera). Each generated image is a momentary snapshot of the digital activity and therefore unique. The greater the number of pixels and colors, the greater the probability of uniqueness. Digital activity is the equivalent of physical activity. The actual physical activity of the artist consists only of pressing a button. The mental activity of the artist of a random pixel image consists on the one hand of the adoption of the idea to realize this generator and on the other hand to acknowledge the created image as a artwork. However, beware, not everyone will recognize your artwork as such.

In art acrobatics, it becomes clear that the artwork is not an object, but a motion. Unfortunately, here too, most people see the body of the performers as artwork. The motion is the artwork. However, this usually consists of patterns.

The only one art, wich match that artwork is only "idea", are »readymades« (1917) by Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968). But the most people until today don't know the art of »readymades«. Not the object is the artwork. The subject is the artwork. The idea is the artwork. The object going lost. The idea not. This has nothing to do with nihilism. By »readymades« is not the object or the result the artwork, but the idea. This artwork is not tangible, this artwork is only recognizable. In artcraftwork, it is known what and how to design and what the result should look like. In artcraftwork an ideal is striven for. When designing an artwork, the result is irrelevant and whether it is ideal. Only the idea is relevant. The idea is the artwork and nothing more. Everything else is just a representation of the idea.

A »No Pattern« artwork is only such one before the fantasy sets in. The challenge is to delay the onset of fantasy and thereby the recognition of patterns.

We live in a time when artworks are already created by artificial intelligence. Even the word "artificial" is derived from art. Some still deny that art is artificial. These are people who want to keep "art" inexplicable by digressing into mystification. The distinction between natural and artificial is arbitrary and can be made by any individual. A non-arbitrary difference is in the appreciation of a artwork object. This method is used to differentiate between stuff (object of utility, object of value) and art (mental/physical work). Already in the times of the Surrealism and the Dadaism the status "art" was doubted in artwork objects. Is a artwork still art when it is appreciated, or if it serves as an object of value, or an object of investment, or is it then already stuff? As an object of investment it is stuff. Also as a decorative object, it's stuff, too. Artcraftwork create objects of artworks, but they are artful utilitarian objects, including decoration. A artwork is not an object, but a work of art. Acrobats are artists and not artworks.

The ownership of a work of art does not consist in possessing something valuable, but in the responsibility over it.

Artificial intelligence is being used to try to create artwork that represents recognizable patterns so that it can have value - not rarely not in the sense of appreciation of the work of art, but to generate money or for a investment.

On this webpage no art is produced by means of artificial intelligence, but artificially art is generated with an artificial tool. Artificial intelligence are also (until now) only an artificial tool. Both tools based on an idea but are not the idea self.

The art – generated on this webpage – continues the course of »readymades«. On this webpage, anyone can generate art with no recognizable patterns. This art is unsuitable as stuff and unsuitable as investment. It is art that has no success. No success is a garant for art nowadays. This art is a critique. Maybe a beautiful.

This critique is one thing. The other is the statement. Even if there is no recognisable pattern is to recognise, there is the possibility of the clustering illusion and motion illusion, as well as optical illusion. This gives rise to the idea that all recognizable patterns and therefore all objects and there motions are only illusion. This is firmly related to identification. Especially on the Internet, but also in real life, identification should be avoided. This is opposed by identity. The popular idea among people is: Everybody should take one or more identities to strengthen his consciousness, his self-confidence, his self-optimization, his being. Especially in the queer scene a sexual identity is the ultimate perfection. Regarding this, the absolute ultimate is the identity as queer including asexual. The identity asexual has very strict rules. The rule is: An identity may be assigned only by oneself and not by strangers, as well as an identification by strangers is at the same time an assault. Then comes the situation of a group dynamic in which people who mutually recognize each other's asexual identity do not recognize that of someone else. Either ... or. Either you are queer or you are straight and/or Cis. Friend or fiend. This is an aesthetic that has already become an ideology (Asexualism, Asexism). An ideology arises when an idea becomes an ideal and this is to be realized absolutely and totalitarian. You have to choose. I must not.

The art, which are generated on this webpage, criticizes both and says: No identification. No identity.

The slogan is: I am not.

A statement to criticize the producing and consuming of artworks, the marketing of artworks and artworks as an investment as well as to criticize the society and the existing circumstances.

»No Pattern«

Relevant is the basis of an art. The base of hitherto art is always pattern. »No Pattern« is a new kind of art. The base of No Pattern art is no pattern. The counterpart of pattern is matter.
No pattern is matter.
Patterns are possible and not forbidden. Relevant is the base.
— No Pattern —