The conceptual framework of Nature of Multiplicity (N.o.M) is an offshoot of the body of works named “Peripheral Vision Art” (P.V.A) which I elaborated for a thematic exhibition in sept. of 1994. They share a formal link on account of the size of each element (1 1/8" x 15/16”) but the role for these elements differ dramatically because in N.o.M the main concept is not the individual element but that of the pluralism of the elements which form a single mutable and multi-contextual object.

Where the works for the first exhibition were conceived as static art pieces based on a zany art philosophy, the conceptual requirements for N.o.M offer the genuine goal of transmuting the act of creation into that of interpretation through interactivity. The projects inception focuses on the paradoxical meanings that are formed (or that are inherited) between space and the elements that inhabit it. Each created element represent a medium of expression for: form, aesthetic, communication, access, participation and even stake holding.

Each singular element holds inner content and meaning when it is the focal point of observation and it is all the more evident when the element is set singularly and alone in exposition. Conceptually the element and ground are referential but separate, the element the background. But once a second element is placed in exposition “next” to an additional work or content the reference is divided and the context is expanded and so is the context for each element. Both elements form a relationship between each other while each have an inner space; but the outer space becomes more evident as well and so the background begins to split and so does context change depending on each elements position. When even more elements (content) are added more relations and more divisions of space are formed and context becomes more complex and eventually expands into a chaotic mass. This mass should remain comprehensible or readable and is The Nature of Multiplicity.

Imagine there are thousand elements to track and the elements field escape the viewers field of vision it is hoped that the later will be submerged in a visual chaos closely relating to static which hopefully and hopefully will encourage the viewer to interact with the element and reshape it.

It is hoped that N.o.M. will encourage this quest for playfulness, creativity and search for meaning and in of itself, the recorded interaction, yield an even changing stream of creation form its collaborators, first as interpreters keeping the work fluid within an expanding platform but that in turn encourage further creative impulse to manifestations to further the contemplation and manipulation of the whole. 

The concept of the Nature of Multiplicity also then accidentally explores many other perceptual concepts such as the paradoxical relationships inherited between the microcosmic and macrocosmic nature of the world. It is hoped that the expanding polyptych will demonstrate this and a multitude of aesthetic and contextual values that can and will express itself withinin a classical, modern and contemporary art form while the work continues to grows.

As the work is created by a single individual (myself) this interpretation will also be subverted into further interpretation of the multitude as each element removed from the whole compels its audience to participate back to replace the loss of multiplicity.  It is hoped that in the participation there will be inception of thought but also production of new elements that form the whole of N.o.M. with of course some coaxing elements. The blank canvases of N.o.M. 

The future iterations of the inception for N.o.M. will be to ensure and epic critical mass of contributions to the work in order to create a truer expression of meaning into the work and in some sense create a communal work that exchanges with its world. The life of the work will be determined by the response and participation to the works inherent message in the long term, which is that N.o.M. is a participative creative work of art meant to live of its successive loss of cohesion and regeneration of through the exchange of its own elemental body. Making N.o.M. a living work of art.

The collected works of Düd Reintjes was brought about through a collaborative and corroborative group exercise examining and assimilating contemporary art fundamentals and reappraising them anew through art works of displaying appreciative scepticism. In other words Reintjes was an instrument for me and my fellow contemporaries Erich Entner, Allan Sutt, Sean Lang, Hri Neil, Allie (-----), Malinda (-----) and others* to express our dissatisfaction with, our reaction to, and in some cases a rejection of some of the co-opted reasonings that were put in place and to justify contemporary art and art culture.

In the beginning of the 90s I was one of many studying fine arts who found the messages and the form of contemporary art to be out of touch with reality. It was analogous to learning a completely alien language. A language promoting hermetic intellectual values leaving one feeling patronising rather than enriched. It seemed for a time that in the enthusiasm to promote contemporary art values educators and the surrounding art milieu appeared distant and disconnected forcing us to question what art was rather than simply learning the techniques in producing it.

Art suddenly could no longer be viewed as an object to behold and to be appraised for itself but rather it required explanation, cross-reference, reinterpretations and sometimes a completely new vocabulary. In other cases art seemed almost like a vestige of some poorly expressed idea, misshapen and dropped before you like it had fallen off a truck.  A chunk of information isolated from context. For the most part it seemed to me that art was imploding onto itself and to my distress this is how I came to understand that it was in fact the language and the nature of the contemporary art scene; what made it ‘new’.