Embedded Files
Reading Response
Reading Response
> Andreas Broekmann’s introductory chapter, The Phantom of Machine Art, to his book Machine Art in the Twentieth Century (2017)
> Second chapter: Toward the Art and Aesthetics of the Machine
> Jack Burnham’s chapter on kinetic art, Kineticism: The Unrequited Art, from Beyond Modern Sculpture (1969)
"For me, the machine is above all an instrument that permits me to be poetic. If you respect the machine, if you enter into a game with the machine, then perhaps you can make a truly joyous machine-by joyous, I mean free" (quoted in Tomkins, 1965, p. 146)
- How the terms “machine art” and “kinetic art” are historically used?
In the introductory chapter, "The Phantom of Machine Art", Andreas Broeckmann lists a wide array of artists, movements, and schools to show how elusive and multifaceted the term “machine art” has been throughout the 20th century. Actually I didn't figure out a clear historical timeline but I could see that machine art has always been a shifting, contested idea, not a stable category.
In the early 20th century, the terms "machine art" and "kinetic art" were often defined in ways that focused primarily on visual aesthetics and object-based representations of machines and motion:
“Machine art” was used to describe works that featured machines as symbols of modernity, progress, or efficiency, often emphasizing their form and design. For example, the MoMA 1934 Machine Art exhibition showcased objects like springs, propellers, and scientific instruments, highlighting their aesthetic qualities. Machines were appreciated for their clean lines and functional beauty, but the focus was primarily on their visual presence, without much attention to their operational or interactive aspects.
"Kinetic art" referred to art that incorporated motion—either through mechanical movement or optical effects. Artists working in this field used motors or moving parts to create dynamic visual experiences. The term encompassed works that involved literal motion, like Tinguely’s kinetic sculptures, as well as those that played with the perception of motion, like in Op Art. Kinetic art was largely concerned with how movement could be used to create visual impact or optical illusions.
Notes on different schools of thought:
- How their usage has changed over time?
Machine as SUBJECT to Machine as METHOD/LOGIC:
Over time, the usage has shifted towards understanding the machine as method or logic, focusing on processes, interactions, and feedback mechanisms. This transition reflects broader changes in art, where operation and systemic behavior have become integral to artistic expression, moving beyond simple visual representation to engage with the dynamic, interactive nature of machines as active participants in art.
"(Cybernetic Serendipity ...) This was the aesthetic of cybernetic and other systems, and of what the philosopher of cybernetics Gotthard Günther had termed the trans-classical machine with its autonomous, self-controlling processes."
The machines are seen as capable of interacting with their environment, changing over time, and creating dialogues with the audience or the space they inhabit. The operation of the machine becomes central to the artistic experience.
"Tinguely’s works epitomize the kinetic aspect of a machine aesthetic. His penchant for obsolete materials, for the stage at which formerly functional parts are regarded as scrap metal and as trash, counterposes his work with the clear forms and shining surfaces that Johnson and Barr’s austere material formalism had highlighted as “machine art” in 1934."
Tinguely’s works bring attention to the discarded, the imperfect, and the non-functional aspects of machines, subverting the earlier idealized image of the machine as a perfect, shiny object. Instead, he embraces the messy, ironic, and playful nature of machines, presenting them as expressive and dynamic, not just as formal objects.
Artist Research
Artist Research
"Five key aspects of machine aesthetics:associative,symbolic, formalist, kinetic, automatic." -- Broekmann
Naum Gabo
Naum Gabo
Naum Gabo, Kinetic Construction (Standing Wave), 1919-1920
Kinetic Construction (Standing Wave)
Created between 1919 and 1920, it's recognized as one of the earliest examples of kinetic sculpture. This piece features a steel rod affixed to a wooden base; when activated by an electric motor, the rod oscillates rapidly, producing the visual illusion of a three-dimensional, standing wave. Gabo designed this work to demonstrate the integration of movement into sculpture, emphasizing the importance of time and space as active components in art.
Associative: The oscillating wave can evoke scientific or industrial imagery—like electromagnetic waves or experimental physics. Gabo himself was interested in integrating art with modern scientific thought.
Symbolic: The standing wave symbolizes a new approach to sculpture—one that includes time and motion as central materials. It also stands as a symbol of the Constructivist vision: rational, dynamic, forward-looking.
Formalist: The visual form is aesthetically minimal, precise, and governed by geometry and repetition, aligning with a formalist appreciation of proportion and pattern.
Kinetic: The sculpture obviously moves, and movement is essential to its form.
Automatic: The motor creates self-sustained motion, independent of human manipulation after activation.
Linear Construction in Space No. 1
A transparent structure with taut, curved nylon threads arranged in mathematically precise patterns inside a geometric Perspex frame.
Though static, the intricate arrangements of threads create optical illusions of movement, especially as the viewer shifts position.
Gabo didn’t create a machine, but a sculpture that thinks like one — through formal logic, calculated tension, and systemic clarity. It’s an artwork where the idea of the machine is more important than the machine itself.
Naum Gabo, Linear Construction in Space No. 1, 1958
Yves Klein
Yves Klein
Yves Klein, Mur de Feu double face, 1961
Mur de Feu double face
It’s a sculptural installation made of gas-fed Bunsen burners installed in two parallel lines. When ignited, it produces two walls of flame facing opposite directions — essentially a literal wall made of fire, with the viewer or performer able to walk between them.
"Can the world ever accommodate such spirits of the 'possible'? The 'immaterial sensitivity' that Klein spoke of was not fully realized in his art and is not yet any artist's personal conquest as something captured in the tyranny of the objet d'art. " -- Burnham
What stands out to me in this piece is that the structure itself is spare, geometric, ordered — very modernist in appearance, while the flame is wild, violent, unpredictable — creating a tension between control and chaos. That contradiction is central: it’s a conceptual machine of transformation, where the visual minimalism contains explosive energy.
Also, The piece engages multiple senses: heat, light, sound of burning gas, even the smell. It’s environmental and embodied. The viewer’s physical response (caution, awe, fear) becomes part of the experience. This is also quite astonishingly achieved.
Peinture de feu sans titre
It’s a burnt image on fire-resistant material, made using actual fire as a drawing tool. Klein used flamethrowers or gas burners to scorch the surface, creating traces, gradients, and shadow-like patterns. Sometimes it was combined with female body imprints (from his Anthropometries) or with natural elements like water, creating a contrast between fire and other forces.
Though not a machine art, it still speaks to the five aspects: Fire is inherently kinetic. The flame operates semi-independently, creating patterns not fully controlled by the artist. Fire as a transformative, destructive, and spiritual force is central to Klein’s metaphysics.
Peinture de feu sans titre (F82), 1961
Page updated
Report abuse