Call it what you will: op art, optical art, illusion, etc.. We do not like it. Do not sympathize with this idea of artists challenge our gaze. The thing is boring, redundant, empty of content and game established between work and viewer ceases to be funny after three minutes. Not to mention the hoax that is looking for a seeming reality - and that's not such a union of art with life, yada yada yada? No, not that. Not the same thing. Here we are talking about equations mathematical, optical effects and other "mysterious". Uuuuh ... Everything to deceive the viewer. Spend time decoding what is background and purpose? But what for, anyway? Our skepticism regarding the op-art cools, however, when we look at one or a Vasarely Bridget Riley, but ... and the rest? A waste of time, a complete emptiness, an incurable cancer. In short, everything leads us to question our view, the image that is decoded by the brain and the way they process this information, we do not care. At least when presented that way. Marcel Duchamp was right in 1966, when it foretold a great future to op art.
And it was everything we feel when we visited the exhibition "Revolution Kinetic" at Museu do Chiado, which ended in the past 16 days. The exhibition, which also had some Portuguese artists as Nadir Afonso, Eduardo Nery or René Bertholo, merely presenting a series of historical names of the movement. Got away to the rotoreleifs Duchamp's obviously stuck there do not really know how or why. And also do not see why, after all, did not rescue recent examples, and equally valid, the movement. So suddenly, we remember a Ross Bleckner or a Philip TAAF, for example. Finally, a loss time. And voila, they can close shop already distill our hate.
Bridget Riley