We had the opportunity to talk to Aleksandra Jovanic ahead of Unit London Web3’s online exhibition, Building Blocks. Join us in delving deeper into her unique approach to mathematics, geometry and generative code.

As the name suggests, Aleksandra Jovanic’s series Breathe seeks to inject life into computer-made art. Stripped down to their most basic elements, her geometric forms pulsate in perfect synchronicity, highlighting how even the most simple of forms can be imbued with a sense of life and movement. 

UL: Can you tell us a bit about your background and journey into creative coding?

AJ: I may introduce myself as an artist and programmer, or as a professor at the University of Arts in Belgrade, depending on the circumstances. Less frequently, I’ll say I’m a maker because I’m curious about how things are made and how they work, and I frequently get motivated in an odd way by saying, “I’ll make that myself.”

During my school years, I had some notable artistic achievements, but I decided to study computer science at the faculty of mathematics, because of the persistent “starving artists” narrative, and the fact that I’ve already developed a love for computers. In my final year of graduate studies, I started slowly introducing back art and design to my everyday practice. At first, through web design, then illustration and graphic design, until some interesting life situations led me to postgrad studies in Digital Arts.

I started focusing more on generative art and creative coding in January 2021 as a result of my active participation in an interdisciplinary and educational project on algorithmic art. I also started regularly posting on social media what I was experimenting with or exploring.

UL: How did you formulate your dynamic and nuanced approach to geometry?

AJ: My approach is built on sequences of asking questions, how an idea can be improved or how something can be done, answering /visualising through code, and then asking a new set of questions. I keep doing this until I’m satisfied with the outcomes. In the process of deconstructing or simplifying a problem and coming up with solutions, the first step is to build from the most basic geometries. As I continue, I give the shapes more curves, serene waves or noise, or softness of some kind. Simple algorithms can always be built upon. In the same way, as in the Breathe series, I often feel the need to wake up the piece.  Additionally, preserving the still frame can occasionally seem like inadequate use of the medium’s capabilities.

UL: You describe your works in the show as ‘breathing’, can you expand upon the conceptual underpinnings of these works and what led you to dynamic renderings?

AJ: When I was a postgrad student, I learned from one of my professors that the simplest way to make anything appear alive is by adding eyes and then animating them to blink. Unfortunately, my abstract geometry actors were just shapely arcs of varying thicknesses, continuously floating in a vacuum of theoretical coordinate space. 

The only option left was to make them breathe. The value and significance of breathing became of utmost importance for my characters as much as it is for all living beings.

I’m allowing the audience to internalise what breathing means to them, and to explore other contexts for breathing, such as freedom, disturbing stillness, waking up, fighting hardships and enduring, coexistence, and ecology.

(Scroll to bottom for full interview)

Aleksandra Jovanic is an artist and programmer from Belgrade, Serbia, who holds a PhD in digital arts and a BSc in computer science. In her research and artistic practice she combines various media, mainly in the field of interactive art, art games, and generative art. Jovanic’s recent works focus on the aesthetic of data visualisation and optical illusions, as well as explorations of accepted concepts of truth and reality. Her work has been exhibited internationally, and she has been included in exhibitions held by VerticalCrypto Art, FeralFile and Tezos. As an assistant professor, she teaches at the new media department at the Faculty of Fine Arts in Belgrade.

UL: How do you navigate the relationship between mathematics, generative code and geometric aesthetics?

AJ: I believe I took my background in maths and programming for granted for a long time. It was easier to just do it myself and skip explaining the project idea to a programmer. It also provided me with some flexibility while I was developing. However, the programming part was always in the background. Eventually, when I shifted my focus to generative art, the code got promoted to the role of the main character. In the digital world, mathematics defines every shape and motion, and experimenting and playing with those functions results in wonderful discoveries.

UL: Do any historical art movements resonate with you and your practice; Do you intentionally draw any parallels between your work and that of the past?

AJ: A number of 20th-century art movements can be seen as being algorithmic generative art’s undisputed predecessors. We now include various methodologies from Constructivism, Minimalism, and Conceptual art in our practices. I am aware of the similarities and frequently build on them.

UL: Are there any specific artists who influence your work /practice?

AJ: For sure, certain artists and their processes that are significant to me, like Op artists and minimalists, or early generative artists, like Sol LeWitt, Vera Molnar, Manfred Mohr, and Bridget Riley, Anni Albers (and all female Bauhaus artists), Ellsworth Kelly, just to name few. In general, I’m also a fan of the artists from (let’s say) my generation, who come up with clever and important topics and concepts,  don’t lose focus and are dedicated to the ideas they are exploring and fighting for.

UL: Do your explorations in generative pattern have any underlying political or social significance, or do you prefer to focus on the aesthetic qualities of the work?

AJ: The majority of the time, I try to incorporate deeper significance by asking questions or bringing attention to political and social issues, which isn’t that straightforward in generative art. However, there are also occasional pieces that are purely visual investigations.

 UL: Some argue that generative art is hard to access since it requires a certain level of technical skill and expensive equipment. How do you respond to that and how do you ensure that your work is accessible to a wide audience?

AJ: It depends on the project and how quickly we are adopting new technologies. I come from the field of web development where making it possible for everyone to access content in an optimal way is of utmost importance. When it comes to experiencing art that makes use of the internet as a medium, I see it as a generally accessible public space with some useful advantages. Depending on the environment, people engage with art in different ways. It sounds like an interesting preference to be able to experience it in your typical, most comfortable, and regular setting.

Stay tuned for more exclusive artists interviews from all the groundbreaking generative artists featured in our exhibition!