Scott from Muddlegeist software has recently released an iPhone / iPad app that generates an ever changing series of Op Art inspired patterns.

“A few weeks ago I was a bit ill, and spent some time laying around and playing with some iOS code I was writing for an audio app that I have in progress.  I stumbled on an animation technique I hadn’t used before, and was hooked on playing with some of the visual aspects of it which reminded me of the classics of Op Art.  This led me to become sidetracked on a new project which became Op Evol.”

I’ve had a play around with the app and it’s quite good fun – you can change the animation type between a series of presets and then change settings (such as animation speed) within each animation.

The app is available now in the iTunes store here:

OpEvol for UK iTunes

OpEvol for US iTunes

“Inspired by Op Art of the 1960s, OpEvol takes the geometric play of colors and contrasts and animates them into a moving field of ever-changing psychedelic eye candy. It’s for staring at. It’s for sending to Air Display. It’s for playing with, and then staring at it some more.”

Be careful who you let in your house, particularly if you have original works by Victor Vasarely.

A Florida woman was ordered held on a $10,000 bond after she stole works from a legally blind man – Gilbert Jackson – that she supposedly cared for, including an original Vasarely work valued at approx. $30,000 – $35,000. Maureen Stuteville, 46, appeared in court remotely via video before Florida Judge John Hurley. She faces a charge of exploitation of a disabled elderly adult.

Maureen Stuteville has been accused of stealing numerous high value art works from the blind man she ‘cared’ for

In early December (2013), Jackson realised that his original Victor Vasarely work was missing from the house. Stuteville told him the painting was somewhere in Boca and later said it was at an art gallery. Days later Jackson asked to get his painting back, and Stuteville told him he would have to give her $3,000 and an automobile before she would return the painting, according to the report.

After Jackson’s friends discovered an invoice to an antique gallery in Dania Beach, Stuteville admitted to a friend that she had sold the Vasarely work, together with other expensive paintings and sculptures that Jackson owned. The gallery owner acknowledged that he had bought the works but had no idea they were stolen. He said Stuteville was a regular visitor and had told him that she was selling the works to pay for the car of her adoptive father with cancer.

Stuteville claims Jackson asked her to sell the works. Jackson claims otherwise. I have a feeling I know who to believe on this one.

Tobias Rehberger is a German artist, famous for his large scale installations, notably “Slinky springs to to fame” – a giant ‘slinky’ bridge corssing the Rhein-Herne Canal in the Imperial Garden, Oberhausen.

Slinky Springs To Fame

A few years ago he was commissioned to create a piece for the Berlin National Library. The result was “Uhrenobjekt” (“Watch Object”) a giant black and white checkered painting that bore a marked similarity to Bridget Riley‘s “Movement in Squares“. Riley was not pleased.

Rehberger’s “Uhrenobjekt” – photo by Jörg F. Müller

Bridget Riley’s “Movement in Squares”

Bridget Riley quickly launched a plagiarism lawsuit against Rehberger demanding the removal of the painting from the Library. The German courts didn’t grant the removal request but as a result of the suit, the painting has been covered up for over a year.

The case has now been resolved and the painting is back on display with a new title: “Uhrenobjekt nach Movement in Squares von Bridget Riley” (“Watch Object after Movement in Squares by Bridget Riley”).

It’s an interesting case. Clearly the works are very similar but there are also differences – the grid is not the same for example, nor the location of the ‘fold’. Is it really possible for Riley to claim copyright over a black and white grid in that way? I have a lot of sympathy for Riley here but it’s a difficult case. It’s also not the first time Riley has gone to court to protect her work – in the 1960s she famously sued a fashion house for creating a range of clothing  that used one of her pieces as the pattern. She lost that case. On balance it appears that she has probably lost this one too although the name change is at least some kind of consolation.