Ricky Retouch
Do you remember the first time a grid actually clicked for you, not as design but as something you wanted to stay inside?
I don’t remember the first time, but my love for grids goes back to my early graphic design days, 15-20 years ago. I discovered Swiss-style design back then, and grid-based design has remained an interest ever since.
What is it about dividing a space that keeps pulling you back?
It scratches an itch. There’s just something in me loves grids and straight lines, and negative space. Over the years, I’ve found that dividing space and playing with layout is a way to achieve visual complexity, which is the end goal.
When you’re working, do you feel like you’re organizing something, or uncovering something already there?
Both, in certain ways. I’m organizing various parts of the algorithm, and in doing that, it often spits out something great that I didn’t expect.
The pieces feel like they’re tracking something just out of reach. Do you ever imagine what they’re actually measuring?
I do. There isn’t one answer, but I often imagined software that’s measuring a nuclear reactor or some newly discovered unknown force. Something about tech from the 60s, 70s, or 80s measuring things it wasn’t created for fascinates me.
When something in the system starts to drift or break, what tells you to follow it rather than correct it?
When it breaks beautifully. I don’t know how to put it into words, but I just know it when I see it. I’m always open to happy accidents.
Can you think of a specific moment where a piece started drifting in a way you wanted to keep? What did it look like, and what made you stay with it instead of pulling it back?
Some of the more empty pieces caught my eye. Especially the ones that don’t have the walkers or field noise. I love how they still feel like something is being monitored, but there is no visualization of what it is.
What made you commit to Houdini? Was there a moment where it gave you something other tools couldn’t?
That’s exactly what happened. I started out with graphic design, but after some years I felt that I could be doing more artistically, so I tried out 3D art using 3ds Max. I made some really interesting stuff with it, but I still felt limited. I moved on to Cinema 4D and it was a similar story for about 2 years. Once, I tried to create something simple in C4D, and it took 2 weeks of work. The end result still wasn’t what I expected, so I tried it in Houdini. I recreated the C4D project in Houdini, and it took 30 minutes. I was hooked.
Early on, did it feel intuitive, or did you have to push through a long period of resistance?
Houdini does not feel intuitive at all if you’re not familiar with it. It’s like learning a new language. Your brain has to learn a completely new, non-destructive way of thinking about art and creation. It took about a year just to get used to the way that it wants you to think.
When you’re selecting outputs, are you choosing a moment or a behavior over time? And do you ever lean toward something quieter because it holds up better under repetition?
Sometimes I’m choosing a moment, but most of the time I’m choosing based on behavior over time. There are outputs that are quiet in the selection, but I’ve had to discard many from the selection because they were a little too quiet or too tame.
How much do you intervene after the system runs? Where does selection end and composition begin for you?
I think the composition or creation phase is over when I feel there is nothing more to add to or subtract from the algorithm. The selection phase is always ongoing, from the first usable outputs until the last output is chosen.
The dots moving along the lines start to feel less like markers and more like signals. Do you think of them as having roles within the system?
Yes. The dots, or “walkers” as I call them, have the central role in a lot of the pieces. They’re supposed to represent the thing that’s being measured.
Do the walkers behave the same across pieces, or do different works give them different roles? When you watch one move across the screen, what is it doing to you: counting, surveying, pacing, reporting?
They more or less behave the same. There are influences that change from piece to piece. For example, there is an unseen chase point that is constantly changing positions and attracting the walkers very slightly.
The flicker and glow feel very specific, almost like phosphor lighting on older displays. What draws you to that kind of luminous surface?
It reminds me of the screens that I grew up using, so there’s a bit of a nostalgia to it.
What is it about phosphor specifically: the way light holds on the surface, the slow decay, the green-on-black, that keeps you returning to it? Are there other glowing surfaces like LCDs, OLEDs, or neon that don’t give you the same feeling?
Not so much. The CRT look just has a particular feel to it that I wanted to play with. This look is something a lot of people are familiar with and I wanted to be able to play with designs on a glowing screen.
What is the world behind the color theory within the series?
These are individual colors and color palettes that I’ve developed over the years. There are a few constants. White is used to “tie” various colors together, and black is used to ground lighter/brighter colors. Overall, I’m trying to recreate the look of a terminal and keep it familiar while still playing with it a bit.
The typography feels tightly integrated into the system rather than laid on top. At what point does type enter the work for you?
It’s a central part of the collection. Before I added in the walkers or the noise fields, I had the typographic elements representing measurement.
When type was the only element, what was it measuring or labeling? Were the words and numbers pointing to anything specific, or were they always abstract instruments?
The base sections were just being labeled with various combos of numbers and letters at the very beginning.
What makes a typeface feel right inside these systems? Is it about legibility, rhythm, or something more atmospheric?
It’s more about how it feels. The collection is meant to feel like an old terminal screen that’s measuring something unknown, so I was fine with some type elements not being fully legible. I was more concerned with the layout, the overall feeling, and how the values looked while counting.
What feels missing from contemporary digital imagery that makes you return to this older visual language?
I don’t think I feel that anything is missing. I just enjoy creating texture procedurally. In my previous collection, “New North,” that texture was paper-like. In this collection, it’s more digital. Being able to add texture to my work like this really adds something special.
The work carries a sense of a system that could have existed but didn’t. What draws you toward that kind of almost-history?
It’s a little bit of escapism. Imagining these glowing screens that come from a different reality, measuring things that are unknown, is just fun.
Do you think of these as images, or as time-based objects that happen to repeat?
I would say time-based objects. I want the pieces to be seen as moments in time that are being measured.
What does loop length mean to you in that sense? Does a 10-second loop hold a different kind of moment than a 30-second one? And does it matter whether someone watches it once or lets it repeat?
There isn’t much meaning behind the length of each piece. I just wanted it to be long enough that the viewer could stare and wonder.
Your earlier works “Low Language” and “New North” had a more paper-like surface. How did you arrive at this more screen-based, luminous direction?
I loved the textures and the amount of detail I was able to put into those collections, so I wanted to create something similar but different. I thought about it for a bit, started playing with some ideas, and eventually settled on this CRT terminal look.
What is the question Split Logic is asking that you still don’t have an answer to?
As I’ve shared the pieces, one thing I’ve wondered is: how much trust is created by visual language, specifically the visual language of technology?