The idea of synchronicity is that the conceptual relationship of minds, defined as the relationship between ideas, is intricately structured in its own poetically logical way and gives rise to relationships that are not causal in nature. These relationships can manifest themselves as occurrences that are meaningfully related.
Synchronistic events reveal an underlying pattern, a conceptual framework that encompasses, but is larger than, any of the systems that display the synchronicity. The suggestion of a larger framework is essential to satisfy the definition of synchronicity as originally developed by Carl Gustav Jung.Jung coined the word to describe what he called “temporally coincident occurrences of acausal events.” Jung variously described synchronicity as an “acausal connecting (togetherness) principle”, “meaningful coincidence” and “acausal parallelism”. Jung introduced the concept as early as the 1920s, but gave a full statement of it only in 1951 in an Eranos lecture and in 1952, published a paper, Synchronizität als ein Prinzip akausaler Zusammenhänge (Synchronicity – An Acausal Connecting Principle), in a volume with a related study by the physicist (and Nobel laureate) Wolfgang Pauli.
Each piece is composed of what is for all intents and purposes random strings of information. The purpose is to observe the way the audio and video interact, and I find it pretty interesting.
As synchronicity is described above is only a skeletal explanation and leaves much out. I am no expert on the subject, but as I’ve watch working and final versions, I find that I recognize not only the timing of the literal events, but also in other other relationships. Some are metaphorical, sarcastic, ambient as well as many in direct opposition.
A simplified version could be two columns of random numbers, and when the left and right are the same number, you have synchronicity. That’s a very limited example because it lacks a critical element, and that is allowing the observers mind to find more and more synchronizations which are as subtle and as sophisticated as the observer can detect, as well as how tenuous a connection can be accepted.
I believe each piece is a transformative work of art. I don’t generally talk about intentions in art. You’re an artist, you make art. That is your intention. Artistically, I give up artistic ownership on completion because I count on the observer to find what they see. I will discuss the technical issues of which there are many. The biggest hurdle is time. Everything takes a long time to do. It also takes a fair amount of computing power and lots of storage. Less of a practical nature is in choosing the information streams to employ. Since any stream will be randomized, complementary or opposing material is equally appropriate.
In reading about the subject, I came upon the website
This quote explains fairly well a central aspect of synchronicity.
“A common example used to demonstrate synchronicity is where we have a lady in a public place, when she happens to mention the name of a person she has not seen or heard from for many years. Moments later, that person seems to appear “out of nowhere”. Now the exact probability of this happening, which may not be all that remote, and the exact timing of when this person shows up are not as important as the significance of the event in determining if what we have is an example of synchronicity. Whether this person shows up just as his name was being spoken, or five minutes later, does little to affect the significance of the event. So we see that synchronization is not necessary to have synchronicity.”
That example is more specific than I find, in that the coincidence can be an event, but can also be a change in tone or tempo shared by chance by the systems. A more post-modern view will find properties like sarcasm and opposition as synchronous events.
There takes on a sort of battle between the music and video to define the moments in the work. The music and the video continually comment on each other and after enough detachment from the individual systems, there exists constant tension in this commentary. During periods when the viewer sees synchronicity fail, tension begins to build between the systems, then at the point of simple synchronicity, this tension is released. With each shift towards tension or release, both systems are transformed by our perception.
This leads to an interesting quality that this form of work accomplishes. Every moment the viewer is encouraged to find some synchronous occurrence and in doing so may “train” the mind to find more tenuous relationships. In other words, these works provide a way of exercising the minds ability to find hidden patterns.