ABOUT COMPUTER ART Defining Computer Art Computer Art is art presented on a computer. That's it. As such, it implies that the machine will be on and processor running. Computer Art is thus absolutely restricted to art that implements live processing. This is not an opinion of mine about art, it is simply what the words actually mean. However, in the Arts in general, misinformation is the norm. So let's set things straight. Hopefully, the explanations listed below will be of help. Computer Art is actually a very simple idea. It was well understood by everyone who heard it (albeit limited to a geeky few for decades) - until a few years ago when the term was all but vaporized by eager folks excited by the hype and sci-fi fantasies but who didn't quite take time to understand even the most basic concepts. With this tidal wave of enthusiastic new computer owners, the vague-ification of definitions spread until flimsy terminology became all the vogue. Surely, someone out there will be bothered by my firming this definition up. Printing things on paper or playing a video may be Art-that-incorporates-a-computer-somewhere-in-the-process (which is really most everything nowadays), but this is a rather trivial relationship. Nonetheless, it is absolutely not anything one could ever call "Computer Art". The given artwork really has nothing to do with how computers behave or how we customize that behavior in code. Not that any sort of art is superior to any other, simply this is much-abused slight fallacy, like calling a tomato a vegetable. But the fallacy has snowballed to a point similar to Ronald Reagan's law allowing public school cafeterias to count katsup as fulfilling their dietary vegetable requirement. Things have gotten that absurd. Behavioral Art Nouns Versus Verbs Analog Versus Digital, a Deeper Look Art == Learning The Visualization Blindfold Cage or Shoenberg Non-Linear-ism Why Own a Computer? Morality and Law The Zen of Ephemeral Art Behavioral Art The key thing to understand about interactivity is that we humans experience things very, very differently depending if we are actively seeking clues, investigating and experimenting, in an attempt to understand a system, or passively looking at/listening to sensory events quite independent of us. Not that passivity is a bad thing, but the feeling one gets from Monet's painting of goldfish is not at all comparable to the feeling when it is raining torentially, we are hungry and discover a great sushi bar. Over the years, I have made art/experiments I call "behavioral art". This differs from say "visual art" or being a "recording artist" in that the sensory aspect really only plays an arbitrary supporting role. (Sensory Substitution is a major theme in my work, including published papers.) The artworks you'll find here are not isolated things, nor objects to detect from a removed distance, but systems and phenomena, where we are integrally involved. The primary focus is to look at the way people (usually audiences) behave. The object (and whatever properties, we detect of it) is a merely a tool in this ongoing process. I have casually observed, people in galleries usually seem restricted in their movements and expressing themselves (probably for a good enough reason, so they don't spill wine on a Rembrandt). But my art, which could look like anything, is intended to create some novel context in which these gallery visitors are encouraged to jump up and down. Now imagine setting a trampoline in that gallery. What would happen? Most likely, no one would actually touch it. In fact, for all practical purposes, there would be very little internal debate as to how to react to (or, in this case, not to react to) the trampoline. So behavioral art has to be a little more clever in coercing folks. Actually, there is, as has long been noted, a lot of inertia to overcome from a lifetime of previous "don't mess with me" art (both in galleries and in theaters). This implies it is some sort of other, not the self. Importantly, there is inertia grounded in Western philosophy, that distinguishes between external things and internal processes. With this in mind, it's great if audiences do indeed jump around, but exciting their mental model of their world is really the goal. Wanting to jump and preventing it, can also be considered an active behavior. To coerce folks to do so, we then have to provide a context where jumping solves some problem. top Nouns Versus Verbs By far the most efficient tool for the job, to create a piece that symbiotically reacts to input and monitor audiences in a flexibly enormous number of ways, I program computers. "Media" is only a tangent, albeit a popular one to focus on. So put that idea aside. It has no relevance here (at least for now). In creating art systems, all media are arbitrarily interchangeable and can be substituted without the audience even knowing (or caring). Any things we might label as noun-like are just variables. Noun-ness is often habitual, such as thinking about the act of running versus thinking about some unspecified thing performing the action. Just as elements in myths are interchangeable in Jung's Collective Unconscious, to me, even the distinction between gallery, stage and web is rather insignificant. It's all an an exchange with an audience happening somewhere or another. A common pitfall is that art has traditionally meant some art object. Even an opera is a noun and not considered a verb (to "opera-ate"?) Noun-centrism can be confusing to a casual observer because the computer certainly must generate some-thing (noise or animation) for audiences to react to. A thing must be presented to them. Ultimately though, this output is just as arbitrary when considering the larger system. The system (and phenomenon it exploits within the human brain) is really where it's at. top Art == Learning That problem solving is what we call learning. As any salesman will tell you, saying "jump!" isn't going to be nearly as effective as if the person comes up with it on their own. I actually don't really even care specifically if a person jumps or shakes their butt or flaps their arms. What is interesting though, is the very personalized ways in which each individual problem solves. Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences is a good way to think about this. Gardner shows how children may learn better by seeing a colorful example or may learn better by singing a song in a group, but the child will tend to choose their own "style of learning" in play. In a related example, babies put things they find in their mouths. This is not done with the intention of eating these objects, as many parents assume. Babies first learn about their environment most effectively with their mouths. Only later we use locomotion and our hands. Still later our eyes. As we grow, we are encouraged - even forced - to solve problems intellectually rather than physically. Grown up play (learning) is extremely restricted in this way. Art is adult's chance to play, particularly at this neurological learning level. Art may have other roles we project as individuals. It may decorate hotel rooms, offer a speculative opportunity to collectors/investors or excite aesthetic sympathies. The list hardly stops there, but is distractingly tangental and intellectually projected onto the need for art. Rather, art is an impulsive strategy that the mind has concocted, in order to continually fine-tune our learning ability, to keep tabs on our ever-shifting environment, to keep our ability to adapt resilient. Without constant neuroplastic customization, our brains would (and so often do) atrophy in their ability to see new things in new ways. Without updating our "Synaptic Selves" (a title by LeDoux) continually, we can only force fit previous perspectives onto novel experiences. The "generation gap" is one obvious result, but we all lead varying degrees of sheltered and conservative life-styles, with our unique blind spots. Thus behavioral art provides us with novel processes that request our active (not passive) understanding - in whichever way we (often subconsciously) deem most useful to us personally as audience members. top Analog Versus Digital, a Deeper Look Most of you are well aware that though digital is limited to 0 or 1, whereas analog may be a scale from 0 to 100, this comparison is misleading. In fact more 0 or 1 choices can equal (or surpass) 1000 options, and in a digital system (such as a computer), the results are far more accurately recorded. But stopping here, is actually very misleading. A deeper difference is that in digital-ness, the literal 1 or 0, true or false, yes or no, is an arbitrary abstraction of semantics. To the machine performing the calculation, our interpretation of what those binary digits mean, is entirely superfluous. In an analog machine, the digits are not semantic but literal. For example more voltage causes an increase in something physical, not something symbolic. Hence, though floating point numbers and Fuzzy Logic might imply that fluid precision between true/false and Neural Nets might advertise weighted decision making, ultimately their calibrated scale is fixed. This is both a strength and a fundamental shortcoming of digital-ness. This is one reason I suspect that, while a practical scheme for manipulating large strings of integers (as in an image file or sound byte), this scheme is a wrong path to reach modeling the human brain. I believe, the strength of the organic brain, and the analog system, is that that calibrated scale from say 1-100 is not fixed as it would be in binary. Imagine a number series as rungs on a ladder. In binary it is as if the ladder is modular and any length can be achieved by tacking on more rungs. Each rung is exactly like every other, so 100 rungs is always the same. There would be no point in specifying exactly which binary rung was used in each case. But in analog the ladders are not modular. However, each rung is very plastic. If on one day the rungs are spaced tightly, the next day they may be far apart. If rung 27 is at one height o e day, the next day rung 45 may be at that height. The rungs needn't at all be evenly spaced either. This notion may seem straight-forward, but when applied to processing (analog or digital), we can see why a digital system may give us consistent results, but at the extreme price that it takes a lot more time and resources to achieve. The human brain can reach a conclusion that is close enough, though not exact and continually update (and hopefully improve on it). Once a computer reaches it's conclusion, given the same input data, there is no benefit in re-calculating, since the processor did it "perfectly" each time. The mystery for Cognitive Science is determining exactly which processes yield inconsistent results merely because there are a lot more input factors than we realized, or because only an analog system yields the meaningful but inconsistent result, and not (thus far) a digital one. top The Visualization Blindfold Data visualization (including maps, animated or still Photoshop-like image filters and charts) is not such a bad thing per se. However, when it comes to using a computer, we can attend to much deeper issues. Graphic representation is not always relevant, often can be done, but we are better off without being dependent on it. We hardly need to visualize concepts like 'happiness' or 'uncle', and often charting them comes off as absurd, misses the point entirely. A family tree is fine for genealogy, but can be misleading in describing family dynamics (which is far more concrete and pertinent than some abstract quasi-hobbyist issue). In fact, at a Quantum scale visualizing is just misleading. Despite the common image, atoms are not really like solar systems. Though observing (regardless of the modality) is useful in every-day cases, when reaching for more precise understanding, we need to let go of it. In the same way Newtonian physics is close enough for baseball, but NASA needs to consider Einsteinian ideas. Another good lesson from Quantum Mechanics is that observation always necessarily influences the thing observed. We don't passively watch, we gather photons that have bounced off of what we are watching. If there is no conduit connecting us to it, then we see nothing. Alas, visualizing has the power to upstage our subtle thoughts and distracts us from deeper meaning. Our brains impulsively latch onto any sensory models it can find, so best we don't keep these models around. Visualization is ultimately an addictive solution like pain relievers and sleep-inducing drugs - if some situation was hard to work with before, a detour will thankfully avoid these problems in the short run, but in the long run, these detours make it much harder for us to ever get past the core difficulty. Folks who want a higher resolution image, are simply nourishing a mental weakness. We want to rid our minds of these misleading models (images, timbres, etc). Again, I am not arguing against pictures and blueprints. Visual data is often quite helpful. But it is also much abused. A floor plan of a gallery space can help with pre-pro for installation, but images also have a tendency toward being a destructive detour from comprehension. top Cage or Schoenberg? John Cage, not Arnold Schoenberg. There's a subtle difference between Cage's concept of chance/unexpected and uncontrolled results and 12 tone or "algorithmic" compositions. In chance, anything at all could happen. But the interesting part is that the brain takes that infinite possibility and contextualizes it such that it fits within some narrow framework. In serial music there are only a dozen (or so) possibilities and the brain generally reacts, by removing the (culturally adopted) framework. Granted, many computer/music programmers do make 12 tone compositions and love it. Others liken it to a cat walking across a piano. With randomness the source (be it math or fish in an aquarium), the result is kinda arbitrary. If you closed your eyes, you'd never really know which is which. But for this kind of composition, the source is really as important to appreciate as the sounds. (This has everything to do with the linear expectation of a bell curve. See below.) I might ask "What is a meaningful image and what's just TV hash?" or "What is a communicative sentence and what are thoughts we humans impulsively project onto things, that look (to us) potentially communicative" Think horoscopes, we project meaning when we want to and refute it when we as well. The actual output (music, etc) isn't as important as the system (music) we imagine we hear. top Non-Linear-ism Traditionally, humans have needed to comprehend linear relationships. A ball flies faster or slower in direct proportion to how hard it is hit. Sort of. In these sort of predictions, the graph of input to output is a straight line. Most of us predict the outcomes of experiences in this way, and are disappointed when the results diverge enormously. In some cases, we are a bit smarter and consider bell curves (generally randomness). And if we are really clever, we imagine exponential slopes (as in networking systems). It seems obvious, but linearity implies a line, albeit flexible like a string. (Lakoff has much to say about the line metaphor, that filters our understanding of so much in our lives.) The problem is not so much that it is one dimensional, whether in discreet steps (digital) or even smoothly gradated (analogue) between two points. A piece of paper (2d) or block (3d) are little improvement in their essential linear-ness. It doesn't get us away from imaging a fixed point on some graph within (explicit or undefined) borders. We can think of a tub of water (a thing with aspects that can be linearly graphed on a calibrated scale) or current (which exists without considering the ends, limits, frame). We can think about cars, even dozens of them. But we can also think about traffic (which does not imply any number of cars or pedestrians or objects at all). Thinking about non-linear systems seems to be very unfamiliar. Many folks try to apply what they understand about linearity to things like computers. Hence, many might agree that a still image is linear, and may recognize that video (a rapid succession of stills) is no less linear. The final frame is a still and completed before playing it back. But computers are unique to us as tools, unlike traditional tools such as VCRs and stereos, in that they support nonlinear-ism. There needn't be any stills but a collage of multiple independent events. The final image on the screen simply may not exist (even in memory or abstractly) until we have started the artwork/system running. In fact, it cannot be said to be "final" until we shut it off. [As you may have surmised, I am neither concerned with the specific media used to present the art to us, nor even the modality. Sensory Substitution is a theme of my work. In the big scheme of things, on the neurological level that I am concerned with, distinguishing between "visual art" and "musical composition" (for example) becomes a rather trivial distraction for us.] Computers can be given liner tasks, just as we all could use the highways as parking lots, but this is a silly waste of resources. We are free to choose to invest the money we have any way we want. But often we aren't making choices about computers with much familiarity of nonlinear systems or any desire to create them. Hence, the topic remains an elusive one for even the "experts". Here are some examples. * Eliza by Joseph Weizenbaum is the ultimate in nonlinear computer art (though it was not originally made to be seen as art). It uses a psych trick to respond to you in a meaningful therapy session. Since he first made it in the 60s, it has been imitated a zillion times, but at least we can all play with it online now. * Mortal Engine by Chunky Move was dance piece was performed at BAM. The computer/camera tracks the dancers and the result is projected onto the stage, which the dancers then react to. * Danny Rozin's Wooden Mirror. While this is like a painting hung on a wall with fixed dimensions, the content is not fixed. It is reacting to the environment right now. If you go visit at ITP, it will react to you differently than it ever has before. And once you leave it will still keep going. * Duane Hanson's ultra realistic museum guard has a nonlinear element (perhaps unintended by the artist). Folks at the museum say people often ask these mannequins questions . Though the pieces themselves don't react, if you imagine that the artwork is the larger audience-object system, and not just the object, there is some behavioral interchange going on. * These a definitely not nonlinear. They are electronic versions of plain ol linear stills and video. I saw one at a show about "new media" a few years ago and was flabbergasted. This is an alternative media, but not at all new. top Why Own a Computer? I wish to create non-linear systems, so I use a computer. A painter who creates linear works certainly does not need a non-linear tool. This should be good news to the painter, who has no real interest in non-linearity, therefore can save a buck. Though, our brains (that are included for free) can employ both linear and non-linear work as needed, on a case-by-case basis. Anyone who feels the need to use some digital medium like email, surfing the web or even playing electronic games can simply use a cell phone. A computer is enormous over-kill and we pay dearly for it. Painting and programming surely have the same theoretical potential for instigating interaction. (The early canvases of Arakawa and Gins come to mind.) However, I believe a cave man culled a lot more from paintings than an illiterate European in the Renaissance. In our environment, that contains far more non-random events to comprehend, we cull even less from paintings. But cavemen (and ancient Greeks with their vases) did not treat what we see as linear things, rather as non-linear systems that included themselves. top Morality and Law Plotting a point on a continuum is linear. For example, theft might be considered between kindness and malevolence. Therefore, it occupies position on this line, determines our reaction, that this is punishable behavior. Clearly, not all cases are so cut and dried as linearity would suggest though. Even if we could absolutely determined some object was owned by one person and possessed (without permission) by a second person, there are all sorts of extenuating circumstances that make this act a criminal offense, as well as justify it. We can't honestly determine a single point on the continuum from all perspectives, and yet, that is precisely what the law is all about. Laws are written and enforced, but doing so, glosses over the nonlinear nature of behavior and pretends it is a linear point on the imprecise scale of morality. top The Zen of Ephemeral Art How can this work be sold? It can't really. Media can, but I don't make media. In fact, I avoid even thinking about media, because such mental habits of linear products easily overshadow fluency regarding nonlinearity. It's not easy to think of these systems and unlearn our old way of seeing them. When I was younger, I loved playing Monopoly. I made secret deals with other players that I wouldn't charge them on my property, if they didn't charge me. Before folks figured it out, they would notice I could just go around the board - roll, move, next - and had no effect on the game, nor did the game effect me. I always aspired to that. The perfect zen state. Computer art is like those sand mandalas the Buddhist monks make. Computer art -- real computer art, not "digital art" that just uses a computer somewhere in the process of being assembled -- is not a thing to own, its just what is happening today. Then the wind blows (at some unpredictable, random time) and it will just be chaos and noise. top