Writings and Talks Data Table

Is it possible for machines to feel emotions? As we know for now, machines have no emotion. But if we humans teach them, will they be able to learn? (A)I FEEL is a project dedicated to find answers to our questions by creating a teaching & learning process between humans and a machine. To teach the machine, it asks each user to draw a picture which represents a specific emotion. Then, to demonstrate what the machine has learned, users can draw pictures to portray his/her emotion at the moment. Using Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), the machine will interpret user’s emotion into joy, sadness, anger, fear or disgust and colors the picture according to the emotion. The whole process will be visualized as an interactive installation which encourages people to participate in the project.

Production of life-sized self-portrait comprising digital animations and live action video projection-mapped onto a 3D print from MRI data gathered as the artist viewed memento mori paintings and meditated on death.

A mischievous Monster, a naive Sidekick, ten shallow Girls, a retired Villain, an apathetic Robot, and a Megalomaniac from outer space live under one roof in the “5 Story Building”. Five simultaneous stories tell the lives of the singular occupants of this confining building. These neighbors carry on with their own ambitions and inherited craziness without realizing that their stories are intertwined in this episodic interactive fiction.

Jean Paul Sartre and “Sleep No More” inspire this experience for digital tablets that explores the nuances and opportunities enabled by the introduction of interactivity in storytelling.

“5 Story Building” is intentionally crafted to show off things that traditional media cannot. This project explores the possibility of multiple simultaneous stories that are part of a bigger plot. These stories develop regardless if they are seen or not: the users’ decisions are not only about what they sees but also, and maybe most importantly, what they decide not to see.

Multiple readings are necessary and voyeurism is encouraged.

ADAMS, C. 1987. “Why Are the Floors of a Building Called ‘Stories’?” The Straight Dope. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/501/why-are-thefloors-of-a-building-called-stories.

AKIN, F., ATTAL Y., BALSMEYER, R., HUGHES, A., IWAI, S., JIANG, W, KAPUR, S., MARSTON, J., NAIR, M., PORTMAN, N., AND RATNER, B. 2009. New York, I Love You. Comedy, Drama, Romance.

ANDERS, A., ROCKWELL, A., RODRIGUEZ, R., AND TARANTINO, Q. 1995. Four Rooms. Comedy.

BATEMAN, C. 2005. “Diversity in Game Narrative.” Only a Game. http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2005/08/diversi ty_in_ga.html.

BRANTLEY, B. 2011. “‘Sleep No More’ Is a ‘Macbeth’ in a Hotel – Review.” The New York Times. April 13. http://theater.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/theater/reviews/sleepno-more-is-a-macbeth-in-a-hotel-review.html.

CARO, M., AND JEUNET, J.P. 1992. Delicatessen. Comedy, Fantasy, Sci-Fi.

COEN, J. AND COEN, E. 1991. Barton Fink. Comedy, Drama, 1991.

DE LA IGLESIA, A. 2000. La Comunidad. Comedy, Crime, Mystery, Thriller.

EMURSIVE AND PUNCHDRUNK. 2011. “Sleep No More”, n.d. http://sleepnomorenyc.com. GONZÁLEZ IÑÁRRITU, A. 2000. Amores Perros. Drama, Thriller.

GOPALAN, N. 2008. “Alan Moore Still Knows the Score!” Entertainment Weekly. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20213004,00.html.

GUGGENHEIM FOUNDATION. “Picasso Black and White.” 2012. Guggenheim.org http://www.guggenheim.org/newyork/press-room/releases/4763-picassobw

HINER, K. 2013. “Appidemic: iPoe 2 for iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch.” AppleTell. February 26. http://www.technologytell.com/apple/112910/appidemicipoe-2-for-iphone-ipad-and-ipod-touch/.

IBANEZ, F. 1961. 13 Rue Del Percebe. B, 2009. ISBN-10: 8466640061 JOHNSON, B. n.d. “Second Story’s History.” Second Story. http://www.secondstory.com

KOENIG, J. 2012. “Sonder”. Blog. The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows. December, 2012. http://www.dictionaryofobscuresorrows.com/post/23536922 667/sonder.

KUROSAWA, A. 1951. Rashomon. Crime, Drama, Mystery.

MACAULAY, D.. 2005. Black And White. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

MOONBOT STUDIOS. 2012. “Morris Lessmore, the iPad App.” Morris Lessmore. http://morrislessmore.com/?p=app.

RALPH, P., AND WAND, Y. 2009. “A Proposal for a Formal Definition of the Design Concept.” In Design Requirements Engineering: A Ten-Year Perspective. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. http://www.springerlink.com/content/xl5r311v08036716/abst ract/.

SARTRE, J.P. 1958. No Exit: A Play in One Act. Samuel French, Inc.

SCHREIBER, I. 2012. “Level 10: Nonlinear Storytelling.” Game Design Concepts. July, 2009. http://gamedesignconcepts.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/level10-nonlinear-storytelling/.

ST. HIPPOLYTE, M. 1995. “The Boundaries: Limits of a Nonlinear Narrative Structure.” Dead Drop. http://inanimatereason.com/deaddrop/articles/nonlinear1.htm l.

STEVENS, T. 2009. “Character-Driven/Plot-Driven.” Edittorrent. http://edittorrent.blogspot.com/2009/10/character-drivenplotdriven.html.

TRAPS, V. 2012. “MoMA Presents the Quay Brothers’ Work as Much More Than a Cabinet of Curiosities.” Capital New York. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/culture/2012/08/6441 312/moma-presents-quay-brothers-work-much-morecabinet-curiosities.

We live surrounded by displays such as TV, smartphone, computer. These bitmap displays consist of pixels arranged in a two-dimensional plane. 7×7 was created by re-arranging these pixels multidimensionally. This display consists of 49 pixels, and these pixels do not overlap in the front, at the back, up, down, left or right. Therefore, each pixel is able to represent all six directions. By using these 49 pixels, 7×7 expresses “Iroha,” which is an old Japanese pangram that expresses one of the aesthetics called “Mujo (impermanence and ever changing)”.

In 1981, The Association for Computing Machinery’s Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics (ACM/SIGGRAPH) sponsored its first exhibition of computer art in conjunction with the annual conference on computer graphics. The 1989 Art Show will be the ninth SIGGRAPH exhibition of computer-aided art. The present effort can not be understood fully without examining the background and scope of previous exhibitions. During this short history SIGGRAPH Art Shows have become important to computer artists since they are the major sites for the exhibition of new work.

We embark upon SIGGRAPH’s second decade with a growing conviction that the leading edge of culture us no longer defined by the fine arts community — by what’s being shown in galleries, purchased by museums, published in art magazines or talked about in SoHo lofts. The excitement and power and significance today seems to lie in electronic technology, especially the computer, which we are convinced will reveal the way to unlimited new aesthetic horizons and produce wholly new art forms. And yet the idea of computer art — of an art unique to the computer — remains after twenty years an unrealized myth, its horizons barely in view, its forms still to be manifest. For, ironically, most of what is understood as computer art today represents the computer in the service of  those very same visual art traditions which the rhetoric of new technology holds to be obsolete.

A painting-viewing system is proposed as a tool to help painting appreciation and to improve the museum experience. This system simultaneously highlights certain visual characteristics of multiple paintings, thus informing users of the links between paintings and the semantic elements that may appear superficially different, and also conveying the art-historical explanation of those characteristics. Through this system’s evaluation, the approach based on “the awareness of the visual characteristics” may be effective as a method of developing the user’s interest in the paintings. When this system is placed in museums and galleries as a mediation tool, it will be useful to a viewer’s preparation for the art-viewing experience. This paper presents the concepts behind the system’s development and the results of the first survey as a piece of a larger project to explore the improvement of painting appreciation as a museum experience.

1. Hall, J. and Clark, K., Dictionary of Subjects and Symbols in Art (London: John Murray Ltd., 1974) 7-12, 15-17.

2. Clark, K., Looking at Pictures (New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1960) 15-18.

3. Zeki, S., Nou wa Ikani Bi wo Kanjiruka (Inner Vision: An Exploration of Art and the Brain), trans. J. Kawachi (Tokyo: Nikkei Inc., 2002) 26-31, 34-36.

4. Eternal Egypt, “Connections page,” 2005: http://www.eternalegypt.org/EternalEgyptWebsiteWeb/HomeServletee_website_action_key=action.display.context&language_id=1, Proceedings of Communication of The ACM, 2004, 46, 7, 9-10.

5. aiSee, “force-directed layout as examples of the graph representation,” 2001: http://www.aisee.com/cgi-bin/examples?topic=2.

6. Hockenberry, M., “Creative Synthesis: Graph gear page”: http://www.creativesynthesis.net/recycling/graphgeardemo/.

7. Nakamura, Y., “MoMA The Museum of Modern Art: Design and the Elastic Mind,” 2008: http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/2008/elasticmind/.

8. Gustafson, S., Baudisch, P., Gutwin, C., Irani, P., “Wedge: Clutter-Free Visualization of Off-Screen Locations,” Proceedings of Computer Human Interaction 2008, 787-796 (2008).

This paper analyzes the robotic gallery installation A Piece of the Pie Chart. The project addresses gender inequity in the tech world. It consists of a computer workstation and a food robot. The food robot puts pie charts onto edible, pre-baked pies. They depict the gender gap in technical environments. Visitors use the robot to create pies. Pictures of the pies are disseminated via Twitter, and the physical pies are mailed to the places where the data originated. In the following text, the author disassembles the machine in the context of feminist theory, feminist technology research, visualization, and political robotics.

1. Haraway, Donna, Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (New York: Routledge, 1991), 47.

2. Lubinski, David, et al., “Men and Women at Promise for Scientific Excellence: Similarity Not Dissimilarity,” Psychological Science Vol. 12, No. 4, 309–317 (2001).

3. Rosenbloom, Joshua L., et al., “Why Are There So Few Women in Information Technology? Assessing the Role of Personality in Career Choices,” Journal of Economic Psychology Vol. 29, No. 4, 543–554 (2008).

4. Nafus, Dawn, James Leach, and Bernhard Krieger, “Gender: Integrated Report of Findings,” Free/ Libre and Open Source Software: Policy Support (FLOSSPOLS) (Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge, 2006).

5. Hewlett, Sylvia Ann, et al., “The Athena Factor: Reversing the Brain Drain in Science, Engineering, and Technology,” HBR Research Report (Boston: Harvard Business School, 2006).

6. Cockburn, Cynthia, Machinery of Dominance: Women, Men, and Technical Know-How (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1988), 6.

7. Ibid., 20.

8. Ibid., 42.

9. Ibid., 143.

10. Hewlett, Sylvia Ann, et al., “The Athena Factor: Reversing the Brain Drain in Science, Engineering, and Technology,” HBR Research Report (Boston: Harvard Business School, 2006), 89.

11. Ibid., i.

12. Tinkler, Justine E., et al., “Gender and Venture Capital Decision-Making: The Effects of Technical Background and Social Capital on Entrepreneurship” (Stanford: The Clayman Institute for Gender Research).

13. Ashcraft, Catherine, and Sarah Blithe, “Women in IT: The Facts,” National Center for Women & Information Technology (Boulder, CO: NCWIT, 2010), 22.

14. STAT-TAB: Die interaktive Statistikdatenbank (Bern: Bundesamt für Statistik), <www.pxweb.bfs. admin.ch/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=px-d-15-2K01&path=../Database/German_15%20-%20Bildung%20 und%20Wissenschaft/15.2%20-%20Bildungswesen/&lang=1&prod=15&openChild=true&secprod=2>, accessed January 20, 2014.

15. Nafus, Dawn, James Leach, and Bernhard Krieger, “Gender: Integrated Report of Findings,” Free/ Libre and Open Source Software: Policy Support (FLOSSPOLS) (Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge, 2006), 23.

16. Uni Fribourg, Twitter post, <https://twitter.com/unifr>, 9:48 AM, October 24, 2013.

17. Guerilla Girls, “GUERILLA GIRLS: Fighting Discrimination with Facts, Humor, and Fake Fur,” <www.guerrillagirls.com/>, accessed January 20, 2014.

18. VEX Robotics, “VEX Robotics,” <www.vexrobotics.com/>, accessed January 20, 2014.

19. OWI Robotics, “OWI Robotics—Official Site,” <www.owirobot.com/>, accessed January 20, 2014.

20. Wajcman, Judy, TechnoFeminism (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004), 13.

21. Rusk, Natalie, et al., “New Pathways into Robotics: Strategies for Broadening Participation,” <http:// web.media.mit.edu/~mres/papers/NewPathwaysRoboticsLLK.pdf>, accessed January 20, 2014.

22. Playful Invention Company, “PicoCricket—Invention Kit that Integrates Art and Technology,” <http://picocricket.com/>, accessed January 20, 2014.

23. Goldie Blox, “Engineering Toys for Girls,” <www.goldieblox.com/>, accessed January 20, 2014.

24. LittleBits, “littleBits,” <http://littlebits.cc/?gclid=CMCBhvfhirwCFdBcMgodFVsATA>, accessed January 20, 2014.

25. Wajcman, Judy, Feminism Confronts Technology (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), 1948.

26. Dizikes, Peter, “A Tough Calculation,” MIT News Office, <web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/genderengineering-profession-0404.html>, accessed January 20, 2014.

27. Hewlett, Sylvia Ann, et al., “The Athena Factor: Reversing the Brain Drain in Science, Engineering, and Technology,” HBR Research Report (Boston: Harvard Business School, 2006), 54.

28. Ibid., i.

29. Cockburn, Cynthia, Machinery of Dominance: Women, Men, and Technical Know-How (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1988), 2.

30. Victoria and Albert Museum, Tipu’s Tiger, <http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/t/tippoos-tiger/>, accessed January 20, 2014.

31. Critical Art Ensemble, The Institute for Applied Autonomy, “Contestational Robotics: Critical Art Ensemble & The Institute for Applied Autonomy,” <www.appliedautonomy.com/objectors.html>, accessed January 20, 2014.

32. Jeremijenko, Natalie, “Feral Robotic Dogs,” <www.nyu.edu/projects/xdesign/feralrobots>, accessed January 20, 2014.

33. Wieners, Brad, “Do Androids Dream of First Amendment Rights?” <http://www.salon. com/2002/02/25/afghan_robot/>, accessed January 20, 2014.

Interactive drama has been discussed for a number of years as a new AI-based interactive experience. While there has been substantial technical progress in building believable agents and some technical progress in interactive plot,16 no work has yet been completed that combines plot and character into a full-fledged dramatic experience. The game industry has been producing plot-based interactive experiences (adventure games) since the beginning of the industry, but only a few of them (such as “The Last Express”) begin to approach the status of interactive drama. Part of the difficulty in achieving interactive drama is due to the lack of a theoretical framework guiding the exploration of the technological and design issues surrounding interactive drama. This paper proposes a theory of interactive drama based on Aristotle’s dramatic theory but modified to address the interactivity added by player agency. This theory both provides design guidance for interactive dramatic experiences that attempt to maximize player agency (answering the question “What should I build?”) and technical direction for the AI work necessary to build the system (answering the question “How should I build it?”). In addition to clarifying notions of interactive drama, the model developed in this paper also provides a general framework for analyzing player agency in any interactive experience (e.g., interactive games).

References
1. Aristotle (330 BC). The poetics. Mineola, New York: Dover, 1997.

2. Bates, J. (1992). Virtual reality, art, and entertainment. Presence: The journal of teleoperators and virtual environments I, (I), pages 133-138.

3. Bates, J ., Loyall, A. B., & Reilly, W. S. (1992). Integrating reactivity, goals and emotion in a broad agent. Technical report, CMU-CS-92-142, Department of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.

4. Blumberg, B. (1996). Old tricks, 11ew dogs: Ethology and interactive creatures. Ph.D. Dissertation. MIT Media Lab. 1996.

5. Blumberg, B. & Galyean, T. (1995). Multi-level direction of autonomous creatures for real-time virtual environments. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 95.

6. Hayes-Roth, B., van Gent, R. & Huber, D. (1996). Acting in character. In R. Trapp! and P. Petta (Eds.), Creating Personalities for Synthetic Actors. Also available as Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory Report KSL-96-13, 1996.

7. Laurel, B. (1991). Computers as theatre. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1991.

8. Laurel, B. (1986). Toward,· the design of a computer-based imeractive fa11tasy system. Ph.D. Diss., The Ohio State University, 1986.

9. Mateas, M. & Stern, A. (2000). Towards integrating plot and character for interactive drama. Working notes of the Socially Intelligent Agents: Human in the Loop Symposium, 2000 AAA! Fall Symposium Series. Menlo Park, CA.: AAA] Press.

10. Mateas, M. (1997). Computational subjectivity in virtual world avatars. Working notes of the Socially Intelligent Age11ts Symposium, 1997 AAA/ Fall Symposium Series. Menlo Park, Calif.: AAA! Press .

11. McKee, R. ( 1997). Sto,y: Substance, structure, style and the principles of screen writing. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

12. Murray, J. (1998). Hamlet 011 the halodeck- Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998.

13. Norman, D. (1988). The design of everyday things. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1988.

14. Sengers, P. (1998a). A11ti-boxology: Agent design i11 cultural context. PhD Thesis, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University. Technical Report CMU-CS-98-151.

15. Sengers, P. (1998b). Do the thing right: An architecture for action expression. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Autonomous Agents, May 1998, 24-31.

16. Weyhrauch, P. (1997). Guidi11g i11teractive drama. PhD Thesis, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University. Technical Report CMU-CS-97-109.

If there is any metaphor that has come to act as a signpost of current developments in the realm of digital art and design, it is the blur. We have seen the blur as a building, the blur as the theme at conferences, and the blur as a means to describe the totality of the overlapping processes and intentions that all converge in what can be called interactive experiences. For shorthand, we call this convergence new media. Given the various aims and contexts from which the larger category of art objects arrives, the blur seems to best approximate a still undistinguished body of work and its cultural momentum.

1. Discussed in M. Merleau-Ponty’s The Phenomenology of
Perception and its Philosophical Consequences, Northwestern
University Press, 1964.
2. Appears in The Medium Is The Message, from Understanding
Media, by Marshall McLuhan, MIT Press 1994.
3. M. Merleau-Ponty’s The Phenomenology of Perception and its
Philosophical Consequences, Northwestern University Press, 1964.
4. www.rhizome.org/carnivore/
5. www.textarc.org
6. www.turbulence.org/Works/nums/
7. Discussion of Ge-stell (Enframing) from The Question Concerning
Technology, from The Question Concerning Technology and Other
Essays, by Martin Heidegger,(Harper & Row, 1977.
8. www.turbulence.org/Works/arcangel/
9. potatoland.com/landfill/
10. acg.media.mit.edu/people/fry/anemone/
11. cat.nyu.edu/natalie/projectdatabase/
12. www.earstudio.com/projects/listeningpost.html?middle=listening_statement.html
13. The Transformational Object, by Christopher Bollas, International
Journal of Psycho-Analysis, (60), 1978 .

Pad++, a general-purpose zoomable substrate For creating and interacting with structured information, is under development by researchers at the University of New Mexico and New York University. All Pad++ objects support zooming, and there ore mechanisms for navigating through a multiscale space using panning, zooming, and hyperlinks. Pad++ includes a number of efficiency mechanisms that help maintain interactive frame­rates with large and complicated graphical scenes.

A-me is a fictitious memory-evoking apparatus at the intersection of science, art and technology. The system enables users to experience other people’s memories as well as store their own by interacting with a volumetric representation (MR) of a human brain. The user retrieves or stores memories (audio traces) by pointing and clicking at precise voxels locations. Triggered by their exploratory action, a story is slowly revealed and recomposed in the form of whispering voices revealing intimate stories. A-me it’s a public receptacle for private memories, thus exploring the possibility of a collective physical brain.

The installation introduces an original optical see-through AR setup for neuronavigation capable of overlaying a volume rendered MR scan onto a physical dummy head. Implementing such a system also forced us to address technical questions on quality assessment of AR systems for brain visualization.

BEAULIEU, J.A. 2000. The Space Inside the Skull.

BIMBER, O. AND RASKAR, R. 2005. Spatial augmented reality. A K Peters Ltd.

BJÖRK, J. 2010. Evaluation of a Holographic 3D Display.

CASARES, A.B. 1974. L’invention de Morel. DONALD, M. 1991. Origins of the Modern Mind. Harvard University Press.

DRASCIC, D. AND MILGRAM, P. 1996. Perceptual issues in augmented reality. Proceedings-Spie The International Society For Optical Engineering, 123–134. GATEWAYS TO THE MIND. 1958. Gateways to the Mind.

KALKOFEN, D., TATZGERN, M., AND SCHMALSTIEG, D. 2009. Explosion Diagrams in Augmented Reality. 71–78. KAUFMAN, A. AND MUELLER, K. 2005. Overview of volume rendering. The visualization handbook, 127–174.

KLANTEN, R., EHMANN, S., AND FEIREISS, L. 2011. A Touch of Code. Die Gestalten Verlag.

KURZWEIL, R. 2006. The Singularity Is Near. Penguin.

MENDEZ, E. AND SCHMALSTIEG, D. 2009. Importance masks for revealing occluded objects in augmented reality. Proceedings of the 16th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, 247–248.

NISHIMOTO, S., VU, A.T., NASELARIS, T., BENJAMINI, Y., YU, B., AND GALLANT, J.L. 2011. Reconstructing Visual Experiences from Brain Activity Evoked by Natural Movies. Current Biology 21, 19, 1641–1646.

PUIG, J., PERKIS, A., LINDSETH, F., AND EBRAHIMI, T. 2012. Towards an Efficient Methodology for Evaluation of Quality of Experience in Augmented Reality. Proc. of Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX). IEEE.

YATES, F.A. 1966. The Art of Memory. Yates.

YOU, J., REITER, U., HANNUKSELA, M.M., GABBOUJ, M., AND PERKIS, A. 2010. Perceptual-based quality assessment for audio–visual services: A survey. Signal Processing: Image Communication 25, 7, 482–501.

Abstract Reality is an interactive installation that creates 3D geometric art as an abstract expression of physical human bodies. The application takes viewers physical features and their relation to the physical space as inputs to generate and place basic geometric forms in a virtual 3D space. Each geometric shape, virtual position and orientation, and color are affected by individual viewer’s physical positions, movements, and dominant colors. The overall structure of the geometric shapes is controlled by a modified Voronoi diagram, a computational geometric algorithm, to explore novel aesthetics.

Advertising Positions integrates 3D scanning, motion capture, novel image mapping algorithms and custom animation to create data portraits from the advertisements served by online trackers. Project volunteers use bespoke software to harvest the ads they receive over months of browsing. When enough ads have been collected, the volunteer is interviewed, 3D scanned and motion captured. Each ad is then mapped to a single polygon on the textured skin of their virtual avatar. Outcomes have been displayed as 2D/3D images, animations and interactive installations.

Aeolian Traces is a multimedia artwork that collects human migration data to generate gusts of wind around the gallery space, closely synced to oral narratives triggered from a database of recordings. A work of data sonification and visualization, this project explores the aesthetics and socio-cultural possibilities in environmental data.

The authors identify some of the theoretical premises of biocybernetic art objects, with reference to the works of Nam June Paik, Edward Ihnawitz, Ulrike Gabriel, and most notably, Gilberto Esparza, the Mexican biocybernetic artist. Systems theory anticipates stochastic convergences in nature, defying the classic certitude of the teleological notion of form. Evidence for this paradigmatic shift is found in the biocybernetic creatures conceived by these roboticists. In much biocybernetic art, beauty emerges in the form of adaptive mechanisms, such as in robotic tetrapods or self-organizing artificial plants. Such structures provide a template for survival mechanisms in an increasingly entropic environment.

1. De Sousa, Ronald, “Is Art an Adaptation? Prospects for an Evolutionary Perspective on Beauty,” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 62, No. 2, 109–118 (Spring 2004); Thomas, David J., “Biological Aspects of the Ecopoiesis and Terraformation of Mars,” Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 415–418 (1995).

2. Bedau, Mark, “The Scientific and Philosophical Scope of Artificial Life,” Leonardo 35, No. 4, 395–400 (August 2002); Parreira Correia, Luís Miguel, “From Natural to Artificial Life,” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, T. 66, Fasc. 4, 789–802 (2010); Peterson, Ivars, “Artificial Reality,” Science News 127, No. 25, 396–397 (June 1985).

3. Burnham, Jack, “Systems Esthetics,” Artforum 7, No. 1, 31–37 (September 1968).

4. Kac, Eduardo, “Foundation and Development of Robotic Art,” Art Journal 56, No. 3, 60–67 (Autumn 1997).

5. Lin, Po-Hsien, “A Dream of Digital Art: Beyond the Myth of Contemporary Computer Technology in Visual Arts,” Visual Arts Research 31, No. 1 (60), 4–12 (2005).

6. Hood, Ernie, “Robolobsters: The Beauty of Biomimetics,” Environmental Health Perspectives 112, No. 8, A486–A489 (June 2004).

7. Dissanayake, Ellen, Art and Intimacy: How the Arts Began (Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 2000).

8. Weiner, Norbert, Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1965).

9. Holland, J. H., Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992).

10. Capra, Fritjof, The Web of Life. A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems (New York: Anchor Books, 1997).

11. Brand, Stewart, Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto (London, UK: Atlantic Books, 2009).

12. Gombrich, Ernst, Reflections on the History of Art: Views and Reviews (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 1987).

13. Hood, Ernie, “Robolobsters: The Beauty of Biomimetics,” Environmental Health Perspectives 112, No. 8, 486 (June 2004).

14. Dawkins, Richard, The Selfish Gene (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1989).

15. Cho, Adrian, “Making Machines That Make Others of Their Kind,” Science 318, No. 5853, 1084–1085 (November 2007); Meleka, J., “Will the Robot Change the World or the World Change the Robot–A User Point of View,” Journal of the Royal Society of Arts 131, No. 5327, 657–670 (October 1983).

16. Capra, Fritjof, The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems (New York: Random House, 1996).

17. De Sousa, Ronald, “Is Art an Adaptation? Prospects for an Evolutionary Perspective on Beauty,” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 62, No. 2, 109 (Spring 2004).

18. Cho, Adrian, “Making Machines That Make Others of Their Kind,” Science 318, No. 5853, 660 (November 2007).

19. Wilson, Stephen, Information Arts: Intersections of Art, Science, and Technology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002).

20. Rusk, Natalie et al., “New Pathways Into Robotics: Strategies for Broadening Participation,” Journal of Science Education and Technology 17, No. 1, 59–69 (February 2008).

21. Bellingham, James G., and Kanna Rajan, “Robotics in Remote and Hostile Environments,” Science 318, No. 5853, 1098–1102 (November 2007).

22. White, Norman, <www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCzfBOfP42c> (2013), accessed March 19, 2014.

23. Kac, Eduardo, “Dialogical Telepresence and Net Ecology,” The Robot in the Garden: Telerobotics and Telepistemology in the Age of the Internet, ed. Ken Goldberg (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000).

24. Gabriel, Ulrike, <www.foro-artistico.de/deutsch/programm/review/sensystem.html> (1993), accessed March 21, 2014.

25. Klein, Yves Amu, “Living Sculpture: The Art and Science of Creating Robotic Life,” Leonardo 31, No. 5, 393–396 (October 1998).

26. Karakasiliotis, Konstantinos et al., “Where Are We in Understanding Salamander Locomotion: Biological and Robotic Perspectives on Kinematics,” Biological Cybernetics 107, No. 5, 529–544 (October 2013).

27. Hood, Ernie, “Robolobsters: The Beauty of Biomimetics,” Environmental Health Perspectives 112, No. 8, 115 (June 2004).

28. Pfeifer, Rolf, Max Lungarella, and Fumiya Iida, “Self-Organization, Embodiment, and Biologically Inspired Robotics,” Science 318, No. 5853, 1088–1093 (November 2007); Weiss, Peter, “In Its Own Image,” Science News 167, No. 20, 310 (May 2005).

29. Hillis, W. D., “Co-evolving Parasites Improve Simulated Evolution as an Optimization Procedure,” Physica D 42, No. 1–3, 228–234 (June 1990).

30. Fujita, Masahiro, “How to Make an Autonomous Robot as a Partner with Humans: Design Approach Versus Emergent Approach,” Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 365, No. 1850, 21–47 (January 2007).

31. Waltz, David. L., “The Prospects for Building Truly Intelligent Machines,” Daedalus 117, No. 1, 191–212 (Winter 1988); Flood, Merrill M., “What Future Is There for Intelligent Machines?” Audio Visual Communication Review 11, No. 6, 260–270 (1963).

Project Agitato attempts to represent the evolving music information within a single image frame, in the hope to capture the subjective and perceptual qualities of time expressed in music. The title of the project, named from the music term agitato, depicts the restless agitated style of the music. Each image in this series is generated based on a musical passage from Nicolas Scherzinger’s ‘inter-sax-tive’. For a given moment in time, its spectrum of frequencies is analyzed and used as the input to construct visual elements with various characteristics. As the music progress, the visual elements accumulate and are composed into a single image that reflects the music material within a defined duration of time, allowing viewers to perceive music passage from a single viewpoint, rather than as a linear experience of time

Any collaboration is a negotiation. While most artistic teams hide the filibustering, intellectual posturing, and shifting alliances that lie behind their decisions, Agree to Disagree Online brings these facets of collaboration to the fore.

The Air Hugs project is a large-scale interactive installation that transforms the space around the passerby using actuated inflatables and computer vision. The title of the installation draws from the hug as a discursive tool for describing variable space which is modified by the circulation of the public.

This talk explores some of the possible applications of unsupervised machine learning methods in found footage cinema, a tradition of experimental art that re-edits excerpts from existing films. This artistic practice sometimes aims to reconfigure our experience of the moving image heritage. In this context, machine learning algorithms has the potential to capture aspects of the cinematic experience for which we lack critical concepts, and which are for this reason difficult to describe. One important example concerns cinematic motion. Established critical discourse often speaks of motion in film by reference to the movement of objects or the camera. Film scholars might describe a scene by noting, for instance, that a person is walking fast or that the camera is tilting upwards. What is missing in this kind of description is the visual texture of cinematic movement. The two-channel algorithmic installation Errant: The Kinetic Propensity of Images applies matrix factorization techniques to the analysis of optical flow in cinema, focusing on the work of Chinese director King Hu. This method produces a visual dictionary of basic motion patterns the represent what could be described as the “kinetic overtones” of image sequences. The results are then visualized using streaklines, a technique from fluid dynamics. This presentation will discuss the motivation and methodology used in the production of this work, in relation to other work by the speaker. Implications for cinema theory will also be briefly discussed.

This paper is an exploration of the processes used and ideas behind an animated full CGI feature lm project that attempts to reach blockbuster production values, while retaining Art House sensibilities. It examines methods used to achieve these production values in an academic production environment and ways costs can be minimized while high quality levels are retained. It also examines the lm’s status as an Art House project, by comparing its narrative design and use of symbolism to existing works of Art House cinema.

Alt’ai is a simulation inspired by the rich aesthetics, landscapes, and cultural practices of a remote mountain region. As a self-generating repository of unique snapshots capturing instances of interaction among the simulation agents, it provides an instrumental reference for the development of future machine-to-machine authentication protocols.

Manifest destiny: In “Excerpts from the Vancouver Lectures,” Jack Spicer relates the story: Yeats, 1918, a train bound for Los Angeles. His wife in a trance, automatic writing, taking dictation from “spooks.” Yeats poses the question: “What are you here for?” And the spooks reply: “We are here to give metaphors for your poetry.”

Anathema is the psychological study of Doug’s demons, nightmares and fantasies in a dream-like autoscopy that displays the strengths and vulnerabilities of a self-altered and self-made man in his 70’s. The piece was created with the Kinect volumetric sensor, with music by Mexican cyber-punk musician Cesar Cardenas aka Zoonosis.

Animated robotic sculptures are works of art that combine plant and animal motifs with robotics to give their audience a sense of the objects being alive through their lifelike movements, such as stirring leaves or squirming tentacles.

With the globalization of mobile telephony during the past two decades, cell towers have sprouted up across different parts of the world. The “unsightliness” of these towers has resulted in responses ranging from neighborhood protests to manufacturers’ concealment strategies. This essay explores the installation of towers in different locations from urban spaces to national parks and considers how their emergence relates to a set of concerns about technology, knowledge, and power.

In addition to examining cell towers in different environments, I describe various “concealment strategies,” including covering towers in tree camouflage, mosque minarets, flagpoles, birds’ nests, and other hiding places. I explore what is at stake in hiding infrastructure and how such practices end up trading technological awareness for a highly synthetic version of “nature.” By disguising infrastructure as part of the natural and/or built environment, such strategies keep citizens naïve and uninformed about the network technologies they subsidize and use. Finally, I consider whether it might be possible to develop modes of affective engagement with infrastructure sites such as cell towers by discussing the work of artists such as Robert Voit (Enchanted Wood), Marijetica Potrc (Permanently Unfinished House with Cell Phone Tree), and Olaf Nicolai (Antenna Tree).

Communication infrastructures are frequently visualized as flow diagrams designed to approximate the spatial relations of a network. As a result, there is a tendency to overlook the uniqueness of particular nodes in a network: their physical form, the stories of their development, or the practices that surround them once they are activated. The antenna tree, I want to suggest, represents the potential to develop a more nodecentric and materialist approach to the study of infrastructure. As a cell tower disguised as a tree, the antenna tree draws attention to the materiality of infrastructure in the very process of trying to conceal it. People often chuckle at these uncanny objects that have been designed to soften the severity of the steel tower with botanical plastics. This tower in disguise not only relays signals, but it is implicated in an array of industrial, legal, and socio-cultural relationships. Each antenna tree can be understood as a symptom of processes of fabrication and installation, state and local regulation, community deliberation, and urban transformation. Thinking around the antenna tree, then, involves considering the fields of negotiation that are produced as an effect of infrastructure development and placement.

In this essay, I describe the emergence of cell-tower concealment strategies and discuss art works by Robert Voit (Enchanted Wood) and Marijetica Potrc (Permanently Unfinished House with Cell Phone Tree) that integrate antenna trees and provoke discussions of infrastructural in/visibility. I explore what is at stake in hiding infrastructure and how such practices may end up trading technological awareness for a highly synthetic version of “nature.” By disguising infrastructure as part of the natural environment, concealment strategies keep citizens naïve and uninformed about the network technologies they subsidize and use each day. We describe ourselves as a “networked society,” yet most members of the public know very little about the infrastructures that support that designation in broadcasting, web, or wireless systems. This issue of infrastructure literacy becomes more prescient as we enter an era of ubiquitous computing in which many different kinds of objects and surfaces will be used as relay towers and/or web interfaces. Since infrastructure sites are becoming more pervasive and less invisible, the work of visual artists can be extremely important in drawing our attention to them and triggering conversations about their design, placement, and effects.

Celebrating 25 years of Arg Electronica, the panel provides not just interesting historical information, but also comprehensive insight into new directions of digital art.

In 1975 Aldo Giorgini developed a software program in FORTRAN called FIELDS, a numerical visual laboratory devoted entirely to art production. Working extensively as both artist and scientist, Giorgini was one of the first computer artists to combine software writing with early printing technologies, leaving an aesthetic legacy in the field of the digital arts. His individual process was innovative in that it consisted of producing pen-plotted drawings embellished by the artist’s hand with painting, drawing, and screen-printing. This paper is the product of a multi-year study of Giorgini’s primary source materials provided by his estate. The authors examine the methods used by Giorgini during the 1970s that allowed him to create computer-aided art, in the hope that publishing this work will ensure that future generations of digital artists, technologists and scientists can be educated in Giorgini’s contribution to the history of the digital arts.

1. M. Giorgini, Aldo Giorgini: 1934–1994. Unpublished manuscript.

2. Faculty and Staff, Giorgini, Aldo Vertical File, Archives and Special Collections, Purdue Libraries. Accessed October 2009.

3. A. Burbano, “Between Punched Film Stock and the First Computers: The Work of Konrad Zuse” (2010).

4. P. Trachtman, “Charles Csuri Is an ‘Old Master’ in a New Medium.” Retrieved December 8, 2010 from www.siggraph.org/artdesign/profile/csuri/index.html.

5. C. Csuri, “Charles Csuri,” Artist and Computer, R. Leavitt, ed. (New York: Creative Computing Press, 1976) 85–87.

6. A. Giorgini and W.C. Chen, Interfaces, Computer-aided Art: The Program FIELDS (West Lafayette, IN: School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, 1974) 3.

7. Ibid., p.4.

8. Ibid., p.3.

9. C. Reas, C. McWilliams, and J. Barendse, Form and Code in Design, Art, and Architecture (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2010) 21.

10. C. Reas,“{Software} Structures” (2004). Retrieved December 8, 2010, from artport.whitney.org/ commissions/softwarestructures/text.html.

11. G. Garrells, ed., Sol LeWitt: A Retrospective (London: Yale University Press, 2000).

12. A. Giorgini, “Computer Art Symposium at Purdue” [tape recording ] (Lafayette, IN: Aldo Giorgini’s personal collection, March 24, 1975).

13. A. Giorgini and W.C. Chen, Interfaces, Computer aided Art: The Program FIELDS (West Lafayette, IN: School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, 1974) 1.

14. Ibid., p.5.

15. A. Giorgini, “Aldo Giorgini,” Artist and Computer, R. Leavitt, ed. (New York: Creative Computing Press, 1976) 9–12.

16. A. Giorgini and W.C. Chen, Interfaces, Computer aided Art: The Program FIELDS (West Lafayette, IN: School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, 1974) 6.

17. Ibid., p.2.

18. M. A. Giorgini, personal communication, October 23, 2010.

19. L. Livermore, “My Last Column for Maximum Rocknroll,” Maximum Rocknroll, No. 133 (April 1994).

20. A. Giorgini and W.C. Chen, Interfaces, Computer aided Art: The Program FIELDS (West Lafayette, IN: School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, 1974) 4.

Much as the majority of the art public has tried to ignore the art and technology phenomenon, it is no longer either possible or fashionable to do so. The large retrospective of video artist Nam June Paik at the Whitney Museum in New York in the Spring of 1982 was just one of numerous recent examples of the acceptance of the new technology in a traditional art environment. A lack of familiarity with the actual process by which the works are made, has caused the word “computer” in connection with art to be met with particular distrust out of the ill-founded fear that this mystifyingly complex machine might soon replace the artist in the creation of art. Yet in spite of the electronic implementation, computer-aided art is still in many ways as much a handcrafted product as conventional art forms but simply processed in a different manner. Furthermore, because most artists are as of yet unacquainted with the mechanics and potential of computers, their accomplishments on com­puter systems, which may assume various forms including color xerography, photo enlarge­ments, plotter drawings or video, to name only a few, are often the product of intense collabora­tion in a laboratory-like environment between the artist and someone technically proficient in the computer field. This practice is in antithesis to the myth of the sculptor or painter struggling preferably in solitude in a studio to realize his artistic concepts in pencil, paint, metal, stone, or other common materials.

The author expresses his opinion that new imagemaking technology is providing an interdisciplinary language and creating a requirement for generalists rather than specialists. This new technology is also initiating a paradigm shift in those disciplines that make use of it. Lack of acknowledgment of such effects, particularly in the area of higher education, could lead to significant problems that, in the longer term, could affect manufacturing industry and national economic performance. One solution is to involve practitioners of non-applied disciplines (such as fine arts and pure science and mathematics) that have already adapted to a similar paradigm change and whose perception of the new tools and techniques is likely to be less parochial and more flexible.

This paper explores how the interactive paradigms and interface designs of arcade classics like Breakout and Pong have been incorporated into contemporary art games and offer new possibilities for political and cultural critique.

AARSETH, E. 2001. Editorial in Game Studies. www.gamestudies.org/0101/editorial. html.

BEAL, A. 2002. Interview by Geri Wittig and Max Hardcore. switch .sjsu. ed u/web/v5n2/i nterview. htm I.

BooKCHIN, N. 1999. www.calarts.edu/-bookchin/intruder.

DIABLO Advertisement. 2002. www.blizzard.com/diablo2/.

HERZ, J.C. 2001 Go Digital. BBC news interview, August 4, 2001. news. bbc.co. u k/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid 1504000/1504 718.stm.

KLIMA, J. 2001. Go Fish. Postmasters Gallery, NYC, 2001. www.city arts.com/lmno/postmasters.html.

MANOVICH, L. 2001. The Language of New Media. Cambridge: MIT Press, 245.

POOLE, S. 2000. Trigger Happy: Video games and the Entertainment Revolution. New York: Arcade Publishing, 226.

TRIBE, M. AND GALLOWAY, A. 2001. Net Games Now. Rhizome. April 29, 2001. rhizome.org/print.rhiz?2632.

By the mid-1960s, Marshall McLuhan prophesied that electronic media were creating an increasingly interconnected global village. Such pronouncements popularized the idea that the era of machine-age technology was drawing to a close, ushering in a new era of information technology. Sensing this shift, art historian and curator K.G. Pontus Hulten organized a simultaneously nostalgic and futuristic exhibition on art and mechanical technology at the Museum of Modern Art in New York in 1968. The Machine: As Seen at the End of the Mechanical Age included work ranging from Leonardo Da Vinci’s 16th-century drawings of flying machines to contemporary artist-engineer collaborations that won a competition organized by Experiments in Art and Technology, Inc. (EAT).¹

Notes
1. Because of the extraordinary response to the MOMA competition, the numerous other proposals resulted in a spin-off exhibition, Some More Beginnings, that EAT organized at the Brooklyn Arc Museum concurrently with The Machine. See K.G. Ponrus Hui ten, The Machine: As Seen at the End of the Mechanical Age. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1968. See also, Experiments in Art and Technology, Some More Beginnings, New York: Experiments in Art and Technology, 1968.

2. nine evenings was the culmination of collaborations between artists and dancers, like Rauschenberg, who were associated with the Judson Dance Theater, and engineers, like Kli.iver, from Bell Laboratories. If any single event could be identified as the spark that ignited American interest in the idea of joining art and technology in the 1960s, this was it.

3. See Kluver, B., Marcin, J., and Rose, B., eds., Pavilion. New York: Dutton, 1972.

4. See Tuchman, M., “A Report on the Art and technology Program of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art,” 1967-1971.

5. Many of the artists who offered proposals to A&T wanted to use computers, but corporate sponsors were resistant to donate the use of their computers, except for Information International, Inc., which collaborated with Jackson MacLow, helping the artist to create computer-generated poems. See Tuchman, “A Report: 19,” 201- 23. With regard to telecommunications projects, on July, 1971, EAT organized Utopia Q&A, an international telex project that involved participants in New York, Tokyo, Ahmedabad, and Stockholm exchanging information about changes they anticipated in culture and society in 10 years. EAT archives: 67:1, Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles.

6. Reichardt, J., ed., Cybernetic Serendipity: The Computer and the Arts. London: Studio International, 1968.

7. See Judith Benjamin Burnham, ed., Software, Information Technology: Its New Meaning for Art. New York: The Jewish Museum, 1971. The exhibition featured a stellar cast of experimental artists, including Robert Barry, Douglas Huebler, Agnes Denes, Sonia Sheridan, Alan Kaprow, Vito Acconci, David Antin, John Giorno, John Baldessari, John Goodyear, Ted Victoria, and Donald Burgy.

8. Like Burnham, Harrison was extremely close to the pulse of conceptual art, and his writings, like those of his American counterpart, warrant respect and response. Harrison first met the four founders of art and language in 1969, the same year he wrote a catalog essay (“Against Precedents”) for the London showing of the landmark conceptual art exhibition When Attitudes Became Form. He became an active member of Art & Language in 1971, merging his professional training as an art hiscorian with art practice. Formally trained as an artist, Burnham made his first light sculpture in 1954 and his first programmed kinetic sculpture in 1959. He received his MFA in sculpture from Yale in 1961 and later merged his insights as an artist working with technology with his self-taught vocation as an art critic and historian. A close frienOof Hans Haacke since 1962, he was also associated with the group of Conceptual artists represented by New York dealer Seth Sieglaub.

9. As art historian Kristine Stiles has noted, many Conceptual Artists, especially Mel Bochner and Art & Language, recognized the contradiction of the so-called “dematerialization” of the art object theorized by Lucy Lippard and John Chandler in their inAuential article, “The Dematerialization of Art” Art International (February 1968) and reinscribed in Lippards Six Years: The Dematerialization of the Art Object, 1966-1972 (1973). Stiles points out that “dematerialization of art” can best be seen as a “strategy for repositioning art in relation to policies – not a shift from material per se, but a shift from an artworks value as an object of commercial exchange to its value as aesthetic and political interchange.” See Kristine Stiles, “Language and Concepts” in Kristine Stiles and Peter Selz, eds., Theories and Documents of Contemporary Art: A Sourcebook of Artists Writings, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996): 804-816; and Mel Bochner, “Book Review,” Artforum 11:10 (June, 1973), reprinted in Stiles and Selz, Theories and Documents: 828-32.

10. Burnham, J., “The Aesthetics of Intelligent Systems” in Edward Fry, Intro., On the Future of Art, (New York: Viking, 1970): 119.

11. Ibid.

12. Burnham, J., “Notes on Art and Information Processing,” Software: JO 13. See my “The House That Jack Built: jack Burnhams Concept of Software as a Metaphor for Art,” Leonardo Electronic Almanac 6:10 (Nov 1998) online publication: mitpress.mit.edu/e-journals/LEA/ ART! CLES/jack.html

14. Burnham, J., Personal correspondence with the author, April 23, 1998. Electronic Art and Animation Catalog

15. Burnham, J., “Alices Head,” Artforum 1970, reprinted in Jack Bumham, Great Western Salt Works, (New York: George Braziller): 47.

16. The other two works were A.LR. (1968-70) and Wire Tap (1969-70). A.LR. (Artist In Residence) was conceived as a live, real-time video link to Levines studio, so that the museum audience could observe the minute-to-minute activities of the artist, which were displayed on a ring of television sets encompassing the viewer. Due to financial limitations, the actual implementation used prerecorded videotapes of the artist in his studio. Wire Tap was comprised of live telephone conversations between the artist and whoever happened to call him at the moment, played over an array of 12 12-inch x 12-inch speakers.

17. Burnham, Software: 60.

18. Levine, L., artists statement, Software: 61.

19. This cycle of transformations does not stop here. The reproduction of imagery from Systems Burn-Off in the software catalog added another level to the cycle, creating information about art as information about information about art. And my discussion of it represents information about information about art as information about information about art.

20. Levine quoted in Gene Youngblood, Expanded Cinema. (New York: E.P. Dutton and Co., Inc, 1970): 340.

21. Ibid.

22. Burnham, J., Haacke, H. “Wind and Water Sculpture,” Tri-Quarterly, 3 Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1967.

23. Haacke, H., Interview with the author, January 2, 1999.

24. Ibid. Bertalanffy’s ideas were compiled in General Systems Theo,y: Foundations, Development, Application, New York: George Braziller, 1968. See also, Wiener’s Cybernetics: 01; Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1948. Many artists were introduced to these concepts by Burn ham’s Beyond Modern Sculpture: The Effects of Science and Technology on the Sculpture of This Centu,y, New York: George Braziller, 1968, which included references to Bertalanffy’s proto-cybernetic biological theories of the 1930s; the cybernetic theories of Wiener, Stafford Beer, Ross Ashby, and Gordon Pask; and Claude Shannon’s related principles of information theory. For more on Burnham’s inAuence on artists, see Simon Penny, “Systems Aesthetics+ Cyborg Art: The Legacy of Jack Burnham,” Sculpture Magazine, 18 (]), )anuaryFebuary 1999. Published online at www.sculpture.org/documents/scmag99/burnham/sm-burnh.htm

25. Burnham, J., “Real Time Systems,” Artforum (Sept 1969): 49-55, reprinted in Great Westem Salt Works: 27-38.

26. The questionnaire was almost identical to the version Haacke proposed for his solo exhibition at the Guggenheim Museum in 1971, which the museum cancelled. See Brian Wallis, ed., Hans Haacke: Unfinished BusineH, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1986: 82-7; and also in chis volume, Rosalyn Deutsche, “Property Values: Hans Haacke, Real Estate, and the Museum”: 20-38.

27. Haacke, H., artists statement in Software: 34.

28. Haacke, H., artists statement in “Hans Haacke,” exhibition catalog, New York: Howard Wise Gallery, 1968, quoted in Jack Burnham, Systems Esthetics, 35.

29. Kosuth recalls that much of the material for the software installation (loose-leaf folders filled with propositions, information, and documentation) was “borrowed” by an audience member for an extended period, though ultimately it was returned co the museum. Joseph Kosuth, interview with the author, April 5, 1999.

30. See Kosuth, J., “Seventh Investigation (Art as Idea as Idea) Proposition One” illustrated in Software, 69.

31. Kosuth, J., artists statement, Software, 68.

32. The photographic reproduction of the billboard has come to signify the Seventh Investigation, reducing it, at least on a superficial level, to a recognizable icon for those who have not studied the work in sufficient depth or who continue to insist on seeing art in iconic terms. At the same time, like most conceptual artists, Kosuth needs “hardware” to convey the concepts of his “software,” hence the critique of a so-called “dematerialized” art.

33. For more on Kosuth’s theorization of conceptual art, see Joseph Kosuth, Art After Philosophy and After: Collected Writings, 1966-90, Gabriele Guercio, ed. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991.

34. Burnham, “The Aesthetics of Intelligent Systems.”

35. A further parallel may be drawn between the event scores of artists like George Brecht and Yoko Ono, and Kosuth’s propositions, which can be interpreted as functioning like event scores for the mind.

36. Morgan, R. C.,Art into Ideas, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996: 2-3.

37. The journal Leonardo, founded by artist/scientist Frank Malina in 1967, and excellent books like Jonathan Benthall’s Science and Technology in Art Today (1972) and especially Douglas Davis’s Art and the Future (1973), helped to keep interdisciplinary discourses among art, science, and technology alive. However, much of that research either became autonomous (like video art) merged with other movements, or retreated from the center stage of the contemporary art world to be undertaken in eclectic university departments at MIT, Carnegie-Mellon, the Art Institute of Chicago, the University of Illinois at Chicago, and The Ohio State University. Howard Wise closed his gallery in 1971 in order to create the Electronic Arts Intermix, a not-for-profit organization serving video artists, which is still in operation in New York.

38. For more on the ideological context for art and technology in the 1960s, see Edward A. Shanken, “Gemini Rising, Moon in Apollo: Attitudes Towards Art and Technology in the US, 1966-1971” in ISEA97 (Proceedings of International Society for Electronic Art), Chicago: ISEA97, 1998; reprinted online in Leonardo Electronic Almanac 6:12 (January, 1999): mitpress.mit.edu/e-journals/LEA/ARTICLES/ gemini.html

39. Public interest in conceptual art had steadily increased since the mid-1960s, when artists, curators, and critics began the process of historicizing a broad range of international artistic tendencies under the rubric of “conceptual art.” Nineteen sixty-nine was a watershed year, marked by an extraordinary number of international exhibitions. Its increasing reputation led to the publication in 1972 of Ursula Meyers’ Conceptual Art, a compilation of statements, essays, artworks, and interviews by conceptual artists; and in 1973, Gregory Battcock’s Idea Art: A Critical Anthology.

40. Jasia Reichardt, interview with the author, July 30, 1998, London.

41. Moreover, since Ascott’s diagram entitled “Thesaurus” was largely textual, he expressly put in writing his intention to use text in and as art.

42. Sol Lewitt, “Paragraphs on Conceptual Art,” Stiles and Selz, Theories and Documents: 825.

43. Ursula Meyer, Conceptual Art, New York: Dutton, 1972, xvi.

44. Jack Burnham, “Steps in the Formulation of Real-Time Political Art” in Kaspar Koenig, ed., Hans Haacke: Framing and Being Framed, 7 Works 1970-75, (Halifax: The Press of the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design, 1975): 128-9.

45. Charles Harrison, “A Kind of Context,” in Essays on Art & Language (London: Basil Blackwell, 1991): 17.

46. Ibid: 260, fn 25.

47. Ibid: 261, fn 30

48. Harrison, C., “The Late Sixties in London and Elsewhere” Hillary Gresty, ed., 1965-1972, When Attitudes Became Form, (Cambridge: Kettles Yard Gallery, 1984): 10-11.

49. This spurious computer program for interactively generating color refused to allow the user to interact beyond the rigid banality of binary input. If the user entered a number other than O or I, the program proffered the message: “YOU HAVE NOTHING, OBEY INSTRUCT IONS!” If the user entered a non-number, The Cybernetic Art Work That Nobody Broke responded that there was an “ERROR AT STEP 3.2.” Ibid: 58.

50. This work juxtaposed a “sculptural morphology and an electromagnetic morphology.” The perceptual experience of interacting with the sculptural aspect of the system was intended to result in knowledge about the electromagnetic aspect of the system, which, in turn, would create knowledge about the sculptural aspects. See, Terry Atkinson, David Bainbridge, Michael Baldwin, and Harold Hurrell, “Lecher System” Studio International 180:924 (July/Aug 1970), reprinted in Ursula Meyer, Conceptual Art: 22-25.

51. In this work, Terry Atkinson and Michael Baldwin offered a key to abbreviations for the French Army (FAA), the Collection of Men and Machines (CMM), and the Group of Regiments (GR), then described the inter-relationships among them: The FA is regarded as the same CMM as the GR, and the GR is the same CMM as (for example) a new order FA (for example, morphologically a member of another class of objects): by transitivity, the FA is the same CMM as the New Shape/Order one. This ironic passage reduces to absurdity the systematic relationships among individuals, groups, and institutions characteristic of cybernetics and the military. See, Harrison, Essays on Art & Language:

52 Ibid: 56.

53. Index had a variety of rnanifestions, including a component of Index 4, which consisted of a computer printout. Several instances of the work can be likened to hypertext, an electronic text system in which a non-linear narrative is navigated by participants through a process of making associational links. Ibid: 72.

54. Some of the distinctions Harrison has made between art and language and “the normal work of … Conceptual Art,” such as the idea that “it was the supposed end product of the [Conceptual] artists activity that claimed primary attention,” contradict the stated goals of so-called “normal … Conceptual art[ists]” like Robert Barry and Douglas Huebler, whom Burnham discussed in “Alices Head.” See, Harrison, Essays: 5 l

55. See for example, Popper, F., Origins and Development of Kinetic Art. Trans. Stephen Bann. Greenwich, CT: New York Graphic Society, 1969; Jack Burnham, Beyond Modern Sculpture; Douglas Davis, Art and the Future: A Hist01y!Prophecy of the Collaboration between Science, Technology and Art. New York: Praeger, 1973.

56. See, for example, the prominence of Haacke in many issues of October Magazine. See also, Wheeler, Art Since Mid-Centwy; Meyer, Conceptual Art; and Morgan, Art into Ideas.

57. When computer-telecommunications became accessible to civilians, Ascott was one of the first artists to use them for aesthetic purposes and developed a distinguished reputation as a pioneering theorist and practicioner of telematic art, which achieves a state of technologically mediated dematerialization that Ascott has referred to in Derridean terms as “pure electronic difference.” See Roy Ascott, “Is There Love in the Telematic Embrace” Art journal 49:3 (Fall, 1990): 241-7. While deeply ensconced in theoretical concerns regarding process, systems, and linguistic strllctures of communication, Ascott’s work is in the process of being canonized in the domain of media art, the apparent successor to art and technology.

58. Burnham, “Notes on Art and Information Processing” Software: I 1 (16).

With the recent renewed interest in art generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI), it is timely to re-explore the body of knowledge and critique around art made by algorithms. Since computers were first adopted as art machines a number of enduring criticisms have reoccured over the decades, often with different names, but ultimately similar conceptual foundations. Essentially they relate to issues of authorship (who is the author when an “intelligent” machine is involved in the art making process?), autonomy (how much of the decision making and creative judgment is absolved to the machine?), authenticity (can creative acts or outputs made by machines ever be authentic?) and intention (is it right to think of machines as artists?). As AI technologies are increasingly fetishised by technologists and artists, a renewed debate around these criticisms has reemerged. In this talk I want to specifically address the issue of algorithmic genericism: how can algorithmic art practices escape the spectre of being generic to the algorithm itself? How can a practice be informed to recognise the issues of authorship, autonomy, authenticity and intention and move beyond algorithmic genericism?

This paper discusses the conflicting expectations for media artists taking part in art-science collaborations. Despite the increasing opportunity to participate in these interdisciplinary projects, it can be unclear how media arts activities are best articulated, or even if they need to be defined at all. Additionally, this paper examines a methodological framework widely used in the visualization community for identifying different visualization tasks within research activities. Inspired by its success, this paper proposes a new methodological framework for media arts activities in art-science contexts. This framework splits media arts activities into overlapping areas: generation, augmentation, provocation and mediation, providing a useful way to articulate the broader importance of media arts in interdisciplinary collaboration.

1. R. Malina, “Is Art-Science Hogwash?: A Rebuttal to Jean-Marc Levy Leblond,” Leonardo, Vol. 39, No. 1, 66–67 (2012).

2. R. Malina, “Non-Euclidian Translation: Crossing the River Delta from the Arts to the Sciences and Back Again,” Leonardo Reviews Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 3, 6–8 (2011).

3. B. Shneiderman, “Creativity Support Tools: Accelerating Discovery and Innovation,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 50, No. 12, 20–32 (2007).

4. L. Candy, “New Media Arts and the Future of Technologies,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 50, No. 12, 30–31 (2007).

5. Z. Bilda, E. Edmonds, and L. Candy, “Designing for Creative Engagement,” Design Studies, Vol. 29, No. 6, 525–540 (2008).

6. P. Jennings and E. Giaccardi, “Creativity Support Tools for and by the New Media Arts Community,” NSF Workshop Report on Creativity Support Tools, 37–52 (2005).

7. E. Shanken, “Artists in Industry and the Academy: Collaborative Research, Interdisciplinary Scholarship and the Creation and Interpretation of Hybrid Forms,” Leonardo, Vol. 38, No. 5, 415–418 (2005).

8. T. Munzner, “Process and Pitfalls in Writing Information Visualization Research Papers,” in Information Visualization (Berlin: Springer, 2008) pp. 134–153.

9. C. Ware, Information Visualization: Perception for Design (Waltham: Morgan Kaufmann, 2013).

10. T. Munzner, “A Nested Model for Visualization Design and Validation,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, Vol. 15, No. 6, 921–928 (2009).

11. A. G. Forbes, “Media Arts Roles in Art-Science Collaborations,” Proceedings of the Re-new Digital Arts Festival, 276–282 (2013).

12. G. Deleuze and F. Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987). Translated by B. Massumi.

13. R. Katz and T. J. Allen, “Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) Syndrome: A Look at the Performance, Tenure, and Communication Patterns of 50 R&D Project Groups,” R&D Management, Vol. 12, No. 1, 7–20 (1982).

14. R. Jones, “The Post-Critical Hybrid,” Artnodes, Vol. 11 (2011).

15. A. Gutmann and D. Thompson, Why Deliberative Democracy? (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009).

16. V. A. Brown, “Collective Inquiry and Its Wicked Problems,” in Tackling Wicked Problems through the Transdisciplinary Imagination (London: Earthscan, 2010) pp. 61–83.

17. V. Vesna, “Toward a Third Culture: Being in Between,” Leonardo, Vol. 34, No. 2, 121–125 (2001).

18. A. G. Forbes, “Media Arts Roles in Art-Science Collaborations,” Proceedings of the Re-new Digital Arts Festival, 276–282 (2013).

19. A. G. Forbes, T. Höllerer and G. Legrady, “Behaviorism: A Framework for Dynamic Data Visualization,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, Vol. 16, No. 6, 1164–1171 (2010).

20. A. G. Forbes, T. Höllerer and G. Legrady, “Generative Fluid Profiles for Interactive Media Arts Projects,” Proceedings of the International Symposium on Computational Aesthetics in Graphics, Visualization, and Imaging, 37–43 (2013).

21. A. G. Forbes and K. Odai, “Iterative Synaesthetic Composing with Multimedia Signals,” Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference, 573–578 (2012).

22. A. G. Forbes, J. Villegas, K. Almryde and E. Plante, “A Stereoscopic System for Viewing the Temporal Evolution of Brain Activity Clusters in Response to Linguistic Stimuli,” Proceedings of SPIE-IS&T Electronic Imaging, Stereoscopic Displays and Applications XXV, Vol. 9011, 90110I–1–7 (2014).

23. J. Villegas and A. G. Forbes, “Analysis/Synthesis Approaches for Creatively Processing Video Signals,“ Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 37–46 (2014).

The STARTS Residencies European program aims to involve artists in high-tech environments, establishing a global framework for residencies and 45 projects. We look at its impact, providing the first study on this large-scale action. The initiative’s methodology and tools will be released for companies and institutions in 2019.

At a conference called “Inner Reality and Outer Space” sponsored by the Jung Institute in San Francisco several years ago, former astronaut Rusty Schweickort told a wonderful story. He was outside the spacecraft, the first astronaut in space without a tether-nothing but a backpack to supply air. His goal was to determine whether a person could move hand-overhand over the surface of the capsule to reenter it, and astronaut Dove Scott was to take pictures of him from inside. The camera jammed, and commander Jim McDivott gave Scott five minutes to try to fix it. For that interval, Schweickort says, he became “the world’s first unemployed astronaut.” He swung out on one arm and regarded the Earth, and at that moment he realized that he had a choice. He asked himself, “Am I going to let it in?” He did, and his life changed.

This work provokes and broadens debate about heritage at individual, institutional, academic, and societal levels. It foregrounds the assumptions that underlie heritage visualizations, and it offers a novel interpretation model for museum settings that engages with different audiences and encourages debate as to the nature and uses of heritage.

Heritage visualisations are works of the cultural imaginary and this paper examines the artwork Artistic License: VR Sydney Cove ca. 1800 which foregrounds the interpretive nature of heritage visualisation. It is a re-imagining in virtual reality of A View of Sydney Cove, New South Wales, 1804, a contemporaneous print of Sydney Cove. Existing in the liminal space between accuracy and authenticity it is both art object and heritage visualisation. The dual nature of this work supports engagement with wider audiences, fostering and broadening debate at individual, institutional, academic and societal levels about the nature and role of heritage.

Despite the fact that the computer is a relatively recent invention, the debate over whether or not computer-generated art works can truly be called “art” has roots in a much older argument about technology. The usual objection to “computer art” is based on the fear that somehow the com­puter  — like Hal in the film 2001 — will take control, eliminating the role of the ar­tist. A less paranoid but equally misplaced response construes the absence of hand­work to represent easy art, requiring less skill than more traditional forms. Similar ob­jections were raised when photography was discovered. In 1859, Charles Baudelaire considered photography as nothing less than a major threat to the entire fine art tradition.

For the past fifteen years, increasing numbers of artists around the world have been working in a collaborative mode using telecommunications. In their “works,” which we shall refer to as “events,” images and graphics are not created as the ultimate goal or the final product, as is common in the fine arts. Employing computers, video, modems, and other devices, these artists use visuals in a much larger, interactive, bi-directional communication context. Images and graphics are created not simply to be transmitted by an artist from one point to another, but to spark a multidirectional visual dialogue with other artists and participants in remote locations. This visual dialogue assumes that images will be changed and transformed throughout the process in the same way that speech gets changed-interrupted, complemented, altered and reconfigured-in a spontaneous face-to-face conversation. Once an event is over, images and graphics stand not as the “result,” but as documentation of the process of visual dialogue promoted by the participants. This unique ongoing experimentation with images and graphics develops and expands the notion of visual thinking by relying primarily on the exchange and manipulation of visual materials as a means of communication. The art events created by telematic or telecommunication artists take place as a movement that animates and unbalances networks structured with relatively accessible interactive media such as telephone, facsimile (fax), personal computers, e-mail, and slow-scan television (SSTV). More rarely, radio, live television, videophones, satellites, and other less accessible means of communication come into play. But to identify the media employed in these “events” is not enough. Instead, one must do away with prejudices that cast off these media from the realm of “legitimate” artistic media and investigate these events as equally legitimate artistic enterprises. This essay partially surveys the history of the field and discusses art events that were either motivated by or conceived specially for telecommunications media. The essay attempts to show the transition, from the early stages, when radio provided writers and artists with a new spatiotemporal paradigm, to a second stage, in which telecommunications media, including computer networks, have become more accessible to individuals and through which artists start to create events, sometimes of global proportions, in which the communication itself becomes the work. Telecom munications art on the whole is, perhaps, a culmination of the process of dematerialization of the art object epitomized by Duchamp and pursued by artists associated with the conceptual art movement, such as Joseph Kossuth. If now the object is totally eliminated and the artists are absent as well, the aesthetic debate finds itself beyond action as form, beyond idea as art. It founds itself in the relationships and interactions between members of a network.

This paper discusses art systems that employ image and sound as equal elements. This can be called the evolution of the “audiovisual discourse” in art and technology. Recent software for manipulation of audio and visual material is briefly described, and audio/visual digital artworks, developed during an artist-in-residence-based project, are illustrated as examples of contemporary artistic projects concerned with this theme. Different artistic approaches in the use of audio/visu­ al systems are identified on the basis of the historical research and the second author’s work, as a technologist, in collaboration with the artists participating in the project. Finally, the role of the computer as audio/visual instrument is discussed.

3D printing allows unprecedented freedom in the design and manufacturing of even the most geometric complex forms—seemingly through a simple click of a button. In comparison, the making of glass is an analogue craftsmanship, coordinating an intricate interplay of individual tools and personal skills, giving shape to a material during the short time of its temperature-based plasticity. The two artworks discussed in this article, Augmented Fauna and Glass Mutations, were created during the artist’s residence at the Pilchuck Glass School and articulate a synthesis between digital work ows and traditional craft processes to establish a digital craftsmanship.

In this paper, the authors explain how they created Blade Runner—Autoencoded, a film made by training an autoencoder—a type of generative neural network—to recreate frames from the film Blade Runner. The autoencoder is made to reinterpret every individual frame, reconstructing it based on its memory of the film. The result is a hazy, dreamlike version of the original film. The authors discuss how the project explores the aesthetic qualities of the disembodied gaze of the neural network and describe how the autoencoder is also capable of reinterpreting films it has not been trained on, transferring the visual style it has learned from watching Blade Runner (1982).

1. M. Casey and M. Grierson, “Soundspotter/remix-tv: fast approximate matching for audio and video performance,” Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference (2007).

2. M. Grierson, “Plundermatics: real-time interactive media segmentation for audiovisual analysis, composition and performance,” Proceedings of Electronic Visualisation and the Arts Conference, Computer Arts Society, London (2009).

3. P.K. Mital, M. Grierson, and T.J. Smith, “Corpus-based visual synthesis: an approach for artistic stylization,” Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Perception (2013) pp. 51–58.

4. P.K. Mital, YouTube Smash Up (2014), <http://pkmital.com/home/youtube-smash-up/>.

5. S. Nishimoto, et al., “Reconstructing visual experiences from brain activity evoked by natural movies,” Current Biology 21, No. 19, 1641–1646 (2011).

6. A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G.E. Hinton, “Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2012) pp. 1097–1105.

7. C. Szegedy, et al., “Intriguing properties of neural networks,” The International Conference on Learning Representations (2014).

8. D.P. Kingma and M. Welling, “Auto-encoding variational Bayes,” The International Conference on Learning Representations (2014).

9. D.J. Rezende, S. Mohamed, and D. Wierstra, “Stochastic backpropagation and approximate inference in deep generative models,” The International Conference on Machine Learning (2014) pp. 1278–1286.

10. I. Goodfellow, et al., “Generative Adversarial Nets,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2014) pp. 2672–2680.

11. A. Radford, L. Metz, and S. Chintala, “Unsupervised representation learning with deep convolutional generative adversarial networks,” The International Conference on Learning Representations (2016).

12. A.B. Larsen, S.K. Sønderby, and O. Winther, “Autoencoding beyond pixels using a learned similarity metric,” The International Conference on Machine Learning (2016) pp. 1558–1566.

13. The original source code for this project is available at <https://github.com/terrybroad/ Learned-Sim-Autoencoder-For-Video-Frames>.

14. Wikipedia article for the MNIST handwritten digits dataset is available at <https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ MNIST_database>.

15. The CelebFaces dataset was created and first discussed by the authors of this paper: Z. Liu, et al., “Deep learning face attributes in the wild,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (2015) pp. 3730–3738.

16. T. Broad and M. Grierson, “Autoencoding Video Frames,” Technical Report (London: Goldsmiths, 2016), available at <http://research.gold.ac.uk/19559/>.

17. A side-by-side comparison of Man with a Movie Camera and its reconstruction using the Blade Runner model, as well as other films such as A Scanner Darkly and Koyaanisqatsi are available to watch online at the following YouTube playlist: <https://www.youtube.com/ playlist?list=PLJME4hivCPY_B_ MqOyQQGC_kuYUz518-C>.

18. P. Isola, J. Zhu, T. Zhou, and A. Efros, “Image-to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.07004 (2016).

19. P.K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (New York: Random House USA, 1982).

20. J. Brandt, “What defines human?” (2000), <http://www.br-insight.com/what-defines-human>.

21. A. Romano, “A guy trained a machine to ‘watch’ Blade Runner. Then things got seriously sci-fi” (2016), available at <http://www.vox.com/2016/6/1/11787262/blade-runner-neural-network-encoding>.

22. C. Iles, “The Cyborg and the Sensorium,” Dreamlands: Immersive Cinema and Art, 1905–2016 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016) p. 121.

23. C. Iles, personal communication, 2017.

24. H. Steyerl, “In Free Fall: A Thought Experiment on Vertical Perspective,” The Wretched of the Screen (Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2012) p. 24.

25. L. Lek, “Geomancer” (2017), available at <https://vimeo.com/208910806/5e2e08b486>.

Generative artists engage the poetic and expressive potentials of film playfully and efficiently, with explicit or implicit critique of cinema in a broader cultural context. This paper looks at the incentives, insights, and implications of generative cinema, which significantly expands the creative realm for artists working with film, but also incites critical assessment of the business-oriented algorithmic strategies in the film industry. The poetic divergence, technical fluency, and conceptual cogency of generative cinema successfully demonstrate that authorship evolves toward ever more abstract reflection and cognition which equally treat existing creative achievements as inspirations, sources of knowledge, and tools.

1. G. Youngblood, “Cinema and the Code,” Leonardo, Computer Art in Context Supplemental Issue, 27–30 (1989).

2. W. Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility,” The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility, and Other Writings on Media (Cambridge, MA/London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2008).

3. P. Galanter, “What Is Generative Art? Complexity Theory as a Context for Art Theory,” VI Generative Art Conference Proceedings (Milan: Domus Argenia Publisher, 2003) pp. 225–245.

4. I. Arns, “Read_me, run_me, execute_me. Code as Executable Text: Software Art and its Focus on Program Code as Performative Text,” Medien Kunst Netz, <http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/themes/ generative-tools/read_me/1/>.

5. D. Quaranta, “Generative (Inter)Views: Recombinant Conversation With Four Software Artists” in D. Quaranta, ed., C.STEM. Art Electronic Systems and Software Art (Turin: Teknemedia, 2006).

6. M. Boden and E. Ernest, “What Is Generative Art?”, Digital Creativity 20, No. 1–2, 21–46 (2009).

7. M. Watz, “Closed Systems: Generative Art and Software Abstraction” in E. de Lavandeyra Schöffer, M. Watz, and A. Doms, eds., MetaDeSIGN – LAb[au] (Dijon: Les presses du reel, 2010).

8. M. Pearson, Generative Art (Shelter Island, NY: Manning Publications, 2011).

9. A. Dorin et al., “A Framework for Understanding Generative Art,” Digital Creativity 23, No. 3–4, 239–259 (2012).

10. D. Grba, “Get Lucky: Cognitive Aspects of Generative Art,” in XIX Generative Art Conference Proceedings (Venice: Fondazione Bevilacqua La Masa, 2015) pp. 200–213.

11. M.B.N. Hansen, “Digital Technics Beyond the ‘Last Machine’: Thinking Digital Media with Hollis Frampton (Modulating Movement-Perception)” in E. Røssaak, ed., Between Stillness and Motion: Film, Photography, Algorithms (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2015) pp. 45–72.

12. M. Leggett, “Generative Systems and the Cinematic Spaces of Film and Installation Art,” Leonardo 40, No. 2, 123–128 (2007).

13. Youngblood [1].

14. N. Montfort et al., 10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1));: GOTO 10 (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2012).

15. Arns [4] and Watz [7].

16. L. Manovich and A. Kratky, Soft Cinema: Navigating the Database (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2005).

17. J. Campbell, “Illuminated Average Series,” <http://www.jimcampbell.tv/portfolio/still_image_works/ illuminated_averages/index.html>.

18. F. Brodbeck, “Cinemetrics,” <http://cinemetrics.site/>.

19. G. Cox, “Real-Time for Pirate Cinema,” PostScriptUM, No.

20 (2015). 20. G. Matt and T. Miessgang, Martin Arnold: Deanimated (Vienna: Kunsthalle Wien / Springer Verlag, 2002).

21. Q.P., “Final Cut—Ladies and Gentlemen, an Ode to Cinema,” Festival de Cannes (2012), <http:// www.festival-cannes.fr/en/theDailyArticle/59482.html>.

22. S. König, “sCrAmBlEd?HaCkZ!,” YouTube, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRlhKaxcKpA>.

23. P.K. Mital, “Computational Audiovisual Scene Synthesis,” PhD thesis (Arts and Computational Technologies Goldsmiths, University of London, 2014).

24. S.F. Pagden, Arcimboldo (Milano: Skira, 2007).

25. A. Newitz, “The Multiverse / Explorations & Meditations on Sci-Fi,” Ars Technica, Jun 9 (2016), <http://arstechnica.com/the-multiverse/2016/06/an-ai-wrote-this-movie-and-its-strangely-moving/>.

26. Valossa, “Description of Research,” <http://www.whatismymovie.com/about>.

27. Q.C. Berga, “Code as a Medium to Reflect, Act and Emancipate: Case Study of Audiovisual Tools that Question Standardised Editing Interfaces,” Interface Politics: 1st International Conference (2016).

28. C. Jones, “Ryan Kavanaugh Uses Math to Make Movies,” Esquire, Nov 19 (2009), <http://www. esquire.com/news-politics/a6641/ryan-kavanaugh-1209/>.

29. B. Barnes, “Solving Equation of a Hit Film Script, with Data,” The New York Times, May 5 (2013), <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/business/media/solving-equation-of-a-hit-film-script-with-data. html>.

30. S.V. Smith, “What’s Behind the Future of Hit Movies? An Algorithm,” Marketplace, July 19 (2013), <http://www.marketplace.org/2013/07/19/business/whats-behind-future-hit-movies-algorithm>.

31. L. Buñuel, My Last Breath (London: Fontana Paperbacks, 1985) pp. 131–133.

32. D.E. Brown, Human Universals (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1991).

Awakened Silence is a projected performance that memorializes lives lost in recent mass shootings. It draws from the experience of first responders hearing the incessant sounds of phones after appearing on the scene.

We are in fact already cyborgs, replicating ourselves as avatar forms online. Our cellphones and computers act as extensions of our own neural networks, imparting a boundless knowledge of facts and figures. B/W MIND is an experiential piece designed to manifest the interconnection humans have with technology

This paper focuses on art created by new techniques such as cellular machines, L-Systems, genetic algorithms, neural networks … We propose here several methods of implementation combining the rules of construction of cellular machines and L-Systems with genetic, neuronal networks, couplings, translation of codes. These methods result in the morphogenesis of bodies, as well their structure (shape) and their functional aspect (neuronal networks with driving, sensory neurons, balance, etc.). It’s a part of what we can call “a new kind of art”, and we can see here how Beings Paintings emerge.

1. Viala, J. Odi!on Redon. Editions ACR. 2001.
2. Goethe. La metamorphose des plantes et autres ecrits
botaniques. Editions Triades. 1995.
3. Haeckel, E. Art Forms in Nature: The Prints of Ernst Haeckel.
Editions Prestel. 1994.
4. Adam, H-C. Karl B!ossfe!dt. Editions Taschen. 2004.
5. Wunsche, I. Biological metaphors in 20th century art and design.
Y!em Journal. 8(23), July – August 2003.
6. Mandelbrot, B. Les objets fractals: Forme, hasard et dimension,
survol du langage fractal. Editions Flammarion. 1999.
7. Dawkins, R. L’horloger aveugle. Editions Robert Laffont. 1999.
8. Latham, W. The Conquest of Form: Computer Art by William
Latham. Arnolfini Gallery, Bristol, December 3, 1988 – January 15,1989.
9. Sims, K. Evolving virtual creatures. Computer Graphics (SIGGRAPH
94 Proceedings), July 1994, 15-22.
10. Rooke, S. An introduction to creative evolutionary systems. In
Creative Evolutionary Systems, 339-365. Editions Morgan Kauffman.
2001.
11. Ventrella, J. Animated artificial life. Virtual Worlds: Synthetic
Universes, Digital Life, and Complexity, Chap. 3. Editions Perseus
Books. 1999.
12. Kawaguchi, Y. www.race.u-tokyo.ac.jp/-yoichiro/index.html
13. Bret, M. Virtual living beings. In Lecture Notes in Artificial
Intelligence 1834: Virtual Worlds, 119-134, Ed. Jean-Claude Heudin,
Springer 2000. 14. Gardner, M. The fantastic combinations of John
Conway’s new solitaire game “life.” Scientific American. 223,
October 1970, 120-123.
15. Wolfram, S. A new kind of science. Editions Wolfram Media.
2002.
16. Brown, P. www.paul-brown.com/
17. Draves, S. draves.org/art.html
18. Driessens, E. & Verstappen, M. www.xs4all.nl/-notnot/
19. Fuller, M. Human Cellular Automaton. www2.snmhgkz.
ch/-maja/poiesis/hca. html
20. Lindenmayer, A. & Prusinkiewicz, P. The Algorithmic Beauty of
Plants. Springer-Verlag, 1994.
21. Mignonneau, L. & Sommerer C.
www.iamas.ac.jp/ -christa/index. html
22. Jacob, C. Site. pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/-jacob/
23. Thompson. D. Forme et croissance. Editions Seuil. 1994.
24. Sheldrake, R. Une nouvelle science de la vie. Editions Rocher.
2003.
25. Varela, F.J. Autonomie et connaissance. Editions Seuil. 1989.
26. Wojtowicz, M. www.mirwoj.opus.chelm.pl/ca/
27. Komosinski, M. The world of Framsticks: Simulation, evolution,
interaction. In: Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on
Virtual Worlds (YW2000), Paris, July 2000. Springer Verlag (LNAI
1834), 214-224.
28. Hertzman, A. Painterly Rendering for Video and Interaction.
NPAR. 2000.
29. Lioret, A. Emergence de nouvelles esthetiques du mouvement.
Editions L’Harmattan. 2004.
30. Capra, F. La toile de la vie: Une nouvelle interpretation scientifique
des systemes vivants. Editions du Rocher. 2003.
31. Flake, G.W. The computational beauty of nature. MIT Press.
1998.

This panel explores the computer art of Charles A. Csuri, an artist, recognized by Smithsonian Magazine as “the father of digital art and animation,” and includes discussion of his works from 1963 to the present. In this rare opportunity, we will also hear reflections from the pioneering artist himself, now Professor Emeritus and Artist in Residence at The Ohio State University. This art panel is presented in conjunction with the retrospective exhibition, Charles A. Csuri: Beyond Boundaries, 1963-present, which is shown for the first time at SIGGRAPH 2006.

‘Computer art’ and its systems of production are criticized, and some suggestions given to make it better.

“Body RemiXer” is a mixed reality installation that connects immersants using a virtual reality headset, Kinect, and projections. It explores the potential of immersive technology to create co-present experiences that foster intercorporeality between immersants. Observations during public exhibitions revealed “Body RemiXer’s” capacity to disrupt social norms and stimulate new connections.

Bodygraphe is an interactive, visual music application that unifies gestural computing with live performance art. Dancers become instruments and conductors that wholly generate graphics and sounds that correspond with their movements in real time. This video is the result of a process in computational aesthetics that explores the relationship between the body and form. Most specifically, we were inspired by visual art avant gardes that prioritized expressive geometry, such as the Neo-concrete movement of the 1950s. Through this project, we seek to make an aesthetic statement while also offering new implications for research regarding the interconnectivity between body and technology

We are currently witnessing the end of an artistic world. Artists of tomorrow will no longer produce works but something yet to be named. They will no longer create objects but rather types of microuniverses in perpetual evolution.

These universes will be woven with uninterrupted changes, with mobile networks of lines, surfaces, forms, and forces in constant interaction, produced by the coupling of mathematics and calculators. From fractal dragons to cellular automata, from zooids to logic viruses, mathematical beings move and metamorphose in their symbolic spaces. They can change or alter the very laws by which they are constituted. They can provide the virtually autonomous substance of a new, intermediary art. The metaphor of the “symbolic bonsai” has been chosen to render the intermediary “life” of this intermediary art. Why intermediary art?

In an attempt to explain art using the words of language, even the greatest minds diverge to some extent. According to Plato, for example, art is the quest for “likelihood;” according to Hegel it aims to “reveal the truth.”Should art seek likelihood or truth? Is the artist a magician or a prophet? What, in fact, is truth? Plato said truth is a “divine vagabondage,” which undoubtedly is why it remains beyond the reach of art, why he contends we must be satisfied with a “likely” imitation.

Since we are not gods, we cannot “vagabond;” we need laws. And this need applies to art. Thus, art must also be a science. As a product of human activity, art must obey rules inherent to the techniques used to create it. But art is also sensible representations, and as such refuses the domination of abstraction and laws. The best way to resist laws is to change them—constantly. Art itself must therefore be change—perpetual change.

1. G. W. F. Hegel, Phénoménologie de l’Esprit, Ed. Aubier, Paris, 1977.
2. “Like excretion, the instinct to create plastic form is an act where the animal becomes as though external to itself.” G. W. F. Hegel, Philosophy of Nature. 
3. G. Bachelard, L’air et les songes, Ed. Jaié Corti, Paris, 1943, p. 235.
4. P. de Reffye, “Modelisation de l’architecture des arbres par processus stochastiques,” Doctorat d’Etat, Paris, 1979. Also see M. Jaeger, “Representation et simulation de croissance des vegetaux,” doctoral thesis, Strasbourg, 1987.
5. See K. Niklas, “Computer-simulated plant evoluation,” Scientific American, May 1986.
6. G. W. F. Hegel, Phenomenology of Mind, op. cit.
7. P. Valery, Introduction á la Methode de Leonard de Vinci, Ed. Gallimard, Paris, 1960.

1. G. W. F. Hegel, Pénoménologie de l’Esprit, Ed. Aubier, Paris, 1977.
2. “Like excretion, the instinct to create plastic form is an act where the animal becomes as though external to itself.” G. W. F. Hegel, Philosophy of Nature.
3. G. Bachelard, L’air et les songes, Ed. Jaié Corti, Paris, 1943, p. 235.
4. P. de Reffye, “Modelisation de l’architecture des arbres par processus stochastiques,” Doctorat d’Etat, Paris, 1979. Also see M. Jaeger, “Representation et simulation de croissance des vegetaux,” doctoral thesis, Strasbourg, 1987.
5. See K. Niklas, “Computer-simulated plant evolution,” Scientific American, May 1986.
6. G. W. F. Hegel, Phenomenology of Mind, op. cit.
7. P. Valery, Introduction á la Methode de Leonard de Vinci, Ed. Gallimard, Paris, 1960.

The purpose of this paper is to explore new perspectives to learning Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) through embodied interaction with focus on learning and experience with traditional Cantonese Porcelain crafting. This research developed a WebAR application where various processes are presented through the tangible interaction of virtual porcelain represented by physical objects. The learner is able to directly interact with the plate that bridges the tangible materials and making processes of ICH utilizing WebAR. Empirical studies found that the WebAR and embodied interaction can enhance student’s tangible learning experience to transfer knowledge between craftsman and student.

Never before have media had such a strong effect on life as in the 21st century. Looking at the history of moving images in the previous century – the visions and agendas of filmmakers, corporations, and governments – we find evidence of the potential for humanistic inclusion and exclusion. Do digital media increase our understanding of life and cultures? Is there the potential to know ourselves better by recreating life in an artificial environment? Is the fascination with artificial worlds proof of our limited understanding of the “analog” human experience? It is possible to control and destroy cultures. When it happens, human heritage is impoverished, and the world has less
diversity and less focus. The corporate digital media revolution is a kind of involution, a return to the type of destruction of colonial eras that exploited continents. With the current level of destruction at its highest level, our life experience is disconnected
from the physical world. Digital media can be a negative game, entertaining young people with virtual destruction, preparing them for analog wars and a multifaceted system of economic domination. Misinformation, decreased plurality of viewpoints, increased disconnection with life, and the spectacularization of human experience are only some of the symptoms of the strategies used by the corporate media world. Our analog lives need analog values connected to nature and respect for our planet and its fragile resources. These values must inform our digital world.

C. Bacon is a set of interactive moving images based on a series of paintings on the theme of “Crucifixion” by Francis Bacon(1909-1992). Starting with the mysterious aesthetic language of Francis Bacon, this work attempts to build dialogues between the virtual and reality, postmodern
technology and contemporary authorship, and between machine and human

“Cacophonic Choir,” an interactive art installation, addresses the ways that sexual assault survivors’ experiences are distorted by digital and mass media and its effect. The installation is composed of distributed agents in space that individually respond by becoming visually bright, semantically coherent, and sonically clear, revealing original testimonies of survivors.

Captured by an Algorithm is a commemorative plate series that looks at romance novels through the lens of the Amazon Kindle Popular Highlight algorithm. Each plate features one highlight and an algorithmically generated landscape. The highlights tell a story of the loneliness, grief, vulnerability, and discontent felt by the readers.

This paper investigates CASTING, Yiyun Kang’s site-speci c projection mapping installation at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, U.K., and the acquisition of the piece by the V&A in the following year. It identi es how CASTING developed distinctive properties in the eld of projected moving-image installation artworks and how these novel characteristics were re ected in the acquisition by the V&A.

CAVE is a shared narrative virtual reality experience. Thirty participants at a time each saw and heard the same narrative from their own unique location in the room, as they would when attending live theater. CAVE set out to disruptively change how audiences collectively experience immersive art and entertainment.

The research focuses on combination of novel technology and traditional art. In this paper, a novel interactive art installation (IAI) using user’s thought to interact with a digital Chinese ink painting is introduced. Meanwhile, the final purpose of this
research is to establish a link between novel technology and traditional arts and further to bring out traditional art philosophy by taking the advantages of novel technology. Finally, this research aims to help people understand not only the visual expression of an art, but also its philosophy and spirit through different kinds of interaction. Based on this, the theory research focuses on four parts: traditional art philosophy, artistic and cognitive psychology, traditional art, novel technology. Meanwhile, for practice, a Chinese style IAI experiment including brain waves control technology is introduced to help people better understand the purpose of this research.

Anthony, Y. K. C. 2008. Biomedical Device Technology: Principles and Design, 267.

Claudia, F. 2008. Atlas of Acupuncture, 5.

EmoKey http://www.emotiv.com/epoc/EmoKey.php

Emotive company, Emotive EPOC User Manuel, 25-39. EPOC Specifications, 3.

Eric, R. B. 2004. The Edge Effect: Achieve Total Health And Longevity With The Balanced Brain Advantage, 6.

Héctor, S. 2005. Bios: A Study of Creation, 405.

Huang di’s Canon of Medicine.

Juri, D. K. 2009. Quantitative EEG Event-Related Potentials and Neurotherapy, 121.

Lang, Y. 2007. University of Hong Kong China: Five Thousand Years of History & Civilization, 172.

Qingren, W. 1830. Correction on Errors in Medical Classics.

Ron, M. 2008. Digital Art: Painting With Pixels, 12-13.

Sandra, K. A. 2008. The Practice of Shiatsu, 22.

Shanbao, T., Nitish, V. T. 2009. Quantitative EEG Analysis Methods and Clinical Applications, 33.

Shizhen, L. 1518-1593. Compendium of Materia Medica.

Stephen, L., Shawn E. 2000. Taoism and the Arts of China, 127.

Steve, J. 2003. Encyclopedia of New Media: An Essential Reference to Communication and Technology, 131-133

The personality of living things is beautiful. Is it possible to have a personality in the digital world? CharActor is a video work that produces animation by recognizing shader programs as genes and by changing the mathematical expression itself using evolutionary computation.

The author and his colleagues suggest a criterion for evaluating artistic achievement in the medium of the digital moving image as distinct from other forms of cinema. This criterion is the extent to which the formal possibilities of digital imaging are employed as syntactical or linguistic elements, not simply as ‘special effects’. Four digital imaging techniques are discussed as possibilities for a new syntax and, hence, for the expansion of cinematic language.

This paper summarizes the development and implementation of a three-part infrastructure for the ongoing program of technology-based public artwork at Silicon Valley’s newly expanded airport. The physical, technological, and human infrastructure provides flexibility and opportunities for future artists and future technologies while providing a robust framework for the ongoing maintenance and evolution of the program and mediating between the needs of artists and the constraints of an airport.

1. Troika, Cloud (2008), retrieved January 13, 2011, from www.troika.uk.com/cloud?image=17.

2. C. Moeller, Daisy (2008), retrieved January 13, 2011, from www.christian-moeller.com/display.php?project_id=60.

3. C. Janney, Circling (2005), retrieved March 22, 2011, from www.dfwairport.com/art/P1_017254.php.

4. Electroland, Connection (2008), retrieved March 22, 2011, from electroland.net/projects/connection.

5. ARS Electronica Center, retrieved January 13, 2011, from www.aec.at/center_exhibitions_en.php.

6. Center for Art and Media (ZKM), retrieved January 13, 2011, from on1.zkm.de/zkm/e/about.

7. phaeno, retrieved March 22, 2011, from www.phaeno.de/en/index-en.html.

8. NTT InterCommunication Center (ICC), retrieved March 22, 2011, from www.ntticc.or.jp/About/ introduction.html.

9. The Rome Group and the San José Office of Cultural Affairs, Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport Public Art Master Plan (2004), retrieved from www.sanjoseculture.org/downloads/SJA_MasterPlan.pdf.

10. Ibid., p. ii.

11. Ibid., p. 13.

12. Ibid., p. 27.

13. Ibid., p. 26.

14. Gorbet+Banerjee and the San José Office of Cultural Affairs, Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport Art Activation Research Report (2005), retrieved from www.sanjoseculture.org/downloads/ ArtActivationTeamResearchReport805.pdf.

15. Climate Clock Initiative, City of San José Public Art Program, retrieved March 22, 2011, from sj-climateclock.org/sjpublicart.

16. Gorbet+Banerjee and the San José Office of Cultural Affairs, Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport Art Activation Design Development Proposal (2006), retrieved from www.sanjoseculture.org/downloads/Mineta_AAAP.pdf.

17. Gorbet+Banerjee and the San José Office of Cultural Affairs, Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport Art Activation Design Development Proposal #2 TAIP: Terminal B Phase I / Terminal A (2005), retrieved from www.sanjoseculture.org/downloads/AATDDOct07.pdf.

18. Richmond Sound Design Ltd., Audiobox II, retrieved January 11, 2011, from www. richmondsounddesign.com/audiobox-ii.html.

19. Django Software Foundation, Django Web Framework, retrieved January 13, 2011, from www. djangoproject.com/.

20. Amazon Web Services LLC, Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud, retrieved January 13, 2011, from http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/.

21. Twilio, Inc., Twilio Cloud Communications, retrieved January 12, 2011, from www.twilio.com/.

22. Wikimedia Foundation, Mediawiki, retrieved January 12, 2011, from www.mediawiki.org/.

23. S. Dietz, “Collecting New-Media Art: Just Like Anything Else, Only Different,” Collecting the New: Museums and Contemporary Art, ed. B. Altshuler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005) 85-101, retrieved March 22, 2011, from www.neme.org/524/collecting-new-media-art. Gorbet et al. | Collaboration with the Future 345

24. A. Depocas, J. Ippolito, and C. Jones, eds., Permanence Through Change: The Variable Media Approach (New York: The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation and Montréal: The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science, and Technology, 2003), retrieved March 22, 2011, from www. variablemedia.net/e/preserving/html/var_pub_index.html.

25. M. Kwon, One Place After Another (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2002), MIT Press paperback edition, 2004, p. 8.

26. Brown and Keener Bressi, Via Partnership, and the San José Office of Cultural Affairs, Public Art NEXT! San José’s New Public Art Master Plan (2007), retrieved from www.sanjoseculture.org/downloads/PA_Next031307.pdf.

In the early twentieth century, Modern artists, notably Suprematists, Cuba-Futurists and Constructivists, rejected scientific perspective and descriptive art [1]. Although this dismissal of the world of appearances in art was never accepted by the general public, Modernism evolved from that rejection.

1. Malevich, Kasimir “Suprematist Manifesto Unovis” (excerpted and translated), in Programs and Manifestoes on 20th Century Architecture, ed. Ulrich Conrads, MIT, Cambridge Massachusetts 1975, p. 87.
2. Kirsh, J. L. “When Will Computer Art be Taken Seriously?,” Digitalk, Winter 1985, pp. 2-6.
3. Prince, Patric, “Artists and Computers: A Retrospective,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol 6, No. 8, August 1986.
4. Kerlow, Isaac Victor, “The Computer as an Artistic Tool,” Byte, September 1984, pp. 189-206.
5. Lauzzana, Ray, “The Machine as Medium,” Computer Graphics, Vol 2, No. 6, 1979, pp. 37-39.
6. Mezei, Leslie “Computer Art,” Arts Canada Vol 25, August 1968 pp. 13-18.

Since 1968, the journal Leonardo has published over 150 articles dealing with the uses of computers in the fine arts. Discussing the work of artists published in Leonardo, the author responds to a recent assertion by art theorist David Carrier that”… it is genuinely unclear to me whether any art using computers is truly significant”. It is argued that the significance of computer art must be viewed in a number of contexts. Within the context of the development of the computer itself, advances in computer graphics and animation have provided the artist with a powerful plastic medium under the artist’s control.

Most artworks produced, except in animation, either realise artistic ideas developed before the advent of the computer or are artistically equivalent to work produced in other media. The impact is significant in the context of the commercial and applied arts. Contemporary artists, as the colonisers of technology, are producing significant artworks as collaborators in Renaissance teams of artists, scientists and technologists. In the larger context of the history of art, however, the significance of contemporary computer art work is not yet clear. It is argued that artistic significance should be sought in works that could not have been made without the use of a computer.

Such works must involve the particular attributes of computers, such as their application in interactive situations, their capability for artificial intelligence, their function in networks with telecommunications media, and their ability to allow the synthesis of sound and vision in timebased art forms. The lack of adequate theoretical, historical and critical frameworks is currently the largest impediment in assessing the significance of computer art.

This informal paper studies the effects of the recent introduction of computer-generated imagery on the practice of science and its function in understanding the world. It intends to introduce the subject of computerized visualization for scientific purposes into a wider debate, to show the diversity of issues involved-scientific, cultural and philosophical-and to build a context in which they can be critiqued. The author seeks to show the variety of scientific imaging and its influences on scientific knowledge; as both experiments and results are increasingly expressed in terms of imagery, the image assumes an integrity of its own and the object to which it refers becomes obscured. This leads to a shift of focus away from abstract theory as the embodiment of knowledge to the ascension of an allegorical image-based science with computer graphics as its natural language.

1. B. H. McCormick et al., eds. “Visualization in Scientific Computing,” Computing 21, No. 6 (November 1979).
2. R. S. Wolff, “Visualization in the Eye of the Scientist,” Computers in Physics (May/June 1988) pp. 16-26.
3. T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).
4. R. L. Gregory, Eye and Brain (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1979).
5. C. Blakemore and G. G. Copper, “Development of the Brain Depends on the Visual Environment,” Nature 228 (1970) pp. 477-478.
6. F. De Bono, New Think (New York: Basic Books, 1968).
7. H. O. Peitgen and R. P. Richter, “Frontiers of Chaos,” The Beauty of Fractals (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1986).
8. Software Technology Group, IBM (UK) Scientific Centre, Winchester,
9. J. Darius, “A Concise History of Scientific Photography,” Beyond Vision (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984).
10. R. Barthes, On Photography, 1980, in The Grain of the Voice (London: Cape, 1985).
11. J. E. Hochberg, “Effects of the Gestalt Revolution: The Cornell Symposium on Perception,” 1957,in D. C. Beardslee and M. Wertheimer, Readings in Perception (New York and London, 1958).
12. F. Atteneave, “Multistability in Perception,” 1971, in R. Held, ed. Image, Object and Illusion. Readings from Scientific American (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1974).
13. K. A. Frenkel, “The Art and Science of Visualizing Data,” Comm of the ACM 31, No. 2, 111-121 (1988).
14. Journal of Molecular Graphics (London: Butterworth). Almost any issue will suffice.
15. P. J. Davis and R. Hersh, The Mathematical Experience (London: Pelican Books, 1983).
16. A. Fournier, “Prolegomenon,” in A. Fournier, ed., The Modelling of Natural Phenomena, SIGGRAPH ’87 Course Notes No. 16 Anaheim, CA, July, 1987. pp. 4-37.
17. R. L. Devaney, Introduction to Chaotic Dynamical Systems (Menlo Park: Benjamin-Cummings, 1986).
18. See [14].
19. S. Wolfram, “Computer Software in Science and Mathematics,” Scientific American 251, No. 3, 85-93 (September 1984).
20. K. L. Tse and R. W. Whitty, “The Mathematics of Calibration,” 1989. To be published in J. Johnson, ed. The Mathematical Revolution Inspired by Computing, Conference Proceedings of the Institute of Mathematics and Its Applications (IMA), Brighton, April 1989.
21. F. Piper, “Cryptography, the Catalyst,” to be published in Johnson, ed. [20].
22. C. Upson, chair, “The Physical Simulation and Visual Representation of Natural Phenomena,” Technical Panel Session, Proceedings of SIGGRAPH ’87, pp. 335-336.
23. J. F. Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition. A Report on Knowledge (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984).
24. See [1].
25. I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave, eds., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970).
26. G. Galilei, “The Assayer,” 1623, in S. Drake, Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo (New York: Doubleday, 1957), pp. 111-121.
27. L. Yaeger and C. Upson, “Combining Physical and Visual Simulation–Creation of the Planet Jupiter for the Film 2010, Proceedings of SIGGRAPH ’86 Computer Graphics 20, No. 4, pp. 85-93.
28. J. Powers, Philosophy and the New Physics (London: Metheun and Co., Ltd., 1982).
29. A. Wolfe, “The Visualization Round Table,” Computer in Physics (May/June 1988) pp. 16-26.
30. See [25].
31. P. Feyerabend, Against Method (London: New Left Books, 1975).

Computer graphics has been in existence for more than twenty years. From the beginning, people experimented on ways to use the new medium – in addition to scientific, technical and commercial application – for artistic goals. Around 1965, Germans Frieder Nake and Georg Nees and the American, A. Michael Noll, strove for that goal; they were followed by individuals such as Kenneth Knowlton, the team of Charles Csuri and James Shaffer in America, and the Japanese Computer-Technique Group. All of them were represented in the large exhibition “Cybernetic Serendipity” in 1968 in London.

A history of hand-held graphics might include Tarot cards, playing cards, the carte de visite, business cards, credit cards, and more recently telephone cards. While each of these subsets has a differing history and function, they also have shared attributes that continue to attract our interest. Proportions, scale, content, cast, and techniques of production all merge with more recent communication functions. Borrowing from these physical and conceptual traditions suggests possibilities for an artist using digital typography to create a kind of permanent ephemera. Incorporating stainless steel output offers an option for the designer to employ a technology similar to computer chip technology and to investigate the conversion of digitized art to artifact.

New forms of art and technology are frequently cast in the mode of old forms, just as other aspects of material and symbolic culture have been. Only when these new forms become available to the larger population can they affect cultural patterns of maintenance and change. The author traces the evolution from alphanumeric hard copy, static and dynamic screen images, through objects and events that are not screen-based, to dynamic, interactive, multi-sensory output. The effects of origins and prior practices in both technology and art on form, content, material, technique, meaning and purpose of computer graphics are explored. Speculation regarding possible and probable futures are raised.

1. H. Franke, Computer Graphics-Computer Art (London: Phaidon, 1971) p. 7. Franke’s definition of computer art is “any aesthetic formation which has arisen on the basis of the logical or numerical transposition of given data with the aid of electronic mechanisms.” According to Beyer (unpublished lecture, 1976), “computer graphics centers about visual output and uses other media/techniques in auxiliary methods.”
2. B. J. Jones, “Computer Imagery: Imitation and Representations of Reality,” Leonardo Supplemental Issue Computer Art in Context (1989) pp. 31-38.
3. B. J. Jones, “Cultural Implications of Integrated Media” (1989 unpublished manuscript).
4. The research reported in this paper reflects my work since 1973, when I began to collect images and essays on the computer in the arts and humanities. In 1976 I complied an educational slide set, a history of computer graphics (funded by the National Science Foundation and the Oregon Mathematics Education Council). At the 1978 Conference for Computer Assisted Learning I drew an analogy between early uses of electricity and computers and in 1978 at the Second West Coast Computer Faire suggested the potential widespread and multiple uses for microcomputers. B. J. Jones, “Computer Art and Art-Related Applications in Computer Graphics: A Historical Perspective and Projected Possibilities,” Proceedings of the Second West Coast Computer Faire, J. C. Warren, ed. (San Jose, CA: 1978).
5. Among theorists who hold this view are Foucault, Rosler, Sekula and the author. Selected examples include M. Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge (New York: Colophon, 1972); M. Rosley, “Video: Shedding the Utopian Moment,” Block 11 (1985/1986); A. Sekula, “The Traffic in Photographs,” Art Journal 41 (Spring 1981); B. Jones see [2,3].
6. B. J. .Jones, “The Two Cultures and Computer Science,” The Computing Teacher (December 1980); reprinted in Run Computer, D. Harper and J. Steward, eds. (Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole, 1983) pp. 197-199.
7. B. J. Jones, “Microcomputer Controlled Generation of Artifacts as an Interdisciplinary Teaching Aid,” The Computing Teacher 9, No. 9, 42-45 (1982).
8. B. J. Jones, “Computers in the Arts and Humanities,” The Computing Teacher (February 1981); reprinted in Run Computer, D. Harper and J. Stewart, eds. (Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole, 1983) pp. 190-197.
9. B. J. Jones, “Toward Deomocratic Direction of Technology,” in Art in a Democracy, D. Blandy and K. Congdon, ed. (New York: Teachers College Press, 1987) pp. 64-73.
10. J. Weizenbaum, Computer Power and Human Reason (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1976).
11. S. Brand, The Media Lab, Inventing the Future at MIT (New York: Viking Penguin, 1987).
12. S. B. Weinstein and P.W. Shumate, “Beyond the Telephone: New Ways to Communicate,” The Futurist 13, No. 6, 8-12 (1989).
13. This section relies heavily on H. Franke (see [1] and Franke’s Computer Art-Computer Graphics, 2nd Ed. (New York: SpringerVerlag, 1985); J. Reichardt, Computer Serendipity (New York: Praeger, 1969), Computer Art and Ideas (Greenwich, CT: New York Graphic Society, 1971), and The Computer and Art (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1971); R. Leavitt Artist and Computer (New York: Harmony, 1976); and selected periodic literature from Leonardo and Art Forum.
14. K. R. Castelman, Digital Image Processing (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1979).
15. M. Neal, “When Did Scientific Visualization Really Begin?”IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 8 No. 6, 8-9 (1988). See also Ref. [16].
16. A. M. Noll, “Human or Machine: A Subjective Comparison of Piet Mondrian’s ‘Composition with Lines’ (1917) and a Computer-Generated Picture” in Psycology and the Visual Arts, James Hogg, ed. (Baltimore, MD: Penguin, 1969).
17. R. A. Kirsch, L. Cahn, L. C. Ray and G. H. Urban, “Experiments in Processing Pictorial Information with a Digital Computer,” Proceedings of the Eastern Joint Computer Conference (New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 1957).
18. A. Rosenfeld, Picture Processing by Computer (New York: Academic Press, 1969); “Progress in Picture Processing: 1969-1971 (A Biliography),” Computing Survey, 5 (June 1973) pp. 81-108; “Picture Processing, 1972,” Computer Graphics and Image Processing 1 (1972) pp. 394-416.
19. D. A. Ross and D. Em, The Art of David Em (New York; Harry N. Abrams, 1988).
20. I. Sutherland, “A Head-Mounted Three-Dimensional Display,” FJCC AFIPS 33, o. 1, 757-764 (1968).
21. J. J. Batter and F. P. Brooks, Jr. “GROPE-1,” IFIPS 71 (1971) pp. 759-765. GROPE-1 was a glove-like device that provided the wearer with tactile and kinaesthetic illusions. This device presaged the later development of the full-body suit currently worn in virtual reality environments.
22. M. Pruitt, Art and the Computer (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984).
23. Jasia Reichardt, Robot: Fact, Fiction and Prediction (New York: Penguin, 1978).
24. J. L. Kirsch and R. A. Kirsch, “The Anatomy of Painting Style: Description with Computer Rules,” Leonardo 21, No. 4, 437-444 (1988); “The Structure of Paintings: Formal Grammar and Design,” Environment and Planning: Planning and Design 13 (1986) pp. 163-176.
25. G. Stiny, “Pictorial and Formal Aspects of Shape and Shape Grammars and Aesthetic Systems” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1975); J. E. Gips, “Shape Grammars and Their Uses” (Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1974).
26. Leonardo Supplemental Issue Computer Art in Context (1989).
27. J. C. R. Licklider and R. W. Taylor, “The Computer as Communication Device,” Science and Technology 76, No. 4, 21-31 (1968).
28. D. Peterson, Gensis II (Reston, VA: Reston Publishing, 1983) p. 9.
29. M. Berman, “The Cybernetic Dream of the Twenty-First Century,” Journal of Humanistic Psychology 26, No. 2, 24-51 (1986).
30. N. Magnenat-Thalmann and D. Thalmann, “The Problematics of Human Prototyping and Animation,” Computer Graphics Forum 8, No. 2, 115-123 (1989).
31. D. Zeltzer, “Toward an Integrated View of 3-D Computer Character Animation,” Proceedings Graphics Interface ’85, M. Wein and F. M. Kidd, eds. (Montreal: Toronto-Canadian Information Processing Society, 1985) pp. 105-115.
32. G. Turner, “Electronic Characterization,” American Cinematographer 67, o. 7, 79-82 (1986).
33. A. Vasilopoulos, “Exploring the Unknown,” Computer Graphics World 12, No. 10, 76-82 (1989).
34. N. Lee, “Motion Control Part II,” American Cinematographer (June 1983) pp. 44-48.
35. R. Wright, “Virtual Reality,” Sciences 27, No. 6, 8-10 (1987).
36. K. Kelly, “An Interview with Jaron Lanier; Virtual Reality,” interview by Adam Heilbrun and Barbara Stacks, Whole Earth Review 64 (Fall 1989) pp. 108-119.
37. See Kelly [36].
38. See Kelly [36].
39. See Berman [29].
40. Ann Wilson Schaef, When Society Becomes an Addict (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987).
41. M. Rollins, Mental Imagery on the Limits of Cognitive Science (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989).
42. A. L. Ambler and M. M. Burnett, “Influence of Visual Technology on the Evolution of Language Environments,” Computer 22, No. 10, 9-22 (1989); S. Chang, T. Ichikawa and P.A. Ligomenides, eds., Visual Languages (New York: Plenum Press, 1986).
43. Special Issue on Pictorial Image Databases, Computer 22, No. 12 (1989).
44. J. Beck, B. Hope, and A. Rosenfeld, eds. Human and Machine Vision (New York: Academic Press, 1983); E. C. Hildreth and S. Ullman, “The Computational Study of Vision,” in Foundations of Cognitive Science, Michael I. Posner, ed. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989).
45. G. Hegron, P. Palamidese and D. Thalmann, “Motion Control in Animation, Simulation and Visualization,” Computer Graphics Forum 8, No. 2, 347-352 (1989).
46. Special Issue on Visualization in Scientific Computing, Computer 22 (1989) p. 100; “Visualization Stateof the Art,” ACM SIGGRAPH Video Review Special Issue 30.
47. J. Derrida, Glas, John P. Leavey and Richard Rand, trans. (Lincoln, NB: Univ. of Nebraska Press, 1986).
48. E. L. Schwartz, B. Merker, E. Wolfson, and A. Shaw,” Applications of Computer Graphics and Image Processing to 2D and 3D Modeling of the Functional Architecture of the Visual Cortex,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 8, No. 4, 13-23 (1988). This article is self-referential in the sense that some modernist and contemporary art is self-referential; it describes a scientific model for visualizing the functioning of the visual cortex, or visualizing vision through an abstracted visual image.
49. William Fleming, Arts and Ideas, 3rd Ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968).

Contemporary theory in philosophy, aesthetics and cognitive/social sciences stresses the embedment of cultural and historical conventions in art and technology. Computer imagery for aesthetic/artistic or technical/scientific purposes have these conventions embedded in them and consequently reflect larger models of humanly constructed cultural reality. Careful analyses of the form, content and practice of computer graphics are proposed to reveal views of reality embedded in technology and in models generated by the technology.

An essay that focuses on oppor­tunities for a new approach to computer-generated sculpture through the use of the interac­tive, user participatory attributes associated with virtual reality technology. The text briefly reviews the progress of sculpture from a static, physical art form through the use of computers as sculpture visualization tools, towards true ‘virtual sculpture’ as a metaphysical, three-dimensional experience. The author discusses two of his own recent prototype virtual reality pieces to demon­strate his projection of possible future trends in the viewers’ immersion in sculpture as an activity and an art form, not merely as an observer of a set of objects.

Computer-Aided Design (CAD) is destined to become the standard industrial design medium, for the same reasons it is revolutionizing other design and engineering fields. And many industrial designers are eager now to adopt it. Yet, only a fraction of CAD technology’s potential has found its way into the industrial design studio. High costs are partly to blame, but even as costs decline, a more fundamental reason accounts for the slow adoption: the industrial designers’ needs are so disparate that no single CAD system available today, has scope enough to fulfill them all.

“In the computer, man has created not just an inanimate tool but an intellectual and active creative partner that, when fully exploited, could be used to produce wholly new art forms and possibly new aesthetic experiences.”

I examine the conceptual and aesthetic implications of quantum simulation by reading Richard Feynman’s lecture “Simulating Physics with Computers” with Theodor Adorno’s aesthetic theory; I argue that the very notion of quantum simulation is in a state of conceptual superposition – which is, at its core, an aesthetic principle.

Displaying digital art in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries is already proving to be a challenge. Exhibiting this same art in the distant future will depend upon new thinking and practices developed today by artists, conservators, and curators. Established software engineering methods for dealing with aging systems can provide a new model for the conservation of digital art, and a foundation for the enhancement of art-historical scholarship. Artists with an interest in a more refined approach to the programming that underpins their work will also be interested in software engineering concepts.

1. C. Becker, et al., “Preserving Interactive Multimedia Art: A Case Study in Preservation Planning,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4822, 257–266 (2007).

2. NINCH Working Group on Best Practices, “The NINCH Guide to Good Practice in the Digital Representation and Management of Cultural Heritage Materials Online: The National Initiative for a Networked Cultural Heritage” (2002), retrieved January 10, 2011 from www.nyu.edu/its/humanities/ ninchguide/.

3. J. Ippolito, “Accommodating the Unpredictable: The Variable Media Questionnaire,” Permanence Through Change: The Variable Media Approach (New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications and Montréal: The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science, and Technology, 2003).

4. ERPANET, “The Archiving and Preservation of Born-Digital Art Workshop: Briefing Paper,” The ERPANET Workshop on Preservation of Digital Art (2004). Retrieved January 10, 2011 from www.erpanet.org/events/2004/glasgowart/briefingpa er.pdf.

5. For a concise review of the current state of the problem, see T.A. Yeung, S. Carpendale, and S. Greenberg, “Preservation of Art in the Digital Realm,” The Proceedings of iPRES2008: The Fifth International Conference on Digital Preservation (London: British Library, 2008).

6. International Council of Museums Committee for Conservation, “The Conservator-Restorer: A Definition of the Profession, Section 2.1.” Retrieved January 10, 2011 from www.icom-cc.org/47/ about-icom-cc/definition-of-profession/.

7. P. Laurenson, “Authenticity, Change and Loss in the Conservation of Time-Based Media Installations,” Tate Papers, Autumn (2006). Retrieved March 15, 2011 from www.tate.org.uk/research/ tateresearch/tatepapers/06autumn/laurenson.htm.

8. R.S. Pressman, Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach, 6th Edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005).9. R.K. Ko, “A Computer Scientist’s Introductory Guide to Business Process Management (BPM),” Crossroads, Vol. 15, No. 4, 11 18 (2009).

10. J. Ransom, I. Sommerville, and I. Warren, “A Method for Assessing Legacy Systems for Evolution,” Proceedings of the 2nd Euromicro Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR 98), March 8–11, 1998 (Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society, 1998) 128.

11. For a complete discussion, see C. Larman, Applying UML and Patterns: An Introduction to Object Oriented Analysis and Design and Iterative Development, 3rd Edition (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2005).

12. J. Zellen, Trigger, Pace Digital Gallery, New York, NY, October 18–November 8, 2005. Retrieved March 15, 2011 from www.jodyzellen.com/pace2.html.

13. F.T. Marchese, “The Making of Trigger and the Agile Engineering of Artist-Scientist Collaboration,” Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Information Visualization: IV’06, London, July 2006 (Washington, DC: IEEE Press, 2006) 839–844.

14. C. Upson, et al., “The Application Visualization System: A Computational Environment for Scientific Visualization,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 9, No. 4, 30–42 (1989).

When we feel and sense through machines, are we still ourselves? In a mixed reality where embodied actions and blinding visions are part woman/part machine, the tactile surface of plants is a portal that conjures augmented materialities into existence.

A child-sized robot sits immersed in a full-room projection of an evolving audiovisual virtual environment. The robot ‘talks’ to the virtual environment, telling of its impressions and what it would like to see and hear. People come and go, talking with the robot about the virtual environment, and showing it pictures on their phones. The robot learns these impressions and talks of them to the virtual environment, which evolves in response. Convolution by Wild System is a unique artwork where a robot collaborates with humans to create an ever-evolving immersive audiovisual virtual environment. The resulting artwork dissolves the boundaries between computational and physical phenomena, displaying an aesthetic that is a real hybrid of the physical and the digital, of human and machine learning, of natural and artificial intelligence, and of real and synthetic

There is a crisis in our communities about the tributes to a shared civic life represented in existing public artwork and monuments. Culture wars are being waged herein and appear increasingly unreconcilable. This paper discusses this moment and describes the range of strategies artists and designers have used to remediate these works. It presents a project description of an interactive artwork that suggests innovative approaches in this realm. The author introduces a conceptual model which served as inspiration for the piece that may be useful when discussing and designing
such interventions.

This paper discusses Creature:Interactions (2015), a large-scale mixed-reality artwork created by the authors that incorporates immersive 360° stereoscopic visuals, interactive technology, and live actor facilitation. The work uses physical simulations to promote an expressive full-bodied interaction as children explore the landscapes and creatures of Ethel C. Pedley’s ecologically focused children’s novel, Dot and the Kangaroo. The immersive visuals provide a social playspace for up to 90 people and have produced “phantom” sensations of temperature and touch in certain participants.

1. Stalker Theatre, Creature:Dot and the Kangaroo (2015), <http://www.stalker.com.au/creature>.

2. E. Pedley, Dot and the Kangaroo (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2014).

3. E. Edmonds, “The art of interaction,” Digital Creativity 21, No. 4, 257–264 (2010).

4. D. Rokeby, “The construction of experience: Interface as content” in C. Dodsworth Jr., ed., Digital Illusion: Entertaining the Future with High Technology (Boston: Addision-Wesley Professional, 1998) pp. 27–48.

5. G. Levin and Z. Lieberman, Messa di Voce (2003), <http://www.flong.com/projects/messa/>.

6. teamLab, Story of the forest (2016), <http://www.team-lab.net/w/story-of-the-forest>.

7. Design I/O, ConnectedWorlds (2015), <http://design-io.com/projects/ ConnectedWorlds>.

8. Stalker Theatre, Encoded (2015), <http://www.stalker.com.au/encoded>.

9. A. Hunt, M.M. Wanderley, and M. Paradis, “The Importance of Parameter Mapping in Electronic Instrument Design,” Journal of New Music Research 32, No. 4, 429–440 (2003).

10. A. Momeni and C. Henry, “Dynamic Independent Mapping Layers for Concurrent Control of Audio and Video Synthesis,” Computer Music Journal 30, No. 1, 49–66 (2006).

11. D. Wessel and M. Wright, “Problems and Prospects for Intimate Musical Control of Computers,” Computer Music Journal 26, No. 3, 11–22 (2002).

12. C. Cadoz, A. Luciani, and J.L. Florens, “Responsive input devices and sound synthesis by simulation of instrumental mechanisms: The cordis system,” Computer Music Journal 8, No. 3, 60–73 (1984).

13. A. Johnston, “Fluid simulation as full body audio-visual instrument,” Proceedings of the conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expressions, p. 132 (2013).

14. C. Cruz-Neira, D.J. Sandin, and T.A. DeFanti, “Surround-screen projection-based virtual reality: the design and implementation of the cave,” Proceedings of the 20th annual conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, pp. 135–142.

15. A. Simon, R.C. Smith, and R.R. Pawlicki, “Omnistereo for panoramic virtual environment display systems,” Virtual Reality, Proceedings, IEEE, pp. 67–279 (2004).

16. V.S. Ramachandran and W. Hirstein, “The perception of phantom limbs. The DO Hebb lecture,” Brain 121, No. 9, 1603–1630 (1998).

Criss~Crossing The Divine/Spiral Vortex Paint Game is an interactive game installation conceived to address the ever-expanding religious intolerance fueling global wars. Attendees use interactive wands to curate topic-words and assign more or less importance to each topic they select. The player receives color coded scripture perspectives parsed from the individual’s search. No search results are the same. Directed to a website, the player learns from which 46,000 scriptures within The Old Testament, The New Testament, The Hindu Rig Vedas, The Quran, and Buddhist Texts, their color-coded text results originated.

Cultural Analytics (C.A.) is an approach for analyzing media and digital culture using data methods and visual computing techniques. This paper explores the aesthetic value of C.A. by approaching cultural visualizations as digital artworks. Through a series of projects, authors discuss their experience in art exhibitions, workshops, and seminars.

Aesthetic computing is one of several related new fields: info-aesthetics, database aesthetics, network aesthetics, and software aesthetics. What are their similarities and differences? What are the aesthetic issues driving them, and how are they linked to technological developments? And what exactly is the role of aesthetics is this context?

The CyberHuman Dance Series is an experimental dance work exploring simulations of physical and virtual phenomena in the context of perfor­mance. By integrating innovative digital technology with the choreographic and design process, this work investigates all aspects of design and performance in cyberspace, with particular emphasis on issues of real and perceived boundaries between virtual space and real space, and the possibility of a blurred distinction between two intersecting worlds.

A number of pioneering artists began experimenting with the computer as a visual arts medium in the late 60s and early 70s when most fine-arts circles refused to recognize art made by computers as a viable product of human creativity. This was the era of computer punch cards, when the visual results of algorithmic input were nothing more than line drawings. Many of the forward-looking artists who were experimenting with this technology were not taken seriously by the established art venues, and were, in fact, often ostracized by their peers. More recently, the work of computer artists has begun to appear in general textbooks on the history of art, but each book fealures one or two completely different artists. The books are inconsistent in their documentation of this fairly new medium. There are a number of journals that have had special issues devoted to this topic, including the Art Journal, and there are also whole journals dedicated to the field, such as Leonardo. There are, however, very few books that do justice to the movement, and few that include artists of Japan. In other words, there is a great deal of activity in the field, but the documentation is neither thorough nor consistent.

1. Trachtman, P. Charles Csuri is an Old Master in a new medium.
Smithsonian (February 1995): 56.
2. The Story of Experiments in Art and Technology. E.A.T.
Intercommunication Online. Calendar, 2003.
www.ntticc.or.jp/Calendar /2003/EA T /preface. html
3. Reichardt, J. The Computer in Art. London: Studio Vista and New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1971 ), 81.
4. Reichardt, J. ibid, 81.
5. Reichardt, J. ibid, 84.
6. Yamaguchi, K. Robot Avant-Garde, 20th Century Art and the
Machine. Tokyo: Parco Co., Ltd., 1985), 113. [Translation mine.]
7. The complete title of the group is Gutai Bijutsu Kyokai (Concrete
Fine Arts Association). Alexandra Monroe, To challenge the midsummer
sun: The Gutai Group, in Alexander Munroe, Japanese
Art Since 1945: Scream Against the Sky. New York: Harry N.
Abrams, Inc., 1994, 83.
8. Munroe, The Gutai Group, 90.
9. Fox, H. A Primal Spirit. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1990,
81.
10. Against Nature: Japanese Art in the Eighties. Exhibition
Catalogue, Grey Art Gallery and New York University, the MIT List
Visual Arts Center, and The Japan Foundation, 1989, 78.
11. Munroe, A. Hinomaru illumination: Japanese art of the 1990s, in
Alexandra Munroe, Japanese Art Since 1945: Scream Against the
Sky. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1994, 343.
12. Yoichiro Kawaguchi, Interview, Konpyuuta Shinjinrui no Kenkyuu.
Research on the New Computer Generation, ed. Masaki Noda.
Tokyo: Bungei Shunjuu P ublishing, 1987, 255. [Translation mine.]

Data materialization is a work ow developed to create 3D objects from data-informed designs. Building upon traditional metalwork and craft, and new technology’s data visualization with generative art, this work ow expresses conceptually relevant data through 3D forms which are fabricated in traditional media. The process allows for the subtle application of data in visual art, allowing the aesthetic allure of the art object or installation to inspire intellectual intrigue. This paper describes the technical and creative process of Modern Dowry, a silver-plated 3D-print teapot on view at the Museum of the City of New York, June 2017–June 2018.

Data portraits depict their subjects’ accumulated data rather than their faces. They can be visualizations of discussion contributions, browsing histories, social networks, travel patterns, etc. They are subjective renderings that mediate between the artist’s vision, the subject’s self-presentation, and the audience’s interest. Designed to evocatively depict an individual, a data portrait can be a decorative object or be used as an avatar, one’s information body for an online space.

Data portraits raise questions about privacy, control, aesthetics, and social cognition. These questions become increasingly important as more of our interactions occur online, where we exist as data, not bodies.

1. E. van Alphen, “The Portrait’s Dispersal: Concepts of Representation and Subjectivity in Contemporary Portraiture,” Portraiture: Facing the Subject, J. Woodall, ed. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996) 239-56.

2. J.T. Hancock and P.J. Dunham, “Impression Formation in Computer-Mediated Communication Revisited,” Communication Research, Vol. 28, No. 3, 325-347 (2001).

3. F.B. Viegas and M. Smith, “Newsgroup Crowds and AuthorLines: Visualizing the Activity of Individuals in Conversational Cyberspaces,” 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society (2004).

4. F. Viegas, S. Golder, and J. Donath, “Visualizing Email Content: Portraying Relationships from Conversational Histories,” SIG CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, Canada (ACM Press, 2006).

5. S. West, Portraiture, Oxford History of Art (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2004).

6. A. Dragulescu, Lexigraphs, www.sq.ro/lexigraphsr.php (2009) (cited January 7, 2010).

7. S.E. Brennan, “Caricature Generator: The Dynamic Exaggeration of Faces by Computer,” Leonardo, Vol. 18, No. 3, 170-178 (1985).

8. ]. Abrams and P. Hall, eds., Else/where Mapping (Mineapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Design Institute, 2006).

9. R. Xiong andJ. Donath, “PeopleGarden: Creating Data Portraits for Users,” ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST), Asheville, North Carolina (ACM, 1999).

10. A. Zinman, Personas, personas.media.mit.edu (2009) (cited January 6, 2010). u. Y. Assogba and J. Donath, “Mycrocosm: Visual Microblogging,” 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, Hawaii (2009).

Dataism is a term coined to designate computer art. In contrast to the iconoclasm of Modernism, in general, and Dadaism, in particular, Dataism restates traditional aesthetics through formal practices. Dataist works are not singular objets d’art, but algorithmic procedures and digital data bases that have a symbolic description. They can be perfectly duplicated and widely distributed. Dataist artworks can appear to exist in three dimensions and move in the time dimension, but they may be entirely synthesized, that is, a manifestation of imagination.

Inspired by the cruelty in intensive farming of animals, the aim of this installation is to remind people of the story behind their food, even if you did not kill the animal, eating is just same as killing them.

In light of recent controversies surrounding massive data collection by corporations and government agencies, digital privacy, the right to oblivion, and data ownership have become increasingly important concerns. This paper describes the author’s artwork, Deletion Process_Only you can see my history, an interactive art installation based on her eight-year personal search history in the Google search engine. While the personal search history maintains a sense of privacy, according to the company’s own declaration, the author reveals this archive to viewers in order to raise awareness and provoke reflection on the aforementioned subjects. The author discusses her motivation, describes the making process and the decisions made at each step of designing the installation, while integrating at the same time a deeper discussion on the place of digital privacy and oblivion within the contemporary approach to art and technology.

1. Surveillance & Society, <http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/surveillance-and-society/about/history>.

2. D. Lyon, The Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance Society (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994), 57–80.

3. G. Deleuze, “Postscript on the Societies of Control,” October Vol. 59, 7 (Winter 1997).

4. See, for example, J. Finn, “Surveillance Studies and Visual Art: An Examination of Jill Magid’s Evidence Locker,” Surveillance & Society Vol. 10, No. 2, 134–149 (2012).

5. L.J. Bannon, “Forgetting as a Feature, Not a Bug: the Duality of Memory and Implications for Ubiquitous Computing,” CoDesign Journal Vol. 2, No. 1, 3–15 (2006).

6. V. Mayer-Schönberger, Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009) 12.

7. A.R. Luria, The Mind of a Mnemonist: A Little Book About a Vast Memory (New York: Basic Books, 1968).

8. Google Gmail, <http://goo.gl/RqD9j>.

9. M. Kuneva, Keynote Speech, Roundtable on Online Data Collection, Targeting and Profiling, Brussels, March 31, 2009, <http://goo.gl/fmmsB>.

10. D.J. Solove, “‘I’ve Got Nothing to Hide’ and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy,” San Diego Law Review Vol. 44, 765 (2007).

11. Ibid., 764.

12. European Commision, “Commission Proposes a Comprehensive Reform of the Data Protection Rules,” Brussels, January 25, 2012, <http://goo.gl/Ulekq>.

13. N. Lawrence, “Why the Ownership of Personal Data in the Hands of a Few Should Worry Us,” Alternet, <http://goo.gl/vA53hk>.

14. M. Pasquinelli, “Anomaly Detection: The Mathematization of the Abnormal in the Metadata Society,” <https://www.academia.edu/10369819/Anomaly_Detection_The_Mathematization_of_the_Abnormal_in_the_Metadata_Society>.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid.

17. P. Maass, “Art in a Time of Surveillance,” The Intercept, November 13, 2014, <https://theintercept.com/2014/11/13/art-surveillance-explored-artists/>.

18. CTRL[SPACE], Rhetorics of Surveillance from Bentham to Big Brother, <http://ctrlspace.zkm.de/e/>.

19. E. and F. Mattes, Life Sharing, <http://0100101110101101.org/>.

20. Eva and Franco Mattes co-curated the exhibition Black Chamber, on the theme of surveillance, on display at the Škuc Gallery in Ljubljana, Slovenia, March 10–April 1, 2016. <http://aksioma.org/black.chamber/>.

21. J. Dawson, “Tracking Himself: ‘The Orwell Project’,” The Washington Post, May 12, 2007, <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/11/AR2007051102030.html>.

22. H. Elahi, Tracking Transience, <http://trackingtransience.net/>.

23. D. Vasiliev and J. Oliver, “PRISM: The Beacon Frame,” <https://criticalengineering.org/projects/prism-the-beacon-frame/>.

24. Laura Poitras: Astro Noise, an exhibition catalog with chapters by notable contributors, <http//whitney.org/Exhibitions/LauraPoitras>.

25. K. Buford, “Data Art vs. Visualization? The Distinction is Unproductive, Says Artist Jer Thorp,” Silicon Angle, August 22, 2012, <http://goo.gl/JGhkl>.

26. K. Hillis, M. Petit, and K. Jarrett, Google and the Culture of Search (New York: Routledge, 2012) 27–30.

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid.

29. “Google (verb),” Wikipedia, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_(verb)>.

30. K. Goni, Deletion Process_Only you can see my history, <kyriakigoni.com/history>. The piece runs live online.

Cyberspace is language-based (cf. Cicognani, 1996, 1997; Winograd,1987), and so are virtual communities. The author argues that virtual communities are ideal places to experience and enhance a language for design, and for designers.

This paper argues that voice chips and speech recognition chips can be used as a unique analytic tool for understanding the complex techno-social interactions that define, imagine, and produce new products. Using these chips as an in situ instrument allows a focus on products in their actual context of use, capturing the multiple interpretations of new technologies, and a method to analyze their failures and successes in human machine interaction. It is the use of voice that is direct evidence of the interactive, particularized and social aspects of products that are traditionally underrepresented in the attempts to understand technological innovation, design, and deployment.

References
1. L. Althusser. (1971). Lmin and philosphy and other essays. New York: London Monthly Review Press.

2. While most communication theorists account for the social world, building a framework for understanding communication is often at odds with accounting for the diversity of possible experiences of language and the modulation of each social position. Austins work that looks at not how a language is composed but what it does, from where it does it. See Austin, J. (1980). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press; or Volosinov, V. (1973). Marxi’sm and the philosophy of/a,iguage. New York: Seminar Press.

3. Quoted from the North American Patent literature.

4. Pacific Bell voice mail system 1996, 1997, and AT&T automated customer help.

5. Benveniste, E. The nature of pronouns problems (1956) showed how linguistic categories not only allow human subjects to refer to themselves but actually create the parameters of human self-consciousness. ” Ego is he who says ego. That is where we see the foundation of subjectivity which is determined by the linguistic status of person. Consciousness of self is only possible if it is experienced by contrast. I use I only when I am speaking to someone who will be a you in my address.” p. 225 The linguistic category such as “I” relies wholly on the identity of the speaker for its meaning.

6. Latour, B. and J. Johnson. (1988). Mixing humans and nonhumans together: The sociology of the door-closer, social problems, Vol. 35, 298-310; Callon, M. Four models for the cynamics of science. In Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen and Trevor Pinch (eds). (1995). Handbook of science and technology studies. Thousand Oaks, CA, London & New Dehli: Sage Publications, 29-63.

7. Callon, M. and J. Law. (1982). On interests and their transformations: Enrollment and counter-enrollment. Social Studies of Science, Vol 12, 615-25.

8. Latour published the book Science in action (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987) in 1987, while in Dallas, June 11 1978, Texas Instruments Incorporated announced the launch of its speech synthesis monolithic integrated circuit in the new talking learning aid, SPEAK &SPELL(tm). The speech synthesizer JC accurately reproduced human speech from stored (a capacity of 200 seconds in dynamic ROM) or transmitted digital data, in a chip fabricated using the same process as that of the TI calculator MOS I Cs.

9. See M. Patons forthcoming Social Studies of Science paper for a detailed examination of the initial construction of the virtues and values of the phonograph recording technology.

10. Minneman, S. (1991). The social construction of engineering reality. (PhD dissertation, Stanford University.

11. Hallmark card first included voice chips in their cards in 1988. Five years later they introduced a recordable card on which you could record your own voice.

12. Nissan Maxima 1986.

13. Barbie said three things when she was given a voice in late 1980s: “Meet me at the Mall,” “Math is Hard,” and “I like school, don’t you?”

14. Machina R , a San Francisco based company, had on the market in 1997 several talking pens or “Pencorders,” talking keyring, several talking photoframes and many “Cardcorders,” including “Autonotes.”

15. Saccahrin is claimed to be the first product to be parasite marketed, i.e. “this product uses saccharin.”

16. Turkle, S. (1984). The second self. New York: Simon and Schuster, 31.

17. A complete list of the collected products and patents is attach in the appendix. A full list is available at httpl/cdr.stanford.edu/-njj/vcprods. This is being updated constantly.

18. Patent# 4863385 Sept 5 1989.

19. Patent# 5313557 May 17 1994.

20. Patent# 5014301 May 7 1991. 21. Patent # 4812968 Mar 14 1989.

22. Patent# 4951032 Aug 21 1990.

23. Patent# 4863385 Sept 5 1989.

24. Patent#5315285 May 24 1994.

25. Patent# 4987402 Jan 22 1991.

26. Patent# 5117217 May 26 1992.

27. Patent # 5254805 Oct 19 1993.

28. Patent# 5275285 Jan 4 1994.

29. Patent# 5481904 Jan 9 1996.

30. Patent# 5555286 Sept IO 1996.

31. Turkle op. cit. note 16 demonstrates how children enter into social relationships with their computers and computer games in which they thinking of it as alive and get competitive, angry, they scold it, and even want revenge on it. She finds that they respond to the rationality of the computer by valuing in themselves what is most unlike it. That is, she raises the concern that they define themselves in opposition to the computer, dichotomizing their feeling and their thinking.

32. Patent# 5413516 May 9 1995.

33. Patent# 5029214 July 2 1991.

34. Work and the products of work can be shown to take on meaning that transcend their use value in commodity capitalism see Willis, S. (1991). Primer/or daily life. New York: Routledge.

35. Patent# 5140632 Aug 18 1992. Telephone having voice capability adapter.

36. Shields, R. ed. (1992). Lifutyle shopping: The subject of consumption. New York: Routledge.

37. Within the patent literature what appeared in relation to transportation were: 5555286 Cellular phone based automatic emergency vessel/vehicle location system: translates a verbal rendition of latitude and longitude to cell phone; 5509853 Automobile interior ventilator with voice activation: which queries the driver when door closes and gives menu options; 5508685 vehicle and device adapted to revive a fatigued driver: a voice reminder combined with spray device; 5428512 Sidelighting arrangement and method: voice warning of impending obstacle; 5045838 Method and system for protecting automotive appliances against theft; 5278763 Navigation Aids(presumably for application in transportation); 4491290 Train defect detecting and annunciation system.

38. See The New York Times discussion.

39. This is in contrast to the popular depiction of cars with voices on mainstream television, in programs such as “My Mama was a Car” or “Night Rider” on CBS, the voice was used to lend the car personality.

40. Zuboff, S. (1984). In the age of the smart machine: Thefuture of workand power. New York: Basic Books. In particular, see The abstraction of industrial work, 58.

41. See Fabbri, F. (1981). A theory of musical genres: Two applications. In Popular music perspectives, eds. David Horn and Phillip Tagg. Gothenburg and Exter: International Association for the Study of Popular Music.

42. See Oswald, L. (1996). The place and space of consumption in a material world. Design issues, Vol. 12 (I), who describes the site for purchasing produce as the staging of the subject in consumer culture.

43. Stock felt supports her work with Tagg and Clarida studies on listeners responses to film and television title themes that demonstrate common competence of adequately understanding and contextually placing different musical structures. That listeners for the. most part understand the musical semiotic content in such situations in similar ways, across cultural areas that are more dissimilar.See also Tagg, P. (1979) Kojak, 50 seconds of television music: Toward the analysis of affect in popular music.

44. The symphony of the “Sirens” first performed in 1923, Arseni Avraamov.

45. In particular, the products that use speech and music interchangeably: the childrens applications, bells and whistles substitute for spoken encouragement, or the alarm systems that will use vocal warnings or sirens sounds, the pen patent #4812068.

46. To relate the voice chip to the socio-linguistic universe and its emphasis on the place of language within it, interprets the social system as a semiotic, and stresses the systematic aspects of it. We cannot simply assume that the concept of a system itself and the concept of function (of language) within that system is the most appropriate starting point. However this assumption underlies most of the guidelines developed for computational models of speech and is thus appropriate for discussion of the voice chip.

47 Austin, J.L. (1980). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The general point of which was not to look at how language is composed but what it does.

48 Searle uses this list to introduce his paper: Searle, J. (1972). What is a speech act? In P.P. Giglioli ed. Language and social context. Harmond worth: Penguin.

49 Stanley Fishs essay How to do things with austin and searle. In Is there a text in this class? The Authority of Interpretative Communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980, 244 analyses Coriolanus as a speech-act play. When Coriolanus responds to his banishment from Rome by stating a defiant “I banish you” the discrepancy in the illocurionary force in both the performatives of banishmenr is obvious. Rome, embodying the power of the state and community vs. Coriolanus sincere wish to banish Rome, i.e. his intentionality, is illustrative.

50 Broadcast voices and prerecorded voices although abstracted onto technologies still belong to an identity, however it is the combined sense of abstraction that connotes 73 jon@lasser.org (J. Lasser). the identity of the voice as that of the car. This could be interpreted alternatively as 74 butler@comp-lib.org (Michael M. Butler). an abstracted voice of authority performed by the car or the abstraction of the car 75 wapel@tc.cac.edu.eg. itself. 76 xiane@entech.com.

51 “If certain stable forms appear to emerge or recur in talk, they should be under- 77 spiff@bway.net. stood as an orderliness wrested by the participants from interactional contingency, 78 monitoring for swear words. rather than as automatic products of standardized plans. Form, one might say, is 79 zoeluna@bellsouth.net (Dave Whitlock). also the distillate of action and interaction, not only its blueprint. If that is so m 80 zoel una@bellsouth.net. then the description of forms of behavior, forms of discourse … included, has to 81 see Judith Bulter (1996). include interaction among their constitutive domains, and not just as the stage on 82 Dosi, G. (1985). Technological paradi’gms and technological t,·ajectories research polwhich scripts written in the mind are played out,” (E. Schegloff). Discourse as an icy 11 :1982) 147-162; and Clark, K. The Interaction of design hierarchies and interactional achievement: some uses of”uh huh” and other things that come market concepts in technological evolution. In Re:,;earch policy 14, 235-251. between sentences. In Georgetown University Round table on language and lin- 83 See for instance Zuboff op. cit. note 40. guistics: Analyzing discourse text and talk. D.Tannen, ed. (1982). Washington, 84 This list is available at cat.nyu.edu/neologues and is being updated constantly. It DC: Georgetown University Press, 73. includes images and product literature and when possible an audio file record-

52 Patent# 4517412 the card actuated telecommunication network is an example of ing of the voices. 30 this. “Local processor 11 controls a voice chip 15 coupled to telephone set 10 which interacts with the caller during the card verification process.”

53 L Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated action: The problem of human machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Suchman explains that this interpolation of verbal nuances and the coherence that the structure represents is actually achieved moment by moment, as a local, collaboratively, sequential accomplishment. The actual enactment of the interaction is an essentially local production, accomplished collaboratively in real time rather than born whole out of the speakers intent of cognitive plan, 68-98.

54 lbid.,81, 125. Suchman uses the example of the joint production of a single sentence to demonstrate the fluid division of labor in speaking. and listening.

55 Ibid., 78

56 Ibid., 83.

57 product innovation for corporate continuity – assessing the life expectancy of corporate products.

58 A longer analysis in Jeremijenko forthcoming.

59 A.M.Dixon@shu.ac.uk MikeyMoneyMinder.

60 Ibid.

61 zoeluna@bellsouth.net.

62 Ibid.

63 Ibid.

64 Afrench@iss.net (Andre French).

65 nocturnologue.

66 mit emotive interaces again – brooks; this is in contrast to the Shneiderman et al work that argues that this works against control.

67 Wristwatch sidekick.

68 This is a version of the gestural value of hand held and portable devices identified

Diastrophisms is a sound installation with a modular system that sends images through rhythmic patterns. It is built on a set of debris from the Alto Río building that was destroyed by the 27F earthquake in 2010 in Chile. Diastrophisms explores poetical, critical and political crossings between technology and matter in order to raise questions about the relationship between human beings and nature, to consider the construction of memory in a community by questioning the notion of monument, and to imagine new forms of communication in times of crisis.

Computer imagery is fraught with divers conundrums and paradoxes associated with the fact that it is both abstract and concrete. It confounds familiar ways of understanding appearance and reality. We can begin to resolve the perplexity by using the idea of recursion to contrast digital imaging with picturing. It is particularly useful to explore the concept of an interface and to study its role in the imaging system. Digital images cannot be understood outside the context of the complete interactive system in which they occur.

1. Heinz Pagels, The Dreams of Reason: The Computer and the Rise of the Sciences of Complexity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988) p. 316.
2. David A. Ross and David Em, The Art of David Em: One Hundred Computer Paintings (New York: Abrams, 1988).
3. For example, Donna Cox, “The Tao of Postmodernism: Computer Art, Scientific Visualization and Other Paradoxes,” Leonardo Supplemental Issue, Computer Art in Context: SIGGRAPH ’89 Art Show Catalog (1989) pp. 7-12.
4. See my articles “The Computer Is Not A Medium,” Philosophic Exchange (Fall/Winter 1988-89); and “The Wizard of Ethereal Pictures and Virtual Places,” Leonardo Supplemental Issue, Computer Art in Context: SIGGRAPH ’89 Art Show Catalog (1989) pp. 13-20.
5. I.e. that it cannot be expressed in the form a/b where a and b are integers and b is not 0. Pythagoras is attributed with having discovered the first such proof.
6. Similarly, when the character of Alan Turing slips into mathematical reverie in the middle of the play Breaking the Code by Moelwyn Merchant, he is not doing some kind of second-rate literary mathematics. His arguments can be subjected to the same scrutiny as if they were presented in the journal Mind. 
7. For a recent expression of this popular view, see Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).
8. Although there is a difference. A picture of a token is a token of the same number as the one represented by the token pictured. But a picture of a picture is not usually a picture of the same things; maybe it cannot depict the same things. The photographs of Sherry Levine pose an apropos quandary.
9. Nelson Goodman claims that ‘picture of’ is a non-relational description, so that when we call something a ‘picture of Pickwick,’ we are merely describing features of the picture and not a relationship it has to something else, namely Pickwick. See his Languages of Art (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1976). Goodman’s analysis is, at least in part, an effort to account for pictures of imaginary things. I am presupposing in what follows that this explanation will not suffice for at least some cases of ‘picturing.’ It seems to me useful to treat picturing as a relational function in attempting to explain pictures of pictures, especially when they occur in a feedback loop as they do in the video. Maybe we will just have to live with the idea that we can make pictures of imaginary things. It seems to happen all the time when a computer is used to model and animate objects.
10. See Bertrand Russell, The Principles of Mathematics (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1903).
11. The distinction between object space and image space is a standard one in technical discussions of graphics software. See James Foley and Andries VanDam, Fundamentals of Interactive Computer Graphics (Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1982).
12. The Mandelbrot set, a geometrical object defined in the complex plane, has received a great deal of attention recently from artists as well as scientists. It is usually displayed through a sequence of images depicting its self-similar shapes over an extensive range of scale. See, for example, H. O. Peitgen and P. H. Richter, The Beauty of Fractals (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1986).
13. See Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (Kritikder Reinen Vernunft) (Riga: Hartknoch, 1781).
14. The first statement in the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu.
15. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961).
16. Alvy Ray Smith is reported to have said “Reality is merely a conventional measure of complexity. If we can simulate reality then we’re getting images of a sufficiently pleasing complexity.” Quoted in Fred Ritchin, “Photography’s New Bag of Tricks,” New York Times Magazine (4 November 1984) p. 55. See also Timothy Druckery, “L’Amour Faux,” Digital Photography, catalog for the show organized by SF Camerawork (San Francisco: SF Camerawork, 1988).
17. This research beginning to bear fruit in the form of relatively inexpensive and accessible systems, including a glove peripheral for intendo machines. It is understandably receiving much attention in the popular press. See, for example, Steve Ditlea, “Inside Artificial Reality, PC/Computing (November 1989). Myron Krueger was an early pioneer in developing this technology and understanding its potential. See M. Krueger, Artificial Reality (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1983).
18. Pagels [1] p. 15.

To revive the Montreux Jazz Festival’s archival live-concert footage, three immersive installations were designed using three di erent principles of augmentation, physicality and interaction. The primary aim was to engage the user in a new relationship with digitized heritage. Audience observations indicated a strong emotional connection to the content, the artist and the crowd, as well as the development of new social interactions. Experimentation showed close interaction between the three principles, while the three installations suggested methodologies for reviving audio-visual archives.

Computers are transforming existing art forms and allowing new kinds of art forms to be developed. Because the computer is primarily a machine for processing information, not a machine for making objects, it provides a malleable medium that provides the artist with a large variety of tools for manipulating sense data. The work that contains the result of the artist’s creativity is the software and the data, not any particular image or output produced using that software. The ultimate goal of artmaking using computers, in this light, is not to create art objects but to create dynamic art subjects, to produce families of aesthetically interesting outputs, or art performances, which are as different from each other as possible within the constraints of the software. This situates computer art within a larger context of the study and development of artificial life. To create significant artworks of this type, it will be necessary to improve the computer’s capacity to be an autonomous artmaking subject; this will require the extension of the computer’s senses, the expansion of its capabilities, and means for the computer to provide sensory inputs to the human nervous system and to other computers.

1. Herbert W. Franke, Computer Graphics-Computer Art (London: Phaidon, 1971) p. 122. Franke pointed out that intellectual property rights for computer art will need to be protected by copyrights similar to those used for music and literature.
2. Roger F. Malina, “Computer Art in the Context of the Journal Leonardo,” Leonardo Supplemental Issue Computer Art in Context (1989) p. 67.
3. John Pearson, “The Computer: Liberator or Jailer of the Creative Spirit,” Leonardo Supplemental Issue Electronic Art (1988) p. 73.
4. See John Andrew Berton Jr., “Film Theory for the Digital World: Connecting the Masters to the New Digital Cinema,” in this issue.
5. Manfred Eisenbeis, ed., “Synthesis: The Visual Arts in the Electronic Age,” Proceedings of UNESCO Workshop (1989) p. 146.
6. Berton [4].
7. Pierre Descargues, Perspective: History, Evolution, Techniques (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1982) p. 10.
8. Sally Prior, presentation to the panel The Work of Art in the Age of Post-Mechanical Reproduction, Adelaide, Australia, March 1990.
9. Roy Ascott, “Art and Education in the Telematic Culture,” Leonardo Supplemental Issue Electronic Art (1989) p. 7.
10. Marc Adrian in 1969, as cited in Franke [1] p. 119.
11. Michel Foucault, The Archeology of Knowledge, A. M. Sheridan Smith, trans. (New York: Pantheon Books, 1969) p. 144.
12. An Interview with Marshall McLuhan, The Structurist, Special Issue on Art and Technology, No. 6 (1969) p. 61.
13. David Rosenboom, Extended Musical Interface with the Human Nervous System, Leonardo Monograph No. 1 (1990).
14. Frank J. Malina, ed., Visual Art, Mathematics, and Computers (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1979).
15. Quoted by George Rickey in Structure, 3rd Series, No. 2 (1961).
16. Christopher G. Langton, ed., Artificial Life, Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Vol 6 (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1989).
17. Langton [16] p. 1.
18. Foucault [11] p. 195.
19. Paul Brown, “Beyond Art,” paper presented to the panel The Work of Art in the Age of Post-Mechanical Reproduction, Adelaide, Australia, March 1990.
20. Eisenbeis [5] p. 13.
21. Louis Daguerre (c. 1939) as quoted in Helmut and Alison Gernsheim, L. J. M. Daguerre, The History of the Diorama and The Dageurrotype (New York: Dover, 1968) p. 81.
22. Franke [1] p. 119.
23. Roman Verostko, “Epigenetic Painting: Software as Genotype,” Leonardo 23, No. 1 (190) p. 17.
24. Brown [19] p. 6.
25. Frank Dietrich, “The Computer: A Tool for Though Experiments,” Leonardo 20, No. 4 (1987) p. 325.
26. Brown [19] p. 1.

The SIGGRAPH 1990 Art Show Committee decided to sponsor an exhibition of works that concentrate on the interaction of photographic imagery and computer technology [1]. This exhibition came about because of one interesting aspect of computer-mediated artworks that has been developing over the last several years. As the curator of this exhibition, I chose to put together a group of works that investigate not only the technical combination of these media but also the conceptual basis for choosing such tools of investigation, collaboration and production.

1. “Digital Image-Digital Photography,” 26 June through 3 September 1990, J. Erik Jonsson Central Library Gallery, Dallas, TX.
2. E. Parada, quote from the artwork Define/Defy The Frame, an ‘unfolding exhibition,’ published by the University Art Museum, State University of New York at Binghamton, 1990.
3. T. Druckery, “L’Amour Faux,” Digital Photography, (1988) p. 9.
4. Druckery [3].
5. D. Cox, “The Tao of Postmodernism: Computer Art, Scientific Visualization and Other Paradoxes,” Leonardo Supplemental Issues Computer Art in Context (1989) p. 11.

The attempt to understand the connections that link human thought to its representation through the act of formgiving (in language, image, or signs) is central to Western philosophy and aesthetics. In every generation, some version of this question has been posed: If it were possible to understand the logic of human thought, would there be a perfect representation of it in some unambiguous, diagrammatic symbol set of entities and dynamic relations among them? Informed by classical metaphysics and philosophy, this question also has a life not only in contemporary struggles that are carried on in the varied and very different domains of visual art, information design, and computer graphics, but also in cognitive science, with its legacy of symbolic logic, artificial intelligence debates, and a disposition towards the intersection of speculative and specifiable apprehensions of what constitutes thought.

1. Osborne, P. (1989). Adorno and the metaphysics of modernism: The problem of a postmodern art. In A. Benjamin (Ed.), The problems of modernity: Adorno and Benjamin (pp. 23-48). London and New York: Routledge. Brunkhorst, H. (1997). Irreconcilable modernity: Adorno’s aesthetic experimentalism and the transgression theorem. In M. Pensky (Ed.), The Actuality of Adorno. Albany: SUNY. Dews, P. (1989). Adorno poststructuralism, and the critique of identity. In A. Benjamin (Ed.), The problems of modernity: Adorno and Benjamin (pp. 1-22). London and New York: Routledge.

2. Derrida J. (1962). Edmund Husserl’s The origin of geometry: An introduction. Lincoln: The University of Nebraska Press (translation John P. Leavey, 1978).

3. Brunkhorst, op.cit.

4. Lister, M. (Ed.). (1995). The photographic image in digital culture. New York and London: Routledge. Amelunxen, H., lglhaut S., Ratzer F., Cassel A., & Schneider N.G. (Eds.). (1996). Photography After Photography. Basel: G&B Arts International.

5. Amelunxen & Ratzer, eds., & Lister, ed. op.cit.

6. Besant, A. & Leadbeater, C.W. (1905). Thought forms. London and Benares: Theosophical Publishing Society.

7. I’m thinking of the context in which Wilhelm Worringer’s work is produced, for instance, or that of Wassily Kandinsky: that early 20th century investment in the aesthetic systems of correspondence and universals that came out of late 19th century symbolism.

8. Prueitt, M.

9. Virilio, P. (1995). The vision machine. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press.

10. Amelunxen, op.cit.

Life with a physical disability has allowed me a unique and humbling perspective that has manifested in my art work. I create art with and for people who live with various types of physical and/or mental limitations.