the mit press information arts intersections of art science and technology nov 2001

Malina, series editor Designing Information Technology, Richard Coyne, 1995 Technoromanticism: Digital Narrative, Holism, and the Romance of the Real, Richard Coyne, 1999 The Visual Mind

TE AM

Information Arts

Roger F Malina, series editor

Designing Information Technology, Richard Coyne, 1995

Technoromanticism: Digital Narrative, Holism, and the Romance of the Real, Richard Coyne, 1999 The Visual Mind, edited by Michele Emmer, 1994

The Robot in the Garden: Telerobotics and Telepistemology in the Age of the Internet, edited by Ken

Goldberg, 2000

Leonardo Almanac, edited by Craig Harris, 1994

In Search of Innovation: The Xerox PARC Artist-in-Residence Program Project, edited by Craig

Harris, 1999

The Digital Dialectic: New Essays on New Media, edited by Peter Lunenfeld, 1999

Immersed in Technology: Art and Virtual Environments, edited by Mary Anne Moser with Douglas

MacLeod, 1996

Information Arts: Intersections of Art, Science, and Technology, Stephen Wilson, 2002

 2002 Stephen Wilson

All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic ormechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) with-out permission in writing from the publisher

This book was set in Bell Gothic and Garamond by Achorn Graphic Services, Inc., and printedand bound in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Wilson, Stephen, 1944–

Information arts: intersections of art, science, and technology / Stephen Wilson

p cm.—(Leonardo)

ISBN 0-262-23209-X (hc: acid-free paper)

1 Art and science 2 Art and technology I Title II Leonardo (Series) (Cambridge, Mass.).N72.S3 W55 2002

701′.05—dc21

00-038027

C o n t e n t s

1 Introduction, Methodology, Definitions, and Theoretical Overview 1

Revisiting the Relationship of Art and Techno-Scientific Research 5

What Areas of Technological Art Are Included? Which Are Not? 9

Critical Theory and Problematic Issues in the Integration of Art and

Can the Arts Offer Alternatives in Setting Research Agendas, Interpreting

What Is a Viable Role for Artists in Research Settings? What Can Researchers

Contribute to Art and What Can Artists Contribute to Research? What Can

High-Tech Companies Gain from Artists Being Involved? 36

The Integration of Research and Art 40

How Are Biology-Based Theory and Research Important to the Arts? 88

Introduction: Microbiology and Genetics as Artistic Interest 95

Creating Forms and Visualizations Based on Its Structures, Including the New

Reflections on the Processes of Genetic Science and Its Social Implications 105

Contents

Artists’ Experiments with Technological Stimulation 157

Brain Processes, Heartbeats, Breath, Biosensors, and Psychology 180

The Psychological Processes of Perception, Cognition, Appreciation, and Creativity 189

3 Physics, Nonlinear Systems, Nanotechnology, Materials Science,

Geology, Astronomy, Space Science, Global Positioning System, and

3.1 physical science research agendas and theoretical reflections 202

Introduction: Questions about the Biggest and Smallest of Things 203

Summary: Artist Explorations of Physical Science Research and Concepts 221

3.2 atomic physics, nanotechnology, and nuclear science 222

Viewing and Manipulating the Atomic World—Nanotechnology 226

3.3 materials and natural phenomena: nonlinear dynamic systems,

water, weather, solar energy, geology, and mechanical

Contents

3.4 space 260

4 Algorithms, Mathematics, Fractals, Genetic Art, and Artificial Life 295

4.1 research agendas in mathematics and artificial life 296

Why Is Mathematics Part of a Book on Science, Technology, and Art? 297

5 Kinetics, Sound Installations, and Robots 367

An Overview of Scientific and Technological Research Agendas 371

Contents

Examples of Conceptual Challenges and Approaches 374

5.3 kinetic instruments, sound sculpture, and industrial music 406

The Meaning of the Telecommunications ‘‘Revolution’’ 473

Contents

The Migration to Net.Radio 507

6.3 teleconferencing, videoconferencing, satellites, the internet, and

Teleconferencing, Videoconferencing, Satellites, and Internet Collaboration 515

Collaborative Environments and Person-to-Person Communication 579

Arrangements That Use Readings of the Physical World to Affect the Web 596

Theoretical Reflections on the Digital Culture and Art 630

Summary: Debate in the Art Community—Possibilities of an Enhanced Future 657

Introduction: Extensions of Photography, Cinema, Video, and Literature 665

Deconstructive and Feminist Critiques of Cultural Trends 666

Interactive Documentary 685

Summary: Computer Media—The Next Stages of Cinema and Television? 689

Introduction: Artists as Architects of Virtual Reality 693

Research and Commercial Virtual Reality Environments 725

7.5 speech synthesis, voice recognition, and 3-d sound 774

Contents

Affective Computing 804

Summary: The Role of the Arts in Artificial Intelligence and Agent Research 809

Information Management, Visualization, Commerce, and Surveillance 813

8.1 exhibitions and festivals; educational programs; art, and researchcollaborations; organizational resources, think tanks, and web

Permanent Spaces, Museums, and Comprehensive Institutions 851

Art and Science-Technology Sponsors, Competitions, and Academic Convergence

Ludwig JohnEduardo KacNed KahnParas KaulYves KleinVitaly KomarMilton KomisarRichard KriescheMyron KruegerTed KruegerGregory KuhnMierle Landerman UkelesJaron Lanier

Eve Andre´e Larame´eBrenda LaurelRay LauzzannaGeorge Legrady

List of Technologies

S e l e c t e d T e c h n o l o g i e s

Research areas include:

Bioengineering

Microbiology and genetics

Smell, taste, and touch sensors

MeteorologySolar energyFire and magneticsTheoretical mathFractals

AlgorithmsArtificial LifeGenetic AlgorithmsRobot vision and motionRobot autonomySubsumption architectureHumanoid robotsLiving architectureWireless communication and mobilecomputing

Location sensitive communicationElectromagnetic spectrum

List of Technologies

Desktop video

Computer Telephone Integration (CTI)

Virtual communities and telecollaboration

Visualizing net activity

Autonomous flying vehicles

Parapsychological communication

Gesture and touch recognition

Speech recognition and synthesis

Face and facial expression recognition

Object tracking and identification

Video surveillance

Music recognition

Haptics

3-D soundMotion simulationForce feedbackImmersive virtual realityAutomatic video interpretationSynthetic scene generationAmbient sound and sound localizationSpeaker identification and trackingEarcons and sonification

Autonomous software agentsSocial and emotional computingArtificial intelligence

Information visualization and foragingAugmented reality systems

Tangible bitsUbiquitous/pervasive/invisible computingWearable computing

Smart spaces, houses, highways

S e r i e s F o r e w o r d

Editorial Board: Roger F Malina, Denise Penrose, and Pam Grant Ryan

The cultural convergence of art, science, and technology provides ample opportunityfor artists to challenge the very notion of how art is produced and to call into questionits subject matter and its function in society The mission of the Leonardo book series,published by the MIT Press, is to publish texts by artists, scientists, researchers, andscholars that present innovative discourse on the convergence of art, science, and tech-nology

Envisioned as a catalyst for enterprise, research, and creative and scholarly tation, the book series enables diverse intellectual communities to explore commongrounds of expertise The Leonardo book series provides a context for the discussion ofcontemporary practice, ideas, and frameworks in this rapidly evolving arena where artand science connect

experimen-To find more information about Leonardo/ISAST and to order our publications, go

to Leonardo Online at〈http://mitpress.mit.edu/e-journals/Leonardo/isast/leobooks.html〉

or send e-mail to〈leonardobooks.mitpress.mit.edu〉

Joel Slayton

Chairman, Leonardo Book Series

Book Series Advisory Committee: Annick Bureaud, Pamela Grant Ryan, Craig Harris,

Roger Malina, Margaret Morse, Michael Punt, Douglas Sery, Allen Strange

Leonardo/International Society for the Arts, Sciences, and Technology (ISAST)

Leonardo, the International Society for the Arts, Sciences, and Technology, and theaffiliated French organization Association Leonardo have two very simple goals:

1. to document and make known the work of artists, researchers, and scholars interested

in the ways that the contemporary arts interact with science and technology, and

2. to create a forum and meeting places where artists, scientists, and engineers canmeet, exchange ideas, and, where appropriate, collaborate

When the journal Leonardo was started some 35 years ago, these creative disciplines

existed in segregated institutional and social networks, a situation dramatized at thattime by the ‘‘Two Cultures’’ debates initiated by C P Snow Today we live in a differenttime of cross-disciplinary ferment, collaboration, and intellectual confrontation enabled

by new hybrid organizations, new funding sponsors, and the shared tools of computersand the Internet Above all, new generations of artist-researchers and researcher-artistsare now at work individually and in collaborative teams bridging the art, science, andtechnology disciplines Perhaps in our lifetime we will see the emergence of ‘‘new Leo-nardos,’’ creative individuals or teams who will not only develop a meaningful art forour times but also drive new agendas in science and stimulate technological innovationthat addresses today’s human needs

For more information on the activities of the Leonardo organizations and networks,please visit our Web site at〈http://mitpress.mit.edu/Leonardo〉

Roger F Malina

Chairman, Leonardo/ISAST

ISAST Board of Directors: Barbara Lee Williams, Martin Anderson, Mark Resch, Mark

Beam, Sonya Rapoport, Stephen Wilson, Lynn Hershman Leeson, Joel Slayton, ope Finnie, Curtis Karnow, Mina Bissell, Rich Gold, Beverly Reiser, Piero Scaruffi

F o r e w o r d

Stephen Wilson’s Information Arts: Intersections of Art, Science, and Technology is the first

comprehensive international survey of artists working at the frontiers of scientific inquiry

and emerging technologies The scope of Information Arts is encyclopedic: it is both a

critical text and practical resource guide The expansive taxonomy of art and research isaccentuated by theoretical perspectives, analysis, and art commentaries that address a di-

verse range of ideological positions Information Arts also provides resources on

organiza-tions, publicaorganiza-tions, conferences, museums, educational programs, and research centers.Steve Wilson provides a mirror that captures the essence and agendas represented bycontemporary efforts of artists to integrate scientific research into their work and enter-prise Offering a critical context of their agendas, he examines research that crosses theintellectual terrain of biology, physics, materials science, astronomy, cognitive science,engineering, medicine, architecture, and social and information science This researchindicates that although art and science share many characteristics, a special role for thearts exists in the evolution and deployment of technology—the implication being that byoperating outside the conventions of traditional practice, unique and significant research

enterprises can and will unfold Information Arts helps us understand on a deeper level

that experimental research is culturally necessary and serves to transform how to simulate,

interact with, and experience the world Information Arts is about the unfolding of this

conceptual frontier, a frontier in which art informs research and research informs art.For more information about the book, author, and Leonardo book series, as well

as updated links to artists, theorists, and researchers working at the intersection ofart, science, and technology, please visit ⬍http://mitpress.mit.edu/Leonardo/isast/leobooks/swilson/⬎

Joel Slayton

This page intentionally left blank

P r e f a c e

In my last semester at Antioch College, all students were expected to complete an tive final thesis Since it was the late 1960s, most students at this experimental collegefocused on the political and cultural structures undergoing upheaval in that era I ap-proached the foment differently

integra-Radio, television, amplified music, and cinema were everywhere They figured nently as the arbiters of change even in the lives of those of us focused on the arts andhumanities Yet it struck me as strange that almost no one outside of engineering under-stood how devices such as the radio worked How did it magically manage to sendsounds thousands of miles through the ether? This acquiescence to ignorance seemed acritical gap in our literacy and ultimately our capacity to act in a technological world.For my final thesis, I proposed to teach myself how radio worked even though Ilacked any significant technical background Ultimately, I did learn how radio worked

promi-I also learned some things that may be more important: that the mystification of scienceand technology was unjustified; that scientific principles were understandable, just likeideas in other fields; and that technological imagination and scientific inquiry were them-selves a kind of poetry—a revolutionary weaving of ideas and a bold sculpture of matter

to create new possibilities

Over the years these insights have guided my teaching and my work as an artist Theyare also the foundation for this book There is a major categorical flaw in the way wecommonly think about scientific and technological research as being outside the majorcultural flow, as something only for specialists We must learn to appreciate and producescience and technology just as we do literature, music, and the arts They are part of thecultural core of our era and must become part of general discourse in a profound way.Many artists have begun to engage the world of technological and scientific research—not just use its gizmos—but rather to comment on its agendas and extend its possibilities.Their work can be seen as part of this essential rapprochement and as a clue to whatart may look like in the twenty-first century I wrote this book because no resource

surveying this remarkable body of art and its relationship to research exists Information

Arts includes the following:

• It surveys artistic work related to biology (microbiology, genetics, animal and plantbehavior, ecology, the body, and medicine); the physical sciences (particle physics,atomic energy, geology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, space science, and GlobalPositioning System (GPS) technology); mathematics and algorithms (algorists, frac-tals, genetic art, and artificial life); kinetics (conceptual electronics, sound installation,and robotics); telecommunications (telephone, radio, telepresence, and Web art); anddigital systems (interactive media, virtual reality (VR), alternative sensors, artificialintelligence, 3-D sound, speech, scientific visualization, and information systems).Using summaries from the artists’ writings, it introduces their rationales and explana-tions of their work

• It considers artists approaching research from a variety of ideological stances andreviews theoretical writing related to artistic work in these areas

• Exploring the idea of techno-scientific research as cultural acts, it also reviews theresearch projects, agendas, and future plans of scientists and technologists working

at the frontiers of inquiry

• It also lists resources (organizations, publications, conferences, museums, research

centers, and art-science collaborations); books useful for further study; and Web sitesfor artists, theorists, and research centers

The author wishes to thank the many who have helped to make this book possible:the artists and researchers who have created these extraordinary works and graciouslyallowed us to use images of their work The technologists who created the Web, whichallows us all to access each other’s work Students in my courses in the Conceptual/Information Arts Program at San Francisco State University, whose enthusiasm andhonesty have helped hone my ideas Student research assistants Joseph Schecter, MaxKelly, Lisa Husby, and Torrey Nommesen for helping with image and permission re-search The reviewers and editors of MIT Press’s Leonardo series who recognized thevalue of the book and offered suggestions for its improvement Production editor Debo-rah Cantor-Adams and production and graphics coordinator Sharon Deacon Warne atMIT Press who helped give the book its present polished form Doug Sery, my editor

at MIT Press, for his support and willingness to pursue these ideas Catherine Witzling,

my wife, for editing the first two chapters and her frankness in questioning the topics

of this book My daughter Sophia, for rescuing me from the obsession with the book viademands to play Sally and Julius Wilson for teaching me to be curious about everything

Preface

I n t r o d u c t i o n , M e t h o d o l o g y ,

D e f i n i t i o n s , a n d T h e o r e t i c a l

O v e r v i e w

A r t a n d S c i e n c e a s C u l t u r a l A c t s

What do art and science have to do with each other? Information Arts takes an

unortho-dox look at this question, focusing on the revolutionary work of artists and theoristswho challenge the separations initiated in the Renaissance It points toward a possiblefuture in which the arts can reassume their historical role of keeping watch on the culturalfrontier and in which the sciences and arts inform each other

Research has become a center of cultural innovation: its results are radically ing life and thought Our culture needs to participate in defining research agendas,conducting inquiries, and analyzing their meanings Artists should be hungry to knowwhat researchers are doing and thinking, and scientists and technologists should be zeal-ous to know of artistic experimentation The future will be enriched if this expansion

influenc-of zones influenc-of interest becomes a part influenc-of the definition influenc-of art and science

Scientific and technological research should be viewed more broadly than in the past:not only as specialized technical inquiry, but as cultural creativity and commentary,much like art It can be appreciated for its imaginative reach as well as its disciplinary

or utilitarian purposes Like art, it can be profitably analyzed for its subtexts, its tion to more general cultural forces, and its implications as well as its surface rationales.Art that explores technological and scientific frontiers is an act of relevance not only

associa-to a high-brow niche in a segregated corner of our culture Like research, it asks questionsabout the possibilities and implications of technological innovation It often exploresdifferent inquiry pathways, conceptual frameworks, and cultural associations than thoseinvestigated by scientists and engineers (I have adopted the convention of referring toscientific inquiry and technological innovation as techno-scientific research, even thoughtheir activities can be quite different.)

Anthropologists claim that we increasingly live in an “information society” in whichthe creation, movement, and analysis of ideas is the center of cultural and economiclife In our culture, scientific and technological information is a critical core of that

information This book is called Information Arts because the art of such a culture must

address that information if it is going to be vital

Here, then, are the questions Information Arts is attempting to answer:

What kinds of relationships are possible among art, scientific inquiry, and technologicalinnovation? How might art and research mutually inform each other?

How are artists investigating techno-scientific research? How have they chosen to relate

to the world of research? How does research further their artistic agendas?

How do art historians and cultural theorists understand the interactions between cultureand research?

How do researchers conceptualize? What agendas motivate their work? What futuredevelopments are likely to call for cultural commentary and artistic attention?

A Quiz

A Quiz

We are at an interesting place in history, in which it is sometimes difficult to distinguishbetween techno-scientific research and art—a sign that broader integrated views of art andresearch are developing The section below offers the reader a “quiz” to illustrate this point

It briefly describes research activities mentioned in this book The reader is invited todetermine which activities have been carried out by persons describing themselves as artistsand which by those describing themselves as researchers (For the sake of the quiz, all areidentified as “researchers.” Answers are provided at the end of this chapter.)

Research Art

— — Researcher J.T developed a method of using genetic engineering to

encode messages in bacteria.

— — Researcher S developed an arrangement so that persons far away could

control his body through electrical stimulation.

— — Researcher E.K created a system in which several geographically

dis-persed participants shared the body of a robot that they mutually controlled.

— — Researchers C.E and U.W bred a line of mice with a special proclivity

for eating computer cables.

— — Researcher P.D developed a method for modulating sound onto the flow

of dripping water.

— — Researcher J.M developed a computer display that could visualize the

underlying intellectual structure of a group of articles and books.

— — Researcher R.B developed colonies of small robots with a repertoire of

simple behaviors that can evolve complex intelligence skills through ing and communication.

learn-— — Researcher H.S developed a “fertility bra” that used pheromone receptors

to flash indicators when the woman wearing it was in a fertile period.

— — Researchers created a video composite representation of participants in a

video conference in which nonactive participants faded with the level of their activity.

— — Researchers at M.R developed a device that is sensitive to hugs and can

react to things it hears on the television.

— — Researcher R.G invented a toilet with biosensors that provides instant

urine-based analysis of biological characteristics, such as drug presence or emotional arousal levels.

Chapter 1.1: Art and Science as Cultural Acts

Which is which? The confusion is a significant cultural event.

Revisiting the Relationship of Art and Techno-Scientific Research

Historical Separations

The arts and the sciences are two great engines of culture: sources of creativity, places

of aspiration, and markers of aggregate identity Before the Renaissance, they wereunited Science was called natural philosophy Philosophers were as likely to speculateabout art and science as about religion and truth Similarly, in tribal societies the phi-losopher, shaman, and artist were likely to be the same person Visual and performancearts were integrated into the fabric of rituals and daily life The artist who sang stories

or carved ritual objects was likely to be the person who was especially observant andwise about the ways of the heavens, the weather, animals, plants, the earth, and life anddeath

In the West, the Renaissance initiated an era of specialization Science became codified

as a segregated set of processes and worldviews While its accomplishments in providingnew understanding of old mysteries increased confidence in its claims, art moved in itsown direction, largely ignoring the agendas of science During the Industrial Revolution,science inspired technology and technology inspired science Research and inventionspread into every corner of life, but mainstream art seemed oblivious Increasingly, itbecame less likely that an educated person would be well versed in both areas of culture

In the 1960s commentator C P Snow developed his influential “Two Cultures” theory1

that concluded that those in the humanities and arts and those in the sciences haddeveloped sufficiently different languages and worldviews that they did not understandeach other Note that this book will concentrate on the arts, but much of the analysisholds more generally for the humanities.2

The Urgency for Reexamination

Can art and science/technology remain segregated in the twenty-first century?

Informa-tion Arts seeks to revisit the relaInforma-tionship of art to scientific and technological research,

exploring the pioneering work of artists with emerging research and the prospects forfuture mutual influences Several cultural forces combine to make a reexamination ofthe disconnection critical

Revisiting the Relationship of Art and Techno-Scientific Research

Influence on Life Technological and scientific research are spreading their influenceinto every corner of life, from medicine, communication, and government to domesticlife, education, and entertainment Commercial innovators scan for research in hopes

of creating new industries and fortunes In earlier eras, the influence of research seemedmore limited; there were long periods of continuity in everyday life How can the artskeep watch on the cultural frontier if they ignore such omnipresent features of life?

Influence on Thought Science and technology are changing basic notions about thenature of the universe and the nature of humanity New communications technologieschallenge ancient ideas about time, distance, and space New probes peer into the biologi-cal heart of life and identity and the origins of the stars All fields that ask philosophicalquestions, such as art, must take heed

Critical Studies and Cultural Theory These disciplines challenge traditional ways ofstudying culture and question the wisdom of trying to understand the arts, humanities,and sciences in isolation from each other and of segregating “high” and “low” culture.Critical theory deconstructs long-standing sacred cows, such as science’s privileged claims

to truth and objectivity, as well as art’s claims to a special elevated sensitivity Artistsand scientists are seen as creatures of culture, and their work is understood within largerpsycho-political-economic-cultural frameworks Critical theory takes on concepts such

as truth, progress, reality, nature, science, gender, identity, and the body The compellingenergy of this analysis is one important indicator of the wisdom of tearing down thewalls between disciplines such as art and science

Artistic Activity The increasing level of artistic activity using computers, the Internet,and other areas of scientific interest suggests the impossibility of understanding the fu-ture of the arts without devoting attention to science and technology Twenty yearsago, when I first started my artistic experiments with computers, it was hard to findsimilarly involved artists or relevant critical perspectives Now there is an explosion

of interest Some artists want to assimilate the computer to traditional artistic media,for example, by treating it as a fancy paintbrush or camera Many others, however,recognize the computer as the tip of a techno-cultural iceberg They understand thatthe most interesting work is likely to derive from a deeper comprehension of the un-derlying scientific and technological principles that have guided the computer’s de-velopment, and from participation in the research flow that points to the technologicalfuture

Chapter 1.1: Art and Science as Cultural Acts

6

Organization of the Book

Information Arts aims to be a resource in the reexamination of the relationship between

research and art It proposes to accomplish this in several ways

Presentation of Artists Artists have begun to engage the concepts, tools, and contexts

of scientific and technological research, and their work is provocative and intriguing

No unified compendium of this work exists, yet this is the best source of informationabout new kinds of relationships between art and research in the future I have conductedextensive research to identify artists working with scientific and technological researchand have included both established and emerging artists Where possible, I have incorpo-rated excerpts of the artists’ own statements, descriptions, and images I have also offeredcommentary by others when useful

Overview of Theory Cultural theorists, art historians, and artists have begun to writeabout many issues in techno-culture that are germane to the discussion of the relationshipbetween art and science/technology For each of the major sections of the book, I havepresented brief overviews of theoretical writing on the topic and indications of controver-sies where they exist

Overview of Research Agendas This book explores the possibility of viewing art andresearch as a unified cultural enterprise and of understanding researchers’ worldviews—their goals, category systems, and visions of the future For each section of the book, Ipresent overviews of what practitioners in those fields see as the most important researchagendas Indeed, it is a basic premise of this book that art practice and theory in areas

of science and technology can best proceed only with profound investigation of theseagendas

Methodology Creation of this book raised a wide variety of methodological tions: How does one locate exemplary artists and researchers working at the fron-tiers of inquiry? How does one assess the quality of works? How have my own biasesaffected the choices and analysis? These questions are considered in Appendix A:Methodology

ques-Sections of the Book I have organized the book using categories of research to tiate sections Sections cover major branches of scientific inquiry, such as biology, physi-cal sciences, and mathematics, and areas of technological foment, such as computers,alternative interfaces, telecommunications, and robotics Within each section, chaptersfocus on particular research arenas

differen-Organization of the Book

The Deficiency of Categorization

Artists resist categorization Artworks are typically multilayered, addressing many themessimultaneously Many artists purposely try to confound preexisting categories The tech-nology used may not be the most important element

Why was this book organized in accordance with scientific disciplines and logical categories? How were artists and artworks placed in particular categories? As anauthor I confronted the challenge of developing an organizational system for consid-

techno-ering art and artworks Since Information Arts investigates the role of scientific and

technological research, I adapted practical, low-inference categories focused on scientificdisciplines and areas of technology Thus, if an artwork used biological materials orsought to comment on biological issues such as genetic engineering, I placed it inthe biology section of the book The artist may or may not consider the link withbiological research as important as many other issues addressed in the artwork be-sides biology As an aid to preserving the way the artists framed their work, I haveincluded artists’ own descriptions and rationales wherever possible Also, the overviews

of theory relevant to the areas of research provide additional interpretive perspectives.The book attempts to cross-reference works that explore multiple research areas simulta-neously

How Does Research Function in Various Artists’ Works?

The artists in the following chapters integrate techno-scientific research in a variety ofways For some it is a central focus of their art; for others it is an incidental feature.Even for those for whom the connection is central, a variety of theoretical orientationsshape their work Here is a brief overview of the variety of approaches, starting withthose in which the research is central Note that any given artwork might mix several

of these approaches

Exploration of New Possibilities The artist’s work itself functions as research intothe new capabilities opened up by a line of inquiry For example, in investigating artificialintelligence and speech recognition technology, artist Naoka Tosa created Neuro Baby,

a computer-generated character that attempted to read the emotional tone of a visitor’sspeech and react appropriately (see chapter 7.6)

Exploration of the Cultural Implications of a Line of Research The artists use thenew capabilities to create work that explores the narratives and conceptual frameworksthat underlie the research For example, artists David Rokeby and Paul Garrin created

an installation called White Devil, which used motion detection technology to create a

Chapter 1.1: Art and Science as Cultural Acts

video projection of a guard dog that snapped at visitors wherever they moved In part,the installation commented on the implications of surveillance technology by using thetechnology itself (see chapter 7.4).

Use of the New Unique Capabilities to Explore Themes Not Directly Related to the Research The technologies provide a new way to address any number of issues not

directly related to the technology For example, my Father Why installation used motion

detection to explore a variety of emotions related to my father’s dying Visitors’ ments into the places of sadness, anger, nostalgia, and resignation activated sound eventsrelated to each emotion The longer they stayed there, the deeper the exploration ofthat emotion The event was mostly about these conflicting emotions; the movementdetection provided a visceral way to ask visitors to confront them: How long wouldthey stay with a particular emotion before they would need to flee by moving their body?(See chapter 7.4.)

move-Incidental Use of the Technology Research provides a wealth of new images and rials Some artists find the new images intriguing or beautiful but are not especiallyinterested in the underlying inquires that led to those outcomes or in their culturalimplications The power of the work presented in the following chapters suggests thatall levels of involvement with the technology are valuable

mate-What Areas of Technological Art Are Included? Which Are Not?

When I started this project I hoped to create a comprehensive compendium of and-technology–inspired art I defined art broadly to include media and the performingarts in addition to visual arts However, I quickly realized that this comprehensive ap-proach was impractical The difficulties I encountered raised interesting questions inthinking about techno-scientific art

science-What Is Technology? science-What Is High-tech Art?

Where should one draw the line? Every creation system beyond the basic apparatus ofthe body is a technology At various points in history, charcoal, paints, sculpting toolsand techniques, ceramics, and printmaking apparatus were state-of-the-art technologies.More recently, photography, cinema, electric machines, lights, radio, recording technol-ogy, and video were considered high technology Now, however, when people talk abouthigh-tech arts, they are not talking about these technologies

Technological art is a moving target The artistic gesture to move into an area ofemerging technology that is radical in one era can end up being unnoteworthy a fewyears later It takes an act of artistic vision and bravery to decide to work with techniques,

What Areas of Technological Art Are Included? Which Are Not?

tools, and concepts from a still raw area of technology not yet accepted as a valid areafor the arts It is a challenge to work with a medium before anyone defines it as amedium Yet several years later, when the technology has matured and a body of artisticwork and commentary has appeared, the choice does not have the same meaning Atthe early stages of an emerging technology, the power of artistic work derives in partfrom the cultural act of claiming it for creative production and cultural commentary.

In this regard, the early history of computer graphics and animation in some ways mimicsthe early history of photography and cinema

Information Arts generally focuses on art that addresses research activity emerging in

the last seven years I did not extensively consider video art, kinetic and light sculpture,sound art, electronic music, laser art, and holography Although there continues to beexperimental work in these fields, they are not currently considered emerging technolo-

gies, and they have well-developed aesthetic and analytic traditions of their own

Informa-tion Arts does not consider the popular media of science ficInforma-tion, literature, cinema, and

television, which offer interesting arenas of mutual influence between science and artbut call for an analysis outside the scope of this book

Because of the accelerated pace of technological innovation, even newer gies are rapidly passing into the stage of institutionalization Fields such as computergraphics, computer animation, 3-D modeling, digital video, interactive multime-dia, and Web art, which were revolutionary a few years ago, have become part

technolo-of the mainstream Enormous amounts technolo-of work are being produced, the variety technolo-ofaesthetic rationales has multiplied, and the technologies have been integrated intocommercial software and media production Artistic experimentation is quickly be-ing assimilated For example, computer graphic visual effects that represented inno-vative artistic exploration a few years ago are now part of the standard Photoshopfilters available to the millions who own the software Computer animations in 3-Dand effects that were known only by a few media experimenters are now becom-ing standard features of movies and commercials Interactive computer events thatwere of interest only to experimental artists fifteen years ago are now part of fieldssuch as computer-assisted education and games In one of the most remarkablyspeedy transformations, Web art experiments are devoured by the steamrolling com-mercial and media expansion of the World Wide Web almost as soon as they areinvented

This book will not consider computer graphics, computer animation, and ital video except at their more experimental fringes Also, although it does considerartistic work with interactive computer media and Web art, a comprehensive analy-

dig-Chapter 1.1: Art and Science as Cultural Acts

sis of these rapidly expanding and commercializing genres is beyond the scope of thisbook.

The Assimilation of Art into Research and Commercial Production

The pattern of sequential technological invention, artistic experimentation, and cial assimilation is a fascinating part of the story of how the worlds of art and researchrelate to each other, and is only partially analyzed in this book Some of the artistsdescribed in the following chapters eagerly pursue product development for their artisticideas, and some are supported as part of corporate research labs whose ultimate goal iseconomic exploitation Others resist these connections and passionately defend theirindependence

commer-In part, this book is an examination of these questions: Where do researchers andartists get their ideas? How do they explore their ideas? How are techno-scientific researchand art research different? What happens to the explorations over time? Does mainstreamassimilation somehow destroy the validity of the work as art?

Definitions and Theoretical Reflections

Art, science, and technology are culturally laden terms Indeed, debates over the

bound-aries of the terms art and science regularly engage philosophers and historians of art and

science What is art? What is science? What is technology? What are the similaritiesand differences among the three? What does it mean to call someone a high-tech artist?What is art that is influenced by science? What is science that is influenced by art? Thischapter examines these questions, offers a brief clarification of my usage, and identifiesshifting criteria that make a definitive answer elusive

In recent years, critical theory has been a provocative source of thought about theinterplay of art, media, science, and technology Each of the major sections of this bookpresents pertinent examples of this analysis However, in its rush to deconstruct scientificresearch and technological innovation as the manifestation of metanarratives, criticaltheory leaves little room for the appearance of genuine innovation or the creation ofnew possibilities While it has become predominant in the arts, it is not so well accepted

in the worlds of science and technology This chapter analyzes the special problems thatthis disjunction poses for techno-scientifically influenced artists and examines variousstances that artists can take in working with research

Science and technology are sometimes conflated together; even scholars of the fieldsacknowledge some lack of clarity Similarly, artists working with emerging technologies

Definitions and Theoretical Reflections

and those inspired by scientific inquiries are often lumped together This section exploresthese confusions.

What Is Science?

Science textbooks and philosophers and commentators on science propose a number ofdefining elements This set of core ideas includes the following: an attempt to understandhow and why phenomena occur; focus on the “natural” world; a belief in empiricalinformation; a value placed upon objectivity, which is sought through detailed specifica-tions of the operations that guide observation; the codification into laws or principles(wherever possible precisely expressed in the language of mathematics); and the continu-ous testing and refinement of hypotheses

The underlying assumptions of the scientific approach are that the natural, observedworld is real, nature is essentially orderly, and objectivity can be achieved through self-discipline and the reliance on techniques such as the calibration of instruments, repeat-ability, and multi-observer verification.3

This core encompasses variations in emphasis For example, empiricists emphasizethe role of observations, while rationalists focus on the logical processes of theory con-struction and derivation Some stress induction built from observation; others focus ondeduction drawn from theory

Critical theorists see science as a modernist delusion They see the self-constitution

of scientist/observer as a continuation of cultural texts focused on domination and ploitation They challenge the possibility of objectivity, noting the pervasive influences

ex-of gender, social position, national identity, and history They focus on issues such asthe social forces and metanarratives that shape the questions and paradigms used ininquiry; the role of socially constructed frameworks at all stages; and the interaction ofthe observer and the observed phenomenon Radical constructivists doubt our ability

to discover truths applicable across all times and cultures

Many analysts have contributed to the critique of science For example, in The

Struc-ture of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn notes the way dominant paradigms shape the

questions that get acceptance and support In Against Method, Paul Feyerabend critiques

assumptions of scientific rationality, noting that nature gives different answers when

approached differently In Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature,

Donna Haraway analyzes the metaphoric language of science, its authoritative voice,and its unacknowledged patriarchal underlife Having ethnographically studied life in

laboratories, Latour in Science in Action proposes an actor-network theory of science in

which organizations, persons, animals, and inanimate materials combine to shape

scien-tific theorization In Picturing Science, Producing Art, Peter Galison and Caroline Jones

Chapter 1.1: Art and Science as Cultural Acts

investigate the way representation deeply influences the conceptualization and processes

of research

In the humanities, this kind of critique predominates Scientists and ical innovators, however, believe in the ability to discover universal truths and assertthat reform can overcome those places where scientific process falls short of its aspira-tions to universality and objectivity As evidence of science’s validity, they point tothe accomplishments of the scientific worldview in building robust, cross-substantiatingtheoretical structures, and in predicting and controlling the material and organicworld

technolog-Any attempt to cross the disciplinary borders between art and science will confrontthis disjunction—today’s incarnation of C P Snow’s “Two Cultures” theory Some ofthe artists in the following chapters have created works that join the critique, creatinginstallations that highlight aspects of science that fail the classical hygienic view Othersimplicitly accept the power of the canon, building on the formulations of prior researchand using processes of experimentation and theoretical elaboration

What Is Technology?

High-tech artists do not necessarily engage science An examination of the relationshipbetween technology and science is useful for understanding the range of artistic workrelated to research Technology is seen as “knowing how,” while science is seen as “know-ing why.” Engineers and technologists are seen as primarily interested in making things

or refining processes, not in understanding principles Many histories of technology areessentially histories of invention—the objects, tools, and machines that people madeand the processes that made them.4

Melvin Kranzberg and Carroll Pursell believe that

this definition is too broad In Technology in Western Cultures, they define it more

nar-rowly, as

man’s effort to cope with his physical environment—both that provided by nature andthat created by man’s own technological deeds, such as cities—and his attempt to subdue orcontrol that environment by means of his imagination and ingenuity in the use of availableresources.5

The relationship of science to technology is quite complex; it became a focus forphilosophers of science and technology Contemporary definitions of technology some-times call it applied science—the application of scientific principles to solving problems.However, since technology predates science, it should be seen broadly, as human at-tempts to shape the physical world: “[technology] for much of its history had little

Definitions and Theoretical Reflections

relation to science, for men could and did make machines and devices without standing why they worked or why they turned out like they did.”6

under-Developers of technology used many techniques in refining their methods, includinglearning from other practitioners, observing all aspects of their environment, and experi-menting based on instinct, and trial and error The goal was rarely the development ofscientific principles Certainly, the experiments of many artists in finding appropriateinnovations to accomplish their artistic goals could fit this description

With the Industrial Revolution and the refinement of science in the eighteenth tury, technology began to draw more on scientific understanding to help solve its prob-lems In the twentieth century, scientific research became a major source of newtechnologies, and most manufacturers included scientists in their industrial research labs.Historically, technological research is considered somehow less “pure,” and less loftythan science.7 The origins of these attitudes lie deep in the history of Western culture.Among the Egyptians and the Greeks, fabrication was done by slaves or low artisans,and concern with the material world was considered less important than focus on moreessential qualities:

cen-Making, even in the form of art, was often mistrusted as inimical to virtue or the pursuit of thehighest good because it focused attention on material reality [it] was not considered important

as a contribution to the understanding either of the ends of human life or of the first principles

of being.8

The distrust of “making” continued into the Christian Middle Ages Just before theRenaissance, however, philosophers started to reexamine these notions For example, in

City of God, St Augustine noted that technological accomplishments were the exercise

of “an acuteness of intelligence of so high an order that it reveals how richly endowedour human nature is,” as well as a sign of divine benevolence.9

With the Enlightenment came a positive attitude toward technological prowess Forexample, Francis Bacon proposed that science should serve technological innovation,and suggested that the understanding of nature often becomes clear only when trying

to manipulate it technologically:

Bacon proposes a reconstruction of science to produce “a line and race of invention that may insome degree subdue and overcome the necessities and miseries of humanity.” Mind mustutilize art and hand until nature “is forced out of her natural state and squeezed and molded”because “the nature of things betrays itself more readily under the vexations of art than in itsnatural freedom.10

Chapter 1.1: Art and Science as Cultural Acts

Currently, science and technology work together and inform each other Technologydevelopers often must work in areas where scientific understanding is not sufficient.Attempts to develop real-world devices and solutions result in new scientific questionsand understanding For example, the development of new instruments—such as a morepowerful collider—may give rise to new categories of questions in physics; the develop-ment of new medications may result in information about physiology and organicchemistry.

As researchers attempt to create technologies that simulate human psychic tioning, they create possibilities that then call out for scientific study For example,computers, once created, become part of the natural world Cognitive scientists andartificial-intelligence researchers create new insights about the nature of mind and soci-ety; user-interface researchers study the methods by which humans and machines caninteract Scientists are confronted by new questions about the nature of mind and therelationship of material reality to human thought Technology and science goad eachother into a parade of new disciplines

func-Philosophers of science and technology continue to grapple with the nature of thisrelationship Edwin Layton proposes an interactive model in which science and technol-ogy are seen as “mirror images” of each other, using common methods and drawing oncommon intellectual heritages; technology does not only exploit the “golden eggs” cre-ated by science.11

This interactive model of technology probably comes close to describing what ismeant when something is called high technology, or high-tech art High-tech artists,like their counterparts in technology development settings, are engaged with the world

of science They draw on theoretical formulation and research results from scientificinquiry They use systematic methods of experimentation borrowed from science toadvance their agendas The results can inform further work by technologists andscientists

Cyril Stanley Smith, a historian of science and technology, reflected on the

relation-ship of technology and science and the role of artists in the process in his book From

Art to Science: Seventy-Two Objects Illustrating the Nature of Discovery In it, he observes

that in the areas of chemistry, physics, and materials sciences, artists and artisans discoverand use “subtle properties of matter” before they are even noticed by research scientists.12

This is the type of interaction that engages many of the artists in this book Stanleywrote his book in 1978, before the digital technologies of communication, simulation,representation, and information had accelerated to their current levels

One way to differentiate between science and technology is by intention Technologydevelopers usually focus on specific utilitarian goals, while scientists search for something

Definitions and Theoretical Reflections