COMPUTERS AND THE VISUAL ARTS - A. Michael Nollnoll.uscannenberg.org/Art Papers/Retrospective...
Transcript of COMPUTERS AND THE VISUAL ARTS - A. Michael Nollnoll.uscannenberg.org/Art Papers/Retrospective...
COMPUTERS AND THE VISUAL ARTS:A RETROSPECTIVE VIEW
A. Michael Noll
While working as a research scientist at BellTelephone Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ, A. MichaelNoll helped to pioneer the creation of computer-assisted art work during the 1960s. He exhibited hiswork in the first American and international exposi-tions of computer graphics. He has publishedproposals for and critiques of the new aestheticdimensions offered by computer graphics in manyvisual, art, dance, aesthetics, and technical jour-nals. He is currently planning the development ofvideotex and other telecommunications sen/ices forAT&T
"In the computer, man has created not just aninanimate tool but an intellectual and activecreative partner that, when fully exploited, couldbe used to produce wholly new art forms andpossibly new aesthetic experiences."
Fifteen years ago I wrote these words; theyrepresented my view then of the potential for theuse of the digital computer in the visual arts.'However, these "new art forms" and "aestheticexperiences" have yet to evolve, thereby possi-bly supporting the conclusion that the use of thenew technologies in the arts has been a "pana-cea that failed." This estrangement betweenpromise and reality could lead to a disillusion-ment with the use of computers in the visualarts, but in my judgment this would be apremature conclusion given the relative infancyof this application of computer technology.
In the early 1960's, a number of computerresearchers began investigations of the use ofcomputers in the visual arts. My own work in thisarea at Bell Labs touched upon computer chore-ography, computer-generated stereoscopicmovies (a form of kinetic sculpture), and "ran-dom" patterns, all produced by a computer-controlled microfilm plotter.' Others in the sametime frame, like Ken Knowlton and Ed Zajac atBell Labs, were also investigating the use ofdigital computers in animation for artistic andeducational purposes.4'6
Computer art grew slowly but steadily duringthe 1960's, and a number of international exhibi-tions were held, most notably Cybernetic Seren-
• &pity in London in 1968.6 More and morecomputer specialists joined the ranks of the"computer artist."
After utilizing a four-dimensional perspective-projection technique to create the computer-animated main title sequence for a networktelevision special,' I became somewhat disillu-sioned with computer art and "retired" from thefield. My last written thoughts on the subjectwere that " . . . the use of computers in the artshas yet to produce anything approaching entire-ly new aesthetic experiences."' I also wrote that" . . . little has actually been accomplished incomputer art..." in its first decade.
This disillusionment is not surprising. A similarthing happened in computer music. I rememberabout fifteen years ago when the accomplishedconductor Maestro Hermann Scherchen re-marked to me that the effects produced then bycomputers in music could be as easily duplicat-ed with a few audio oscillators in his studio inGravesano. However, the technology of elec-tronic and computer music has progressedgreatly over the last decade.
The early pioneers in computer and electronicmusic where technologists whose major contri-butions were in the development and fosteringof the technology. One particularly laudible pio-neer was Max Mathews at Bell Labs who alsocreated an environment in which musicians hadaccess to the computer music technology.'These pioneers and musicians were personallyinterested in classical music and hence naturallyapplied their investigations to that area. Howev-
(Reprinted from the catalog of the SIGG RAPH '82 Art Show, July 1982.)
er, it was not the serious classical music fieldthat ultimately exploited the new electronic tech-nology but rather the mass-market pop and rockfields. Musicians appeared who were thoroughlyfamiliar with using the new technology as musi-cal instruments. The artistic emphasis was onthe effects and the quality of the sounds pro-duced and not on the technology itself.
This view of the development of computermusic supports the conclusion that the pioneersof technology are often not the ultimate exploit-ers of their technological inventions. Further-more, the utilization of the technology isfrequently in areas not envisioned by the pio-neers. And lastly, the ultimate exploitation usual-ly takes much longer than envisioned at theinvention of the technology.
Something similar has occurred concerningthe use of computers in the visual arts. It is inthe field of graphics and graphic design — andnot the more-classical visual arts — where theuse of digital computers has achieved success.Computer graphics systems are widely androutinely used to produce slides for graphicpresentations in the corporate world. The pro-duction of masks and designs for integratedcircuits has been greatly facilitated by the use ofcomputer-graphic systems. The world of com-mercial television and advertising has increas-ingly turned to computer graphics, and thedesign of textiles and wallpaper are alreadybeing facilitated by computer graphics.
The technology for using digital computers tocreate visual images has advanced steadilyover the years. I can remember a time when theuse of color was quite novel requiring complexcolor separations produced from black-and-white display tubes. Now, color display and highresolution are the rule, and costs continue todecline. Developments'in software have solvedthe hidden-line problem and facilitated the useof shading for depicting surfaces.
It is in its use as a serious artistic medium inthe visual arts where the digital computer hasnot yet achieved its anticipated potential. Digitalcomputers are being used to create visualimagery, but many people feel that something ismissing.
The images sometimes appear to be attemptsto mimic other media. Many are cold and sterileand are somewhat devoid of human expression.Randomness combines with geometric structureto create designs that are frequently interestingbut that are little more. One is frequently left withthe impression that many patterns are simplyexperiments in learning the new medium.
Can it be that, as Jack Burnham believes,there is some fundamental dissimilarity betweenart and technology as systems of "humansemiosis."2
Or is there something inherent in the comput-er that makes it particularly well suited to pro-ducing geometric designs but poorly suited toexpressing stimuli from reality and nature.
Or is it, as I believe, far too soon to judge thetrue impact of the digital computer in the visualarts. After all, many decades had to pass beforephotography moved beyond being only a tech-nology and became recognized as an artisticmedium, and video is only now beginning toachieve that status.
I am optimistic and hopeful for the future ofcomputers in the visual arts. I do not believe thefuture lies in using the computer to mimic whatcan be done better with other, conventionalmedia, even though the computer can eliminatedrudgery and perform with lightening speed.Perhaps the future will evolve in ways-that aredifficult now to envision as potentially totally newart forms evolve from the computer technology.
One thing that is clear though is that the futurewill have truly arrived when the emphasis is onwhat has been produced as opposed to how itwas produced. Far too much of the computer artproduced thus far places too great an emphasis
on the computer and far too little on the art. It isas if the medium has become the art!
Also much computer art does not utilize theinteractive and dynamic potential of the comput-er. Static images are programmed that do notrelate to the individual viewer. The potential forthe computer to sense the viewer's state ofbeing and change the imagery accordingly hasnot been thoroughly explored. The man-machine communication problem is still chal-lenging; the computer is a difficult medium forartists to control; and the technology remainsmostly inaccessible.
At one time, I parroted Allon Schoener's beliefthat a form of "citizen-artist" could emerge fromthe use of the new technologies.'"
The increasing growth in home computerswith color graphics capabilities would seem tobe bringing us closer to that day. However, Ibelieve that the aesthetic sensitivities and train-ing of the artist are and will continue to beunique in the use of the computer, or any artisticmedium for that matter. What might happenfrom the growing popularity of home computersis the gradual growth of a body of people whoare keenly literate in computer graphics and wholater become artists bringing the computermedium along with them and contributing to itsdevelopment.
Creative persons from the artistic community— not technologists — must continue to appearwho are expert in the use of the computermedium. The computer as the medium mustsurrender to the artistic effects produced. Pres-ently, the two continue to be too intertwined. Inconventional art it is rare that one would cnticizethe medium in general, for example watercolors, if one did not like a particular workutilizing that medium. Unfortunately this is notthe case in computer art which remains tied tothe computer community and has yet to find itshome in the artistic world.
In final conclusion, I am indeed optimisticabout the future of computer art and have comefull circle to again believe in the great promisesof the paragraph quoted at the beginning of thisessay. I have no doubt that it will occur t h ekey question is when.
Footnotes1. "The Digital Computer As A Creative Medium,"
A. Michael Noll, IEEE Spectrum, October1967, pp. 89-95.
2. "Art and Technology: The Panacea ThatFailed," Jack Burnham, The Myths of Infornm-tion. Edited by Kathleen Woodward, CodaPress, Inc. (Madison, Wisconsin), 1980, pp.200-215.
3. "Computers And The Visual Arts," A. MichaelNoll, Design and Planning Number 2, Edited byMarlin Krampen and Peter Seitz, HastingsHouse, Publishers, Inc. (New York), 1967, pp.65-79.
4. " A Computer Technique For Producing Ani-mated Movies," Kenneth C. Knowlton, AFIRSConference Proceedings, Vol. 25, 1964, pp.67-87.
5. "Computer Animation: A New Scientific AndEducational Tool," Edward E. Zajac, JournalSociety Motion Picture and Television Engi-neers, Vol. 74, November 1965, pp.1006-1008.
6. Cybernetic Serendipity, Edited by Jasia-Reichardt, Studio International (London), 1968.
7. "Computer Animation And The Fourth Dimen-sion," A. Michael Noll, AFIPS Conference Pro-ceedings, Vol. 33, 1968, pp. 1279-1283.
8. "Art Ex Machina," A. Michael Noll, IEEE Stu-dent Journal, September 1970, pp.10-14.
9. "Inteview With Max Mathews," C. Roads,Computer Music Journal, Vol. 4, No, 4, 1980,pp. 15-22.
10, "2066 And All That," Alton Schoener, Art inAmerica, Vol. 54, March-April 1966, pp. 40-43.