Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LEON_a_01326 by guest on 28 September 2021 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LEON_a_01326 by guest on 28 September 2021

ABSTRACT Kennedy replaced the planned interview with George Will.George with interview planned the replacedKennedy tured in 1963 Henry’s second drawing machine was to have been fea- of which still exist in the BBC archives) in September 1962. In of a new local news series for the North of England (no copies drawing machine on BBC television this demonstrated Henry [3]. Doctor’sPictures” the draws “Abrain” [2], “Art Robot electronic byheadlines: dramatic enthralled Henry. which so parts, The press respondedwith moving electromechanical internal, computer’s on the paper capturing of intention the with computer bombsight wartime a fromadapted was it, succeeded that two the like 3). (Fig. 1961 of machine ing draw first his by produced drawings included also Henry Lowry’son insistence, which, Gallery,August 1962)in Reid one-mana showLondonwas(Ideographs prize in tion The , used a photochemical process he had devised. The competi- that work a with Gallery, Art Salford with conjunction in ganized by the North West UK artist L.S. Lowry (1887–1976) out of aspirit of resourcefulness wartime [1](Figs1,2). perimented with improvised mark-making techniques born chester University 1949–1982 and a self-taught artist who ex- philosophyManatin lecturer - a was PaulDesmond Henry H digital images. of thesenow-defunctdrawingmachinesarepresentedasprecursorsto pioneer.a placeasBritishcomputerart Theabstractgraphicresults Henry earn idiosyncratic modusoperandiandanalogue-derivedeffects, oftheirinspiration, analogue bombsightcomputersandwhich,byvirtue constructedduringthe1960sfromWorldDesmond PaulHenry War II This paperdescribestheseriesofthreeelectronicdrawingmachines to Twentieth-Century ComputerArt (1921–2004) Desmond PaulHenry s r The Contributionof e P l a c i r o t s i H ©2018 ISAST and whitehighlighting inIndianink;40×27cm,1964.(©Elaine O’Hanrahan) paper;handembellishments: black white Indianinkintubepenonredcartridge Article Frontispiece.Article forsupplementalfilesrelatedtothisissue. See Email: . Elaine O’Hanrahan (educator), 223 Manley Road, Manchester, M21 0RB, U.K. e In 1961 Henry won first prize in a local art competition, or nry’s Ar nry’s Life l E magazine but the assassination of President John a t doi:10.1162/LEON_a_01326 is n i t

D.P. Henry, Untitled,no.054,DrawingMachineTwo, i c C e H ’ O a r ee p e v i t c e r: 1950 r:

This semiautomatic machine, machine, semiautomatic This a r n during the first episode s –1960 A H A s n

- - 1960s Art and Technology movement in the United States. United the in movement Technology and Art 1960s the unaware of equally was Henry machine-effects. vilinear cur Henry’s abstract to dissimilar not are point, drawing a with produced not although results, graphic whose Franke, by, for example, John Whitney Sr., Laposky Ben and Herbert 1950s the during computers analogue of use creative the of parative artistic and scientific isolation. He remained unaware “the world’s first of one-machine show” [4], hisreflecting com- entirely as to referred incorrectly consisting Henry which ­machine-drawings, Gallery, Art Salford at exhibition Ideographs(1962) ranconcurrently anotherHenry with solo T ogtnig iei at rdtos Eape o Henry’s of Examples traditions. art kinetic longstanding to related movement mechanical with preoccupation and his [9] processes art generative to linked been has work Henry’s [8], rediscovery his Since . Liver at launched 2007 thesis UniversityMooresin (U.K.),John and pool MPhil contextual a completed I 2005 In H he one became of its “quietest pioneers” [7]. clopedia’s entry on “” (p. 289), following which the statuspioneerin accorded was Henry making a fourth drawing machine in the early 1980s. In 1990 Henry turned his attention to cameraless photography until that his was not alone voice [6]. 1968, of exhibition technology and ICA’s art the seminal in ardt inclusion of Henry’s second drawing machine by Jasia Reich and drawing machines” [5]. computers of aid the with drawings line of making “the as graphics computer Franke’searly to of sponding definition corre effects, machine-generated his of exhibitions Henry solo further two hosted Manchester respectively, 1964 and Nake,MichaelNoll.Neesand1962FriederGeorgeIn neers computermorefirst familiar pio- the shows the yearsof art he e Upon the demise of his third drawing machine in 1971, 1971, in machine drawing third his of demise the Upon Interest in Henry’s drawing machines culminated with the Henry’s solo shows of 1962 did however preempt by some nry in in nry

So CyberneticSerendipity, li ta the ry Pi ry 21 o LEONARDO, Vol. 51, No.2,pp.157–162, 2018 st n C ee e r n t ury which demonstrated to Henry Henry demonstratedto which CambridgeEncy- - - - - 157

pioneers and pathbreakers PATHBREAKERS

AND

PIONEERS

Fig. 1. D.P. Henry, German Gunlayer’s Head, no. H002, executed using Fig. 2. D.P. Henry, Untitled, no. H001, executed using duplicator ink, soot and Henry’s finger-rubbing technique on drawing paper, 40 × 31.5 cm, zinc-based baby ointment combined with Henry’s photochemical technique on 1951. (© Elaine O’Hanrahan) Exhibited at Henry’s solo exhibition at Manches- light-sensitive paper, 22 × 20.5 cm, 1961. (© Elaine O’Hanrahan) ter’s Central Reference Library, 1964.

machine-generated art now feature in the “emerging national by a sense of optimism and enthusiasm for technology [14]. collection” [10] of computer-generated art at the Victoria Thanks to his wartime experience (1939–1946) with auto- & Albert Museum in and in the extensive Anne matic fire-control technology, Henry was able to later convert and Michael Spalter computer arts collection. His machine-­ bombsight computers into drawing machines. generated images have been included in the exhibitions Dig- ital Pioneers (2009), Victoria & Albert Museum, London; The Drawing Machines: Their Inspiration Kinetica Art Fair (2010), University of Westminster, London; Henry’s 1960s drawing machines were both inspired by, and Drawing with Code (2011), DeCordova Museum, Boston, based around, what had been cutting-edge World War II MA; Desmond Paul Henry: Manchester Pioneer of Computer technology: the bombsight computer, whose internal mov- Art (2011), Museum of Science and Industry, Manchester; ing parts he described as “a veritable work of art in itself” and (R)evolution (2013), Dédée Shattuck Gallery, [15]. Bombsights were analogue computers originally used Westport, MA. in bombers to calculate the accurate release of bombs onto their target. The bombardier entered information on height, Prophetic Exponent of Art air speed, wind direction and bomb weight into the computer and Technology Collaboration that then made the necessary calculations for when best to As early as 1962 Henry was convinced that his computer- release the bomb load. derived drawing machine represented “a foretaste of a new Henry purchased his first army surplus bombsight com- era in the history of the visual arts,” heralding a veritable puter in 1952. For nine years he admired the “graceful con- “revolution in art” [11]. Jasia Reichardt also recognized the volutions” [16] of its inner workings before converting the potential of the computer as a creative tool demonstrating “a bombsight into a drawing machine capable of capturing on radical extension in art media and techniques [that] . . . will paper the bombsight computer’s complex arrangement of increase the scope of art and contribute to its diversity” [12]. gear trains, cams, integrators and differentials in motion: In 1964, two years before Experiments in Art and Technol- “And then when you see the components dancing, it had the ogy was officially established in the States in 1966, Henry aesthetic fascination of watching a ballet dance” [17]. proposed the establishment of research centers to “facilitate For all his love of technology and science, Henry was the inception of a new phase of fruitful positive cooperation never inspired to explore the graphic potential of digital between art and technology” [13]. technology, even though he would have had access to the Ferranti Mark 1 at Manchester University, which in 1952 Influences Christopher Strachey used to produce one of the very first Henry’s drawing machines were the product of an inventive digital art pieces, in the form of love letters. Henry, on the mind fueled by lifelong passions for both art and technology. other hand, expressed no interest in the opaque interface In his youth, Henry, like the general populace, was infected of the digital computer. What he relished above all was

158 O’Hanrahan, The Contribution of Desmond Paul Henry (1921–2004) to Twentieth-Century Computer Art

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LEON_a_01326 by guest on 28 September 2021 PATHBREAKERS

observing the whole chain of cause and effect that the me- AND

chanical components of the bombsight computer afforded him [18]. The mechanical analogue computer, was a work of art in itself, involving a most beautiful arrangement of gears, PIONEERS belts, cams, differentials and so on—it still retained in its working a visual attractiveness which has now vanished in the modern electronic counterpart [19].

Drawing Machine One In his letters to me [20], Henry described how in Drawing Machine One (1961–1962) (Figs 4 and 5), he redistributed the units so that, using only one servomotor, he perfected an original method of ensuring synchronicity and harmoniza- tion between the moving pen and the moving table. A wind- speed and air-speed integrator activated the pen or pens. The drawing paper lay on a table that rotated on a device for

Fig. 3. D.P. Henry, Drawing Machine One, 1961–1962. (© Elaine O’Hanrahan) The mount frame of the original bombsight computer, together with variously rearranged internal components, may be clearly distinguished in this machine.

Fig. 4. D.P. Henry, Tourbillons (whirlpools), no. 030, Drawing Machine One, black, red and green biro on smooth, white card; hand embellishments: perpendicular and horizontal lines in black ink on unconventional mount; Fig. 5. D.P. Henry, Conversation between birds, no. 032, Drawing Machine 32 × 27 cm, 1962. (© Elaine O’Hanrahan) This picture was exhibited at One, black biro on smooth, white card; 44 × 18 cm, hand embellishments: Henry’s solo exhibition Ideographs (1962), the Reid Gallery, London. black lines in ink, 1962. (© Elaine O’Hanrahan)

O’Hanrahan, The Contribution of Desmond Paul Henry (1921–2004) to Twentieth-Century Computer Art 159

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LEON_a_01326 by guest on 28 September 2021 PATHBREAKERS

the correction of pitch and roll in aircraft. One servomo- AND

tor sufficed since the pen movement alone was sufficient to move the drawing table beneath. The ball bearings beneath the table, together with a horizontal bar that would strike a

PIONEERS long vertical spring and then rebound to strike a variably po- sitioned stop, all combined to cause either the drawing table or the paper to shift, so as to produce changes in the patterns drawn by the pens. If the space between the spring and stop is enlarged so that the rebound is almost nonexistent, then the line drawing is formed by “non-rectilinear wanderings” of the pens. These effects, claimed Henry, are almost “totally random within the physical limits imposed by the nature of the machine construction” [21]. Henry initially used ball- point pens, but by 1964 realized that prolonged exposure to natural light could cause the ink to fade; Indian ink in technical tube pens then became his preferred mark-maker. He sometimes hand-embellished these machine-generated drawings in response to their suggestive features.

Drawing Machine Two Drawing Machine Two (1963–1967) (Article Frontispiece, Color Plate D and Fig. 6) was constructed from a Vickers version of a Sperry analogue computer, together with a switchboard from an RAF bomber and components canni- balized from the first machine. The original bombsight was kept almost intact. There were now two servomotors, one Fig. 6. D.P. Henry, Untitled, no. 059, Drawing Machine Two, white Indian for directing the pens, the other for the drawing table. The ink in tube pen on black cartridge paper; hand embellishments: some white “running in and out of phase of the relative rate of revolution” highlighting in white Indian ink; 45 × 30 cm, 1964. (© Elaine O’Hanrahan) [22] of each motor occurred in regular or random sequences, producing regular or irregular patterns. These patterns were mainly obtained through a combination of varying degrees of table and pen oscillation that could be further enhanced by the positioning of clothes pegs attached to the drawing paper on the drawing table: “Any number of clothes pegs attaching the paper to the table’s circumference or attached solely to the paper itself, could be placed in any number of positions resulting in an infinite number of track variations of the paper” [23]. Henry would start the machine off and could intervene at any time to alter the course of the design: “Arrangements for the regular lifting and lowering of the pen (or pens), so as to interrupt what would otherwise be a unicursal design, are incorporated for use if required” [24]. This machine returned from the American leg of its tour with Fig. 7. D.P. Henry, Tractatus 6.2322 (Wittgenstein), no. 069, Drawing in a state of total disrepair, in which it remains to this day. Machine Three, white Indian ink in tube pen on black cartridge paper; hand embellishments: white highlighting in Indian ink and sweeping lines Drawing Machine Three in bronze-colored marker pen, 72 × 50 cm; 1967. (© Elaine O’Hanrahan) Picture submitted for inclusion in Cybernetic Serendipity, 1968. Drawing Machine Three (1967–1971) (Fig. 7) was constructed to keep Henry happy while the second machine was away on tour with Cybernetic Serendipity. The bombsight was adapted The Drawing Machines: to produce much larger drawings (72 × 50 cm) than the previ- Interactive and Idiosyncratic ous machines. It had two electrical gramophone servomotors To use a digital computer in the 1960s for artistic purposes, that were allowed to drift in and out of synchronization and the programmer had first to preconceive the desired graphic so produce “delectable variations” [25]. This effect could be result and then write a program that would produce the amplified by slightly moving the speed controls. Unfortu- graphic effects on a plotter linked to the computer. Cynthia nately, in 1970–1971, due to excessive leverage weight at a Goodman calls this “passive graphics” [26]. Henry’s ma- critical point in its framework, the axle broke, and the ma- chines, by contrast, could not be preprogrammed nor store chine was abandoned. information; they represent an example of “active graphics”:

160 O’Hanrahan, The Contribution of Desmond Paul Henry (1921–2004) to Twentieth-Century Computer Art

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LEON_a_01326 by guest on 28 September 2021 PATHBREAKERS

Once the machine had been set in motion Henry was free to which he compared to “natural form mathematics” [39] as AND

exercise spontaneous artistic intuition in directing the course he found illustrated in the works of Theodore Cook (1914), of the drawing under construction [27]. D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson (1917) and Matila Ghyka (1927). The unique combination of control and chance in- The infinitely many choices of dimension, distortion,

volved in producing his machines’ graphic effects inspired PIONEERS ­paper-direction and combination of various patterns on Henry to call them “Machine Pollocks” [40]. the same sheet of paper provided the artist with a flexible Thanks to his machines’ “mechanics of chance,” their vi- tool for the production of drawings possessing a fineness sual effects successfully avoid criticisms of sameness and that the unaided hand could not achieve [28]. predictability—nor can they be replicated, since no program This possibility for interaction meant that Henry de- was used in their creation. Henry’s personality is further ex- veloped a close affinity with the individual quirks of each pressed in the way he would also sometimes subtly and artis- drawing machine. Such immediate interaction preceded later tically highlight selected lines by hand or even, on occasion, interactive features of digital technology by some 20 years. insert tiny humanoid figures or apply background shading Furthermore, Henry’s machines, unlike digital comput- effects. A similar contemporary development in digital art is ers, were not precision instruments. Instead, Henry had only the subsequent application of hand embellishments to digi- general, overall control and, like Jean Tinguely’s Metamatics, tally produced images. relied on a “mechanics of chance” [29] whereby any “faults” Above all, Henry’s “sensuous and captivating artworks” in their assemblage, such as a loose screw, could impact sig- [41] act as the only permanent reminder of the “performa- nificantly on the final image with surprising results [30]. tive trace” of drawing machines that for ten years whirred Henry described his drawing machines as having the un- away in the corner of Henry’s Manchester study. British predictable potential to “go crazy” if left unattended [31]. He artist-­engineer Jack Tait has recently succeeded (2014), using would sometimes let the machine “decide” when a drawing reverse engineering and Henry’s written notes, in creating a was finished by waiting for the drawing paper to spontane- drawing machine capable of producing visual effects very ously fall off the drawing table [32]. Henry, who was always similar to Henry’s machines. Tait’s Homage to Henry Ma- “learning something new” [33] from his machines, welcomed chine, however, does not aim to replicate in the same way the their surprising and unexpected graphic results. random elements of Henry’s machines nor Henry’s unique In contrast to a 1960s Henry drawing machine, sophis- artistic intuitive choices both during the production process ticated computer imaging software of the 1990s would be and in deciding which pictures to embellish, and how, and accused by some of leaving no scope for “real-time intuition; which to leave untouched. there is no way the observer can influence the drawing just being made” [34]. Paul Brown likewise felt that user-friendly Conclusions computer imaging tools tell the user there ºis nothing new In the Second Machine Age, World War II machines went to learn and may well “cauterize creative development” [35]. beyond merely inspiring artists, by becoming legitimate, Brian Reffin Smith was also concerned that such software art-making tools in their own right. In 1969 Richard I. Land limited the chance for “adventurous, dangerous and uncon- wrote, “The designation ‘computer art’ seems destined to ventional art” [36], which was exactly the sort for which Hen- remain attached to those art forms produced by a machine ry’s more “risky” machines allowed. The random processes originally designed for other purposes” [42]. Land further in Henry’s artwork production reflect “a constant journey of states that the profusion of work that by 1969 fell under the discovery . . . for beautiful unexpected images” [37]. heading computer art or computer graphics “almost pre- cludes any one person surveying the field successfully” [43]. The Drawing Machines: Their Graphic Effects It is to this “profusion” that Henry rightly belongs. The part The machine-drawings, numbering some 800 in all, consist played by “trailblazers” like Henry [44], with his “pioneer- of an infinitely varied combination of repetitive single lines ing work” [45] in anticipating the use of computers today in forming a host of abstract curves, similar in feel to contem- the field of digital graphic manipulation, may no longer be porary work by Thomas Ruff and Jean-Pierre Hébert. Henry’s overlooked by students of art history. machine-effects struck him as “weird” organic forms [38],

Acknowledgments 3 Evening Herald (30 August 1962). The author acknowledges the Leonardo reviewers and Paul Brown for 4 D.P. Henry, interview with Elaine O’Hanrahan, The D.P. Henry Ar- their recommendations and support. chive, Manchester (2003). 5 H.W. Franke, Computer Graphics, Computer Art (Oxford: Phaedon, References 1971) p. 41. 1 D.P. Henry, Letters to Elaine (1999–2000), The D.P. Henry Archive, 6 Henry [4]. Manchester. 7 Francisco J. Ricardo, The Engagement Aesthetic, Bloomsbury, New 2 Manchester Evening News (30 August 1962). York (2013) p. 65.

O’Hanrahan, The Contribution of Desmond Paul Henry (1921–2004) to Twentieth-Century Computer Art 161

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LEON_a_01326 by guest on 28 September 2021 PATHBREAKERS

8 Paul Brown, Desmond Paul Henry: Manchester Pioneer of Computer 29 Lucienne Peiry, Art Brut: The Origins of Outsider Art (: Flam-

AND Art [exh. cat.], The D.P. Henry Archive, Manchester, p. 34 (2011). marion, 1997).

9 Daniel Jones, “Art and Algorithm,” Tank Magazine 8, No. 1 (Feb. 30 Henry [1]. 2014): (accessed 10 February 2014). 31 Henry [1]. PIONEERS 10 D. Dodds, Desmond Paul Henry: Manchester Pioneer of Computer 32 Henry [1]. Art [exh. cat.] The D.P. Henry Archive, Manchester, p. 36 (2011). 33 Henry [1]. 11 D.P. Henry, “A New Project for Art.” Unpublished article submitted 34 Peter Van Emde Boas, Mechanised Art and the Mad Mathematician, to Today, 4 March 1962. [exh. cat.] (1993). Available at: (accessed 5 December 2004). 12 Jasia Reichardt, Cybernetic Serendipity [exh. cat.], Studio Interna- tional, Special Issue, London, p. 71 (1968). 35 Paul Brown, “Networks and Artworks: the failure of the user-friendly interface,” in Computers and Art, Stuart Mealing, ed. (Bristol, Intel- 13 D.P. Henry, “Art and Technology,” in Bulletin of The Philosophy of lect Books, 1997) pp. 129–142. Science Group, Newman Association, No. 53 (1964). 36 Brian Reffin Smith, “Post-modem Art, or: Virtual Reality as Trojan 14 Kurt Ewald, “The Beauty of Machines” (1925–1926), in Form and donkey, or: horsetail tartan literature groin art” in Computers and Function: A Source Book for the History of Architecture and Design Art, Stuart Mealing, ed. (Intellect Books, Bristol, 1997) p. 108. 1890–1939, Tim and Charlotte Benton, eds. Crosby, Lockwood, Staples in association with the Press, London 37 Balint Bolygo, Desmond Paul Henry: Manchester Pioneer of Com- (1975) p. 144. puter Art [exh. cat.], The D.P. Henry Archive, Manchester, p.33 (2011). 15 D.P. Henry, “Computer graphics: a case study,” lecture given to 38 Henry [1]. Aberdeen University art students, 1972. 39 Henry [1]. 16 Henry [1]. 40 Henry [1]. 17 Henry [1]. 41 M. Spalter, Desmond Paul Henry: Manchester Pioneer of Computer 18 Henry [1]. Art [exh. cat.] The D.P. Henry Archive, Manchester, p. 37 (2011). 19 Henry [13]. 42 Richard I. Land, “Computer Art-Colour Stereo Displays” (1969), in Kinetic Art: Theory and Practice, Frank J. Malina, ed. (Dover, New 20 Henry [1]. York, 1974) p. 132. 21 Henry [1]. 43 Land [42]. 22 Henry [1]. 44 Brown [8]. 23 D.P. Henry, written instructions to ICA technician, The D.P. Henry 45 Dodds [10]. Archive, Manchester, 1968. 24 D.P. Henry, Cybernetic Serendipity [exh. cat.], Studio International, Manuscript received 24 October 2014. Special Issue, London, p. 50 (1968). 25 Henry [1]. Elaine O’Hanrahan is the daughter of D.P. Henry and is a literacy tutor and modern language teacher. She is the 26 Cynthia Goodman, Digital Vision: Computers and Art (New York, Abrams, 1987) p. 48. author of “Drawing Machines: The Machine-Generated Art of Dr. Desmond Paul Henry in Relation to Technological and 27 Henry [1]. Conceptual Developments (UK 1960–68)” (Unpublished 28 Henry [24]. MPhil. Thesis, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K., 2005).

162 O’Hanrahan, The Contribution of Desmond Paul Henry (1921–2004) to Twentieth-Century Computer Art

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LEON_a_01326 by guest on 28 September 2021 d plate

color Color Plate D: The Contribution of Desmond Paul Henry (1921–2004) to Twentieth-Century Computer Art

D.P. Henry, Untitled, no. 500, Drawing Machine Two, 38 × 25.2 cm, black, blue and red biro on smooth white drawing paper; hand embellishments: black highlighting, single lines and background shading in ink; 1963. (© Elaine O’Hanrahan.) This image appears on page 50 of the exhibition catalogue for Cybernetic Serendipity (1968). (See article in this issue by Elaine O’Hanrahan.)

132

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LEON_a_01326 by guest on 28 September 2021