The Machine That Made Science Art
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Machine that Made Science Art The Troubled History of Computer Art 1963-1989 Grant D. Taylor, BFA (Hons) Dissertation Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Western Australia The Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Visual Arts October 2004 The Machine that Made Science Art The Troubled History of Computer Art 1963-1989 Grant D. Taylor, BFA (Hons) THE THESIS IS PRESENTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA The Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Visual Arts University of Western Australia 2004 COPYRIGHT © GRANT TAYLOR 2004 Contents List of Illustrations I Foreword III The Abstract IV Introduction The Incongruous: A History of Computer Art 1 The Scope of this Study 9 Thesis Outline 12 Chapter 1 “The Wave of the Future Crashes”: The Rise of Computer Art 27 Spurious Provenance: Militaristic Beginnings 28 Antagonism and Alliance: The Ideology of Two Cultures 36 Conciliation: The Rise of the Art and Technology Movements 39 Concurrence and Disparity: Computer and Conceptual Art 43 “Man Versus Machine”: Humanism and Anti-Computer Sentiment 50 Chapter 2 Art Abstracted: Mathematics, Cybernetics and Aesthetics 67 Patterns of Beauty: Machines and Geometric Grandeur 67 Demystification: The Mathematisation of Art 75 Fields of Occurrence: The Evolution of Mechanical Chance 83 Metamorphosis: The Transfiguration of Visual Data 87 Contents Chapter 3 The Renaissance Figure: The Emergence of the Artist-Programmer 99 An Untenable Alliance: The Failure of Art and Technology 99 New Developments: Pedagogy, Industry and Women in Computer Art 103 Humanising and Naturalising the Machine 112 The Heuristic Mode: Exploring the Generative System 114 Persisting Discontent: The Unfavourable Assessment of Computer Art 129 Chapter 4 Frontier Mythology: Exploring Order and Complexity 151 The New Paradigm: The Mysterious Space between Order and Chaos 152 New Modes: Personal Computers, Multimedia and Commercial Software 165 The Schism: Purism and Ambivalence 174 Chapter 5 Computer Art in Crisis: Postmodernism and the Expanding Field 193 The Delphi Study: Signalling a Mounting Crisis 194 New Critical Readings: The Influence of Postmodernism 199 Crisis and Fragmentation: The Viability of Critical Discourse 210 Profiling the Possible: The Pre-eminence of Techno-science 222 Conclusion: Triumph of Postmodernism 231 Conclusion The Fate of Computer Art 245 The Significance and Legacy of Computer Art 258 Bibliography 267 List of Illustrations FRONTCOVER. William Latham, Standing Horn, 1989. FIGURE 1. The 7th Annual Computer Art Contest, invitation and guidelines, reproduced in Computers and Automation (1969). FIGURE 2. Compro, advertisement for computer-generated artwork, reproduced in Computers and Automation (1968). FIGURE 3. Splatter Diagram (often entitled Splatter Pattern), 1963. Ballistic Research Laboratories, Aberdeen, Maryland. FIGURE 4. Trajectories of a Ricocheting Projectile, 1964. Ballistic Research Laboratories, Aberdeen, Maryland. FIGURE 5. A. Michael Noll, Gaussian Quadratic, 1963. FIGURE 6. Manfred Mohr, P 159A (detail), 1973. FIGURE 7. Sol LeWitt, 122 Variations of Incomplete Open Cubes, (Schematic drawing component) 1974. FIGURE 8. Advertising image for a large mainframe computer, reproduced in Computers and Automation, (1964). FIGURE 9. A. Michael Noll. Computer Composition with Lines, 1965. FIGURE 10. Black and white reproduction of Piet Mondrian’s Composition with Lines, 1914. FIGURE 11. Ben Laposky, Oscillons, 1953. FIGURE 12. Ben Laposky’s modified oscilloscope with sin wave generator and photographic set-up, 1953. FIGURE 13. Ivan Moscovich’s Drawing Machine: The Pendulum-harmonograph. 1951. FIGURE 14. Kerry Strand and Larry Jenkins in association with California Computer Products, Inc., Anaheim, Plexus, 1968. FIGURE 15. Maughan S. Mason, Christmas Wreath, 1968. FIGURE 16. Kerry Strand from California Computer Products The Snail, l968. FIGURE 17. A. M. France Sketch for a Mural, 1969. FIGURE 18. Donald K. Robbins from The Sandia Corporation, New Mexico, Verifying Star 1967. FIGURE 19. Frieder Nake, Matrix Multiplication, 1967. FIGURE 20. Auro Lecci, Slant, 1969. FIGURE 21. Frieder Nake, Klee, 1966. FIGURE 22. John Venn’s visual representation of randomness, 1888. FIGURE 23. Manfred Mohr, Random walk, 1969. FIGURE 24. Georg Nees 23-corner graphic, 1968. FIGURE 25. Charles Csuri and James Schaffer, Sine Curve Man, 1967. FIGURE 26. Leon Harmon and Kenneth Knowlton. Studies in Perception: Gargoyle, 1967. FIGURE 27. Detail from Studies in Perception: Gargoyle. FIGURE 28. Members of the CTG—Computer Technique Group. Left to right: Koji Fujino, Masao Komura, Kunio Yamanaka, Haruki Tsuchiya and Makoto Ohtake. FIGURE 29. Computer Technique Group. (Left) Return to a Square A. (right) Return to Square B, 1968. I FIGURE 30. Computer Technique Group, Short Kennedy No 1, 1968. FIGURE 31. Lloyd Sumner generating computer art on his Burroughs computer and Calcomp. FIGURE 32. Lloyd Sumner, Intuitively Yours, 1968. FIGURE 33. Lloyd Sumner, Self Portrait, 1968. FIGURE 34. Grace C. Hertlein, The Field, 1970. FIGURE 35. CS & CJ Bangert, Large Landscape, 1, Computer generated, ochre and black ink on paper, 1970. FIGURE 36. Harold Cohen, Aaron, Stedelijk Museum installation, Amsterdam, November 1977, showing the computer-driven ‘turtle’ in action. FIGURE 37. Harold Cohen, Drawings from the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, 1979. FIGURE 38. Manfred Mohr in front of the flatbed plotter explaining his technique, 1971. ARC, Musée d’Art Moderne, Paris Exposition. FIGURE 39. Vera Molnar, Computer Drawings, Computer-rosace series, 1974. FIGURE 40. Manfred Mohr, Metalanguage II, 1974. FIGURE 41. Manfred Mohr P-196/B, Acrylic on canvas, (left) P-197/K, Acrylic on canvas (right) 1977. FIGURE 42. David Em working with his screen-based imagery. FIGURE 43. David Em, Persepol, 1980. FIGURE 44. David Em, South Temple, 1981. FIGURE 45. Melvin Prueitt, Bright Caven, 1982. FIGURE 46. Mandelbrot set from Peitgen and Richter’s The Beauty of Fractals, 1986. FIGURE 47. Herbert Franke, Untitled, published in Images Digital, 1986. FIGURE 48. F. K. Musgrave, Blessed State, 1988. FIGURE 49. Roman Verostko, New City 2 acrylic, crayon and gesso on wood, 1966. FIGURE 50. Manfred Mohr, Bild 17/1265, acrylic painting,1965. FIGURE 51. Roman Verostko, Pathway 1 1988. FIGURE 52. Roman Verostko, Pathways Series, 1988. FIGURE 53. Melvin Prueitt Roadway to Somewhere, 1981. FIGURE 54. Melvin Prueitt Involution, 1978. FIGURE 55. Mark Wilson, Untitled, painting, 1973. FIGURE 56. Mark Wilson, Skew J17 1985. FIGURE 57. Lillian Schwartz, Mona/Leo, 1987. FIGURE 58. Brian Reffin Smith, That Cher Evil, 1988. Photographic reproduction of plotter drawing on billboard. FIGURE 59. Yoichiro Kawaguchi, Tendril, 1981. FIGURE 60.William Latham, Standing Horn 1989. FIGURE 61. William Latham, Folded Red Form (top Left) Horn Egg (bottom Left) Unexpected Form (top Right) Shaw 35 (bottom Left) 1988-9. FIGURE 62. Susan Ressler, Earth 1 1989. II Foreword The research I have undertaken and the subsequent thesis produced would not be possible without the continuing support of a number of people. I feel fortunate to have received significant assistance from the Faculty and the University in the form of travel grants and scholarships, particularly the Australian Postgraduate Award (2001-2004). I am grateful to the Dean of the Faculty, Patrick Beale, for his unwavering support, Associate Professor Richard Read for his often helpful advice, and Dr Clarissa Ball who has always offered practical guidance. My special thanks and warmest appreciation, however, goes to my supervisor Dr Ian McLean who has made my post-graduate research experience highly satisfying and rewarding. My thanks also goes to Michèle Drouaut for her invaluable editorial advice. In addition, I am indebted to those artists, theorists and historians in the US, UK, Germany and Japan who have provided valuable information for my research. Finally, I would like to thank my loved ones, for without their emotional support a project of this magnitude would not be possible. III Abstract This thesis represents an historical account of the reception and criticism of computer art from its emergence in 1963 to its crisis in 1989, when aesthetic and ideological differences polarise and eventually fragment the art form. Throughout its history, static-pictorial computer art has been extensively maligned. In fact, no other twentieth-century art form has elicited such a negative and often hostile response. In locating the destabilising forces that affect and shape computer art, this thesis identifies a complex interplay of ideological and discursive forces that influence the way computer art has been and is received by the mainstream artworld and the cultural community at large. One of the central factors that contributed to computer art’s marginality was its emergence in that precarious zone between science and art, at a time when the perceived division between the humanistic and scientific cultures was reaching its apogee. The polarising force inherent in the “two cultures” debate framed much of the prejudice towards early computer art. For many of its critics, computer art was the product of the same discursive assumptions, methodologies and vocabulary as science. Moreover, it invested heavily in the metaphors and mythologies of science, especially logic and mathematics. This close relationship with science continued as computer art looked to scientific disciplines and emergent techno-science