sign in sign up
<<
Home , Digital art, Manfred Mohr, Roman Verostko

Essay Curating The American Algorists: Digital and National Identity

Grant D. Taylor

Department of Art & Viaual Culture, Lebanon Valley College, Annville, PA 17003, USA; [email protected]

 Received: 28 April 2019; Accepted: 17 August 2019; Published: 21 August 2019 

Abstract: This essay details the curating strategies and central premise behind the 2013 traveling exhibition The American Algorists: Linear Sublime. This group exhibition, which showcased the artwork of Jean-Pierre Hébert, Manfred Mohr, Roman Verostko, and Mark Wilson, marked the 20th anniversary of New York Digital Salon. In organizing this exhibit, I attempted to expand the discourse of digital art curation by linking the Algorists, a group formed at the Los Angeles SIGGRAPH conference in 1995, to the broader narrative of American art. Through the exhibition catalogue, I constructed a detailed history of the Algorists and connected the movement’s narrative to ideas of national identity and myth. To cultivate this nexus, I interpreted the Algorists’ unique approach to linear abstraction through the various theories of the sublime active within the history of American art. Ultimately, this case study reveals the incongruities of aligning this group of digital —who shared a decidedly internationalist outlook—with a national narrative. While the Algorists resisted parochial characterizations, the concept of the sublime provided a useful vehicle for theorizing the aesthetic response to -generated abstraction. The travelling exhibition also offered a potential , based on effective partnerships and resource sharing, for small college and university galleries.

Keywords: curation; digital art; Algorists; sublime; aesthetics; national identity; American art; computer-generated art;

1. Introduction As an art historian who studied the reception and criticism of early , I always took great interest in an individual’s response to digital art in the gallery environment. At every digital art exhibit I attended, I paid special attention to the audience’s response to the computer-generated prints hanging on the wall. My approach differed from other theorists in that they gave most of their attention to dynamic, participatory, and time-based objects—those artworks that engaged viewers with interactive interfaces. Interactivity no doubt transformed spectatorship and challenged the notion of the art object, even producing a new category of aesthetics. But what of the relationship between traditional forms of static digital art and the audience? Is there something beyond conventional aesthetics active in these computer-generated ? As these questions piqued my interest in tracking audience reception, I began to see a common response to abstract forms of digital art. Whether the prints were produced by pen-plotters, the machine that can be traced back to computer art’s earliest history, or the inkjet printer, the modern technology that eventually made the plotter obsolete, there remained a similar reaction. It became clear that audiences were fascinated with the striking complexity of linear and geometric forms created by the and the computer. Impelled to move closer to examine the print, viewers were captivated by the intricacies of mechanical precision that allowed for seemingly impossible dimensionality (Figure1). The contemplative viewer, one with a basic understanding of the algorithmic process underlining the art, expressed how they were overwhelmed when considering the power of the artist’s code.

Arts 2019, 8, 106; doi:10.3390/arts8030106 www.mdpi.com/journal/arts Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 16

Artscontemplative2019, 8, 106 viewer, one with a basic understanding of the algorithmic process underlining the2 ofart, 16 expressed how they were overwhelmed when considering the power of the artist’s code.

Figure 1. AA viewer viewer closely closely examines examines the the pen pen plotter’s plotter’s cal calligraphicligraphic brush brush mark mark and and intricate intricate self-similar self-similar lines in Roman Roman Verostko’s Verostko’s Nested Swallow, Version 1,1, 1997.1997. From the exhibition exhibition The American Algorists: Linear Sublime, 2013. Used Used by permission, Suzanne H. Arnold Gallery, LebanonLebanon ValleyValley College.College.

The way these these abstract abstract linear linear co compositionsmpositions resonated resonated with with the the au audiencedience eventually eventually triggered triggered a curatoriala curatorial idea idea in in me. me. Be Beginningginning in in 2011, 2011, I Ibegan began to to wonder wonder if if I Icould could stage stage an an exhibit primarily focused on computer-generated abstractionabstraction and and its its unique unique linear linear aesthetic. aesthetic. Fortunately, Fortunately, there there existed existed a aloosely loosely networked networked group group of of artist artist called called the the Algorists, Algorists, whose whose abstract wasart was computer-generated computer-generated and andalmost almost exclusively exclusively linear. linear. Importantly, Importantly, the story the ofstor thisy of digital this digital art movement remained remained largely largely untold. untold. 2. Curatorial Models for Digital Art 2. CuratorialOver the Models past five for years, Digital and Art following some remarkable scholarship, and directors haveOver mounted the past some five impressive years, and exhibitions following in some the United remarkable States. Bolsteredscholarship, by expandingcurators and private directors and publichave mounted collections, some the impressive importance exhibitions of digital artin the seems United more States. secure Bolstered than ever. by As expanding proof of thisprivate success, and Thepublic Museum collections, of Modern the importance Art and theof digital Whitney art seem Museums more of secure American than Art ever. recently As proof held of overlappingthis success, Theexhibitions, Museum each of Modern bringing Art much-needed and the Whitney attention Museum to the of impact American of Art recently in theheld arts. overlapping MoMA’s Thinkingexhibitions, Machines: each bringing Art and much-n Design ineeded the Computerattention Ageto the(1959–1989) impact of openedcomputers in 2017 in the and arts. was MoMA’s curated Thinkingby Sean AndersonMachines: Art and and Giampaolo Design in Bianconi.the Computer Only Age months (1959–1989) later, opened in 2018, in Christiane 2017 and Paulwas curated and Carol by SeanMancusi-Ungaro Anderson and offered GiampaoloProgrammed: Bianconi. Rules, Codes,Only months and Choreographies later, in 2018, in Art Christiane(1965–2018) Paul at the and Whitney. Carol Mancusi-UngaroComing from premier offered museums, Programmed: these Rules, consecutive Codes, exhibitsand Choreographies were arguably in theArt first(1965–2018) of their typeat the in Whitney.both scale Coming and scope from in premier the United museums, States. Whilethese consec they diutiveffered exhibits in focus, were both arguably exhibits the brought first of freshtheir perspectivestype in both scale on the and rich scope history in th ofe United digital States. processes While in th theey arts.differedThinking in focus, Machines both exhibitsexamined brought how practitionersfresh perspectives at the on intersection the rich histor of arty andof digital technology processes engaged in the . computer Thinking in Machines the fields examined of art, design, how and architecture, whereas Programmed took a broader approach, exploring how artists working in a variety of media (including traditional, electronic, and digital) employed system and algorithmic Arts 2019, 8, 106 3 of 16 approaches in their creations. Looking to draw connections between objects within each respective intuition’s collection (and to showcase new acquisitions), the curators broadened the narrative of computational arts and gave voices to artists who were previously marginalized. This is good news, especially when we consider how elite museums, such as MoMA, ignored, resisted, or rebuked computer-generated art in the early decades (Taylor 2014) Considering the leading role the United States took in the development of the modern computer, and how a raft of artists responded to the new medium in novel ways, it is a great relief that institutions—the Whitney being the prime example—are actively broadening their collections to expand the discourse in what remained a neglected field. In 2017, the Whitney inaugurated the Digital Art Acquisition Committee and began a crusade to collect some of the key works from the early phase of computer arts. Both exhibits also marked a maturing of curatorial practice regarding the exhibition of digital art in the US The most common curatorial approach to early digital art remains the international survey. Within this model, the most recent example is the Victoria and Albert Museum’s exhibition Chance and Control: Art in the Computer Age (July 2018–November 2018), in which artworks from various global centers of production are presented chronologically, matching the development of computer technology in advanced industrial nations. Early digital art emerged almost simultaneously in a number of countries, with the first computer art exhibitions mounted in the US and only months apart in 1965. These pioneers of computer-generated art, who worked in various public and private research laboratories, saw themselves as part of an international community. As a result, the first large-scale exhibition in , Cybernetic Serendipity (1968), mirrored the multinational expansion of computers in the arts. In the proceeding decades, a plethora of annual and biannual conferences, festivals, and symposia proliferated (examples include SIGGRAPH, ISEA, and ), with each organization’s exhibition program reflecting a distinctly international scope. While this broad approach accurately reflected the medium’s developmental phase, it also had the effect of limiting the scope to include only those practitioners concerned primarily with digital production. This model seemed to perpetuate a ghettoization of digital art, essentially making it a niche area on the periphery of the . More recently, exhibitions with national focus have been curated, such the 2008 Bit International held at ZKM in Karlsruhe (Rosen 2011). While this exhibit focused on computer art production primarily in Zagreb, Yugoslavia, the New Tendency movement that animated the activities in Zagreb was pan-European in nature and included practices that were non-digital. Recent exhibitions at MoMA and the Whitney have a broader approach, by either taking the computer as the central medium and looking at all of the acts of creation within an expanding digital sphere, as was the approach in Thinking Machines, or the looking to the immense interconnectedness between traditional and computational forms of practice, often placing them side-by-side and having them speak to each other through shared themes of production. The Programmed exhibit is a great example of this emerging methodology.

3. Travelling Exhibit: Periphery to the Center As large-scale surveys and thematic exhibits have become more prevalent, there still remains a need for focused shows designed for smaller exhibition venues. Francesca Franco’s recent Algorithmic Signs, a thematic exhibition on early computational art held at the Bevilacqua’s historical gallery in St. Mark’s square, Venice (October–December 2017), is a prime example of a focused and nuanced show. Like the other recent exhibitions, these exhibits are organized in major cities and local venues where a strong culture of arts exists. My original plan was to design an exhibit for those modest-sized galleries at small colleges and universities, similar to the liberal arts college gallery space at which I teach. On the campus of Lebanon Valley College, in rural Pennsylvania, the Suzanne H. Arnold Gallery is a typical college gallery. The building, a converted Lutheran church, holds a small one-room exhibition space (832 square feet) and an auditorium for presentations and symposia (Figure2). Because the space matches the average size of the small college galleries, a venue that holds 20–45 artworks, I felt it was an ideal testing ground. With over three thousand 4-year postsecondary colleges in the US, Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 16

ArtsBecause2019, 8the, 106 space matches the average size of the small college galleries, a venue that holds 20–454 of 16 artworks, I felt it was an ideal testing ground. With over three thousand 4-year postsecondary colleges in the US, most situated outside metropolitan centres, a travelling exhibit could expose new moststudent situated populations, outside metropolitanand their surro centres,unding a travellingcommunities, exhibit to coulddigital expose art and new its studentrich history. populations, Such a andmodel their could surrounding expand the communities, audience for to digitaldigital artart and beyond its rich the history. main cultural Such a model hubs couldthat serve expand urban the audiencecentres. for digital art beyond the main cultural hubs that serve urban centres.

Figure 2.2. Suzanne H.H. ArnoldArnold Gallery,Gallery, Lebanon Lebanon Valley Valley College, College, Annville, Annville, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania. Image used used by permission,by permission, Suzanne Suzanne H. ArnoldH. Arnold Gallery, Gallery, Lebanon Lebanon Valley Valley College. College.

As a result of space space limitations limitations at at the the college college gall gallery,ery, a a curated curated exhibit exhibit needed needed considerable considerable focus. focus. Finding a narrative or thematic that delimited scope was important. The Algorists seemed like a new and accessibleaccessible topictopic forfor both both a a general general and and specialist speciali audience.st audience. However, However, the the Algorists Algorists as a as group a group had becomehad become rather rather nebulous, nebulous, with many with declaringmany declaring themselves themselves adherents adherents from around from the around world. the Choosing world. whichChoosing artists which to include artists to was include imperative. was imperative. My decision My todecision curate to the curate exhibition the exhibition in relation in torelation national to identitynational helpedidentity limit helped the choicelimit the to choice those artists to those practicing artists practicing in the United in the States, United though States, there though remained there manyremained artists many in the artists United in the States United who States had varying who ha associationd varying association with the Algorists. with the I Algorists. wanted four I wanted artists withfour far-reachingartists with far-reaching careers and whocareers had and been who featured had been in monographs featured in onmonographs digital art andon digital who had art been and exhibitedwho had been extensively exhibited in exte thensively US and in abroad. the US Iand finally abroad. settled I finally on the settled practices on the of practices artists Jean-Pierre of artists HJean-Pierreébert, Manfred Hébert, Mohr, Manfred Roman Mohr, Verostko, Roman and MarkVerostko Wilson., and Importantly, Mark Wilson. these Importantly, artists could these be linked artists to thecould American be linked narrative to the American in a number narrative of ways. in First, a numb theer artists’ of ways. tales First, had athe certain artists’ quality tales thathad naturallya certain lentquality itself that to thenaturally American lent myth.itself to As the I explained American in myth. the exhibition As I explained catalogue, in the these exhibition artists, ostensiblycatalogue, self-taughtthese artists, in ostensibly ,self-taught in computer struggling programming, at the “peripheries struggl ofing the at intractable the “peripheries world of of early the ”,intractable world seemed of early to align computing”, with the epic seemed narrative to align of American with the artepic (Taylor narrative 2013 ,of p. American 20). Like theart Hudson(Taylor 2013, River p. School, 20). Like whose the Hudson artists captured River Sch theool, expanding whose artists Westward captured territories the expanding of the New Westward World, theterritories Algorists of the were New the firstWorld, to explorethe Algorists the new were terrains the first of the to digitalexplore frontier. the new Secondly, terrains theof the Algorists’ digital artworkfrontier. couldSecondly, also the be Algorists’ interpreted artwork through could the keyalso theoriesbe interpreted that underpin through our the understandingkey theories that of Americanunderpin our abstraction. understanding In the storyof American of American abstraction. art, discussions In the story of sublimity of American took centerart, discussions stage in the of mid-twentiethsublimity took centurycenter stage when in the the concept mid-twentieth was employed century to when theorize the concept the phenomenological was employed responseto theorize to large,the phenomenological abstract response by a new generationto large, abstra of Americanct paintings Expressionists. by a new Thegeneration audience’s of reactionAmerican to theExpressionists. Algorists’ abstraction The audience’s linear configurations, reaction to the as mentionedAlgorists’ inabstraction the opening linear paragraph, configurations, shared many as similaritiesmentioned toin criticalthe opening responses paragraph, to abstract shared expressionism. many similarities to critical responses to abstract expressionism.When beginning to curate an exhibition of digital art, many issues face a curator. There are difficulties of presenting time-based and interactive artworks, a challenge that is amplified by the changing platforms and the continual obsolescence of technology (Paul 2008). Beyond the problem of Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16

Arts 2019When, 8, 106 beginning to curate an exhibition of digital art, many issues face a curator. There are5 of 16 difficulties of presenting time-based and interactive artworks, a challenge that is amplified by the changing platforms and the continual obsolescence of technology (Paul 2008). Beyond the problem presenting and preserving digital forms of art, computer art possesses idiomatic elements that make of presenting and preserving digital forms of art, computer art possesses idiomatic elements that it a challenge for the curator. If the curator is approaching the topic as a survey, archival material is make it a challenge for the curator. If the curator is approaching the topic as a survey, archival often fragmented or limited. If one is looking at early computer art, the subject requires technical material is often fragmented or limited. If one is looking at early computer art, the subject requires knowledge of its viewer, or at least a rudimentary understanding of computer programming and the technical knowledge of its viewer, or at least a rudimentary understanding of computer evolutionprogramming of the and modern the evolution computer. of the The modern rapid comp diversificationuter. The rapid and proliferationdiversification of and digital proliferation technology isof often digital disorienting technology tois thoseoften diso firstrienting entering to thethose terrain. first entering Because the early terrain. digital Because art, early or computer digital art, art as itor was computer known, art is intertwinedas it was known, with is the intertwined history of with graphic the history design, of it graphic was always design, diffi itcult was to always conform todifficult conventional to conform art historiography, to conventional even art withinhistorio agraphy, basic survey even study.within Mya basic curatorial survey idea study. hinged My on findingcuratorial a central idea collectionhinged on that finding was broada central in scope collection and held that a comprehensivewas broad in archive.scope and To drawheld mosta artworkscomprehensive from a archive. private collectionTo draw most would artworks assist from in the a shippingprivate collection costs and would extend assist the in limited the shipping budget of ancosts institution and extend of higher the limited education. budget At theof an time, institut theion largest of higher private education. collection At of digitalthe time, art the in thelargest United Statesprivate was collection the Anne of +digitalMichael art Spalterin the United Digital States Art Collection was the Anne, which + Michael is housed Spalter in Digital Providence, Art Collection RI. I had, a longwhich association is housed within Providence, the Spalters RI. throughI had a long my associat scholarshipion with and the I hadSpalters visited through the collection my scholarship multiple times.and I Ashad early visited as 2011,the collection the Spalters multiple offered times. their As collection early as for2011, any the future Spalters curatorial offered project,their collection and I knew theirfor any commitment future curatorial and generosity project, and would I knew make their any commitment exhibit successful. and generosity Michael would Spalter make was excitedany byexhibit the vision successful. of expanding Michael Spalter the audience was excited for digital by the art vision to colleges of expanding and universities the audience and for hopeddigital art for an academicto colleges approach and universities to the catalogue, and hoped one for thatan academic provided approach a detailed to the history catalogue, of the one development that provided of the Algorists.a detailed The history collection’s of the accessibilitydevelopment could of the also Algori facilitatests. aThe travelling collection’s exhibition accessibility that would could appeal also to facilitate a travelling exhibition that would appeal to colleges and universities, especially those on colleges and universities, especially those on the east coast of the United States. the east coast of the United States. Working with Barbara McNulty, the director of the Suzanne H. Arnold Gallery, allowed me to Working with Barbara McNulty, the director of the Suzanne H. Arnold Gallery, allowed me to leverage the project. As an ambitious gallery director, she helped design the exhibition to be more leverage the project. As an ambitious gallery director, she helped design the exhibition to be more accessible to the broader digital art community through a printed and online catalogue and wall accessible to the broader digital art community through a printed and online catalogue and wall panelspanels with with QR QR codescodes (abbreviated(abbreviated from from Quick Quick Response) Response) that that directly directly linked linked to the to theartists’ artists’ websites. websites. Importantly,Importantly, Barbara Barbara was was fully fully supportive supportive in acquiringin acquiring technically technically demanding demanding works, works, such such as H éasbert’s kineticHébert’s sand kinetic table, sand which table, needed which to needed be shipped to be fromshipped California from California and assembled and assembled by the artistby the (Figure artist 3). Following(Figure 3). the Following installation, the installation, Hébert provided Hébert detailed provided instructions detailed instructions for the gallery for the sta ffgalleryto follow staff for to the durationfollow for of the the duration exhibition. of the exhibition.

(a) (b)

FigureFigure 3. 3.( a()a From) From left left to right:to right: Gallery Gallery assistant assistant Crista Cris Detweiler,ta Detweiler, gallery gallery director director Dr. Barbara Dr. Barbara McNulty, andMcNulty, artist Jean-Pierreand artist Jean-Pierre Hébert. Hébert. Hébert Hébert explaining explaining the protocols the protocols for running for running the the kinetic kinetic sand sand table. (btable.) Table (b) top Table showing top showing sand pattern sand pattern in progress, in progress, Suzanne Suzanne H. Arnold H. Arnold Gallery, Gallery, Lebanon Lebanon Valley Valley College, Annville,College, Annville, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania. Images createdImages bycreated author. by author.

AsAs I I worked worked onon aa preliminarypreliminary checklist, our our vision vision of of a a traveling traveling show show ma materializedterialized sooner sooner than than I expected.I expected. Corresponding Corresponding with with Bruce Bruce Wands Wands on on another another project, project, II mentionedmentioned whatwhat II waswas planning for the American Algorists. Wands was a leading author, artist, and educator in digital art for over three decades and was the chair of the renowned MFA in the Computer Art Department, School of , New York. In 1993, Wands also curated the first New York Digital Salon (NYDS) in conjunction Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16

Arts 2019, 8, 106 6 of 16 for the American Algorists. Wands was a leading author, artist, and educator in digital art for over three decades and was the chair of the renowned MFA in the Computer Art Department, School of withVisual the Arts, New New York York. City chapterIn 1993, of Wands ACM /SIGGRAPH.also curated Betweenthe first New 1994 andYork 2002, Digital the Salon catalogue (NYDS) for the in conjunctionNew York Digital with Salon,the New which York showcased City chapter the premier of ACM/SIGGRAPH. work from around Between the globe, 1994 was and published 2002, the by Leonardo:catalogue Journalfor the New of the York International Digital Salon, Society which for the sh Arts,owcased Sciences the andpremier Technology. work fromThe around color plates the globe, from wasthese published special issues by Leonardo: were the Journal first high-quality of the International glossy Soci printsety offor digital the Arts, art Sciences readily and available. Technology. Perusing The colorthese journalplates from pages these was special the catalyst issues for were me becoming the first high-quality interested in glossy the subject prints as of an digital undergraduate art readily at available.the University Perusing of Western these journal Australia. pages When was I outlinedthe cataly myst projectfor me becoming to Wands, theinterested 20th Anniversary in the subject of the as anNew undergraduate York Digital Salonat the wasUniversity approaching of Western and he Aust wasralia. looking When for I aoutlined project tomy appropriately project to Wands, celebrate the 20ththe milestone. Anniversary Wands of the recounts New York here: Digital Salon was approaching and he was looking for a project to appropriately celebrate the milestone. Wands recounts here: My first thought was to do a retrospective, but when I looked at the hundreds of artists we My first thought was to do a retrospective, but when I looked at the hundreds of artists we had featured over the years and the huge diversity of their creative work, the prospect of had featured over the years and the huge diversity of their creative work, the prospect of mounting such an exhibition was daunting. I then learned of an exhibition titled The American mounting such an exhibition was daunting. I then learned of an exhibition titled The Algorists: Linear Sublime, which would open at the Suzanne H. Arnold at American Algorists: Linear Sublime, which would open at the Suzanne H. Arnold Art Gallery Lebanon Valley College in Pennsylvania in August 2013. The exhibition, curated by Grant D. at Lebanon Valley College in Pennsylvania in August 2013. The exhibition, curated by Grant Taylor, featured four American artists who were dedicated to making work from their own D. Taylor, featured four American artists who were dedicated to making work from their original algorithmic codes: Jean-Pierre Hébert, Manfred Mohr, Roman Verostko, and Mark own original algorithmic codes: Jean-Pierre Hébert, Manfred Mohr, Roman Verostko, and Wilson. . . I decided that we would present this exhibition in 2013 after its showing at the Mark Wilson…I decided that we would present this exhibition in 2013 after its showing at Suzanne H. Arnold Art Gallery (Wands 2019, p. 64). the Suzanne H. Arnold Art Gallery. (Wands 2019, p. 64) Because I was early in the process process of developing developing th thee exhibit, I jumped at the the chance chance to to collaborate collaborate with Bruce Wands. We agreed that the American Algorists would travel to NYC following its debut exhibition. In In addition, addition, Wands Wands woul wouldd contribute contribute an an essay essay to to the the ca catalogue,talogue, effectively effectively producing producing a publicationa publication that that served served both both Lebanon Lebanon Valley Valley College College and and the the School School of Visual of Visual Arts. Arts. Following Following the exhibitthe exhibit in Pennsylvania, in Pennsylvania, the work the would work would travel to travel the SVA to the in New SVA York in New City York to be City hung to in be their hung first- in floortheir Flatiron first-floor Gallery Flatiron (formerly Gallery the (formerly Westside the Gallery), Westside which Gallery), was whichsimilar wasin size similar to the in Suzanne size to theH. ArnoldSuzanne Gallery H. Arnold (Figure Gallery 4). The(Figure exhibition4). The opening exhibition would opening be followed would by be a followed symposium, by a which symposium, would whichcomplement would the complement various events the variousand artist events lectures and that artist were lectures held at that Lebanon were held Valley at LebanonCollege (Figure Valley 5).College Though (Figure I had5). designed Though Ian had exhibit designed that ancould exhibit travel that to could galleries travel outside to galleries the major outside metropolitan the major areas,metropolitan I was delighted areas, I was to delighted have the to exhibit have the at exhibita renowned at a renowned and nationally and nationally ranked rankedinstitution institution of art education.of art education. Having Having the exhibit the exhibit connected connected to the to New the New York York Digital Digital Salon Salon was was also also very very significant. significant. It providedIt provided global global exposure exposure and and pres prestigetige that that a regional a regional exhibition exhibition would would not not necessarily necessarily achieve. achieve.

Figure 4. FlatironFlatiron Gallery, Gallery, 133–141 133–141 W. W. 21st Street, School of Visual Arts, New York, The American Algorists: Linear Sublime Image created by author.

Arts 2019, 8, 106 7 of 16 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16

Figure 5.5. School ofof Visual Visual Arts Arts/New/New York York Digital Digital Salon Salo exhibitionn exhibition opening, opening, 9 November 9 November 2013. 2013. From From right toright left: to Dr. left: Grant Dr. Grant D. Taylor, D. Taylor, Mark Wilson, Mark Wilson, Jean-Pierre Jean-Pierre Hébert, AnneHébert, Morgan Anne Spalter,Morgan Roman Spalter, Verostko, Roman ManfredVerostko, Mohr,Manfred Bruce Mohr, Wands, Bruce Michael Wands, Spalter, Michael and Spalter, Dr. A. and Michael Dr. A. Noll. Michael Flatiron Noll. Gallery, Flatiron School Gallery, of VisualSchool Arts,of Visual New Arts, York, NewThe York, American The American Algorists: Algorists: Linear Sublime Linear. Sublime Image. used Image by used permission, by permission, care of Dr.care Barbara of Dr. Barbara McNulty. McNulty.

4. History of the Algorists One of the key pursuits of the exhibit and catalogu cataloguee was to give historical context to the creation of the Algorists. As As an entrance to my catalogue essay, I began with HHébert’sébert’s now famous Algorist dictum, for which I identifiedidentified as the group’s definingdefining manifestomanifesto ((TaylorTaylor 2013 2013):): if (creation && object ofof artart &&&& algorithmalgorithm && one’s ownown )algorithm) {{ include * an algorist * } else if (!creation !object of art !algorithm !one’s own algorithm) { } else if (!creation |||| !object of art|| || !algorithm|| || !one’s own algorithm) { exclude * not an algorist *}. exclude * not an algorist *}. For me, the simple elegance of the code communicated the precise and logical beauty of the algorithm, for which the group was named. Hébert’s Hébert’s succinct declarative stat statement,ement, written in 1995 following the annual SIGGRAPH conference inin Los Angeles,Angeles, is one of the most distinctive manifestos in the history history of of art. art. By By giving giving primacy primacy to to the the auth authoringoring of ofcode, code, it stated it stated the the necessary necessary conditions conditions for forbeing being considered considered an Algorist. an Algorist. The Themanifesto manifesto was an was important an important way to way position to position the group the group in thein ever- the ever-diversifyingdiversifying field of field new of media arts. The arts. proliferating The proliferating nature nature of digital of digital technology technology meant meantnew forms new formswere perpetually were perpetually surfacing, surfacing, especially especially through throughthe late 1980s. the late No 1980s. longer No made longer on the made early on mainframe the early mainframecomputers, computers,art was being art wasmade being on mademultiple on multipledevices, devices,with the with personal the personal computer computer being beingthe most the mostprominent. prominent. It would It would be at bethe at dawning the dawning of the of age the of age the of Internet, the Internet, with withthe expansion the expansion of mobile of mobile and andweb-based web-based technologies, technologies, that that provided provided the the backdrop backdrop to tothe the formation formation of of the the Algorists. Algorists. At At the the time, time, the artists felt indifferent indifferent to the term “computer art”, which was heavily maligned by the mainstream artworld, andand sought sought a newa new name name that that adequately adequately defined defined their digitaltheir practicedigital practice (Taylor 2014 (Taylor). Principal 2014). inPrincipal the minds in the of thisminds group of this of artistsgroup wasof artists the need was forthe aneed term for that a term differentiated that differentiated themselves themselves from the newfrom generationthe new generation of digital artistsof digital who artists did not who write did theirnot write own their programs. own programs. The Algorists The hadAlgorists witnessed had overwitnessed the previous over the decades previous the decades development the developmen of the Graphicalt of the Graphical User Interface (GUI) and (GUI) user-friendly and user- interfaces,friendly interfaces, which eventually which eventually became paint became programs, paint electronicprograms, palette electronic systems, palette image systems, synthesizers, image andsynthesizers, other off-the-shelf and other . off-the-shelf Emerging software. artists Emer didging not have artists to wrestledid not with have the to complexwrestle symbolicwith the andcomplex command-line symbolic and system command-line of programming system as theof programming new interfaces as embodied the new traditional interfaces mediaembodied and practices.traditional Artists media interested and practices. in using Artists the computerinterested would in using not the necessarily computer need would to script not necessarily or code their need art ideas,to script a processor code thattheir was art ideas, at the a center process of digitalthat was practice at the center for over of twodigital decades. practice The for Algorists, over two however,decades.

Arts 2019, 8, 106 8 of 16 were thoroughly committed to the algorithmic method and wanted to form a group that celebrated such methods. While the concept of the algorithm had been increasingly theorized by Verostko and others at conferences in Europe and Australasia since the mid-1980s, it was at the Los Angeles SIGGRAPH conference where the group coalesced. The three key figures in the formation of the Algorists were Roman Verostko, Jean-Pierre Hébert, and Ken Musgrave. At the conference panel entitled and the Artist, the creative potential of the algorithm was debated by Stephen Bell, Peter Beyls, Brian Evans, Musgrave, Hébert, and Verostko. Those present witnessed a notable sense of congeniality and shared purpose among this group of artists, but it was Verostko, Hébert, and Musgrave who formalized the key elements of the group following the SIGGRAPH conference and exhibition program. Hébert proposed the name “Algorists” for the group, a term influenced in part by Donald Knuth’s 1968 canonical computer-science text, The Art of Computer Programming (Knuth 1968). In the history of the algorithm (as outlined in Knuth’s first chapter), Hébert recalled the mathematician’s debate between the Abacists and Algorists. This dispute, which lasted through the medieval period and into the Renaissance, focused on the best system to perform basic arithmetic. There was something in the controversy between the Abacists and the Algorists that resonated with Hébert. The Algorist manifesto, recorded in the quotation above, embodied a similar sense of division between those who coded and those who did not. Following the conference, Verostko, who had experience as an encyclopedist, carefully traced the “complex etymology of the word ‘algorithm’ back to the ninth-century Persian mathematician Mohammed al-Khowârizmî who is credited with providing the step-by-step rules for adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing ordinary decimal numbers” (Taylor 2013, p. 16). As the group started to unite around the leadership of Hébert and Verostko, others were asked to join, including Charles Csuri and Manfred Mohr. Though it appeared to preclude membership, the Algorist manifesto was very inclusive. If one created their art using an algorithm—digital or otherwise—they could be considered an Algorist. Acting retroactively, Verostko identified a variety of artists who conformed to the algorithmic ideal. As a result, those attributed grew to include Herbert W. Franke, Vera Molnar, Frieder Nake, Hiroshi Kawano, Charles Csuri, Harold Cohen, Hans Dehlinger, Channa Horwitz, , and others. As the first art movement of the digital age contingent on cyber presence, the Algorists became more virtual than physical. A central locale was not essential for the group. All correspondence and discourse surrounding the movement remained on the artists’ websites. Via the internet, the Algorists increased in number through virtual affiliations. In fact, a likeminded group in asked Hébert if they could call themselves “les Algoristes”, the French version of the Algorists (Taylor 2013, p. 18).

5. Aesthetics and the Linear Sublime While an emphasis on US-based artists brought necessary focus, only examining practices based on linearity would further limit the pool of artists to choose from. The majority of Algorist artists practiced within the tradition of geometric abstraction, yet a good number were based in Europe. Some artists were based in the United States, but worked figuratively, such as Charles Csuri. Ken Musgrave, a leading figure in the formation of the Algorists, worked with landscapes. Therefore, I chose four artists who held long careers and who explored linear expression in unique ways from each other. However, I did decide to include one artwork from an artist not considered an Algorist. To explore the genesis of linearity in the history of digital art, I decided to include the iconic Gaussian-Quadratic, which was of one of the first examples of computer art (Figure6). Produced in 1962–1963 by A. Michael Noll, a scientist and engineer working at Bell Telephone Laboratories, the computer-generated image showed the development of the vector line as the defining geometric entity in early graphics. Early computer images linear aesthetics were a result of the system, an imaging system based on Euclidian and Cartesian ; this vector system remained the core of the Algorists’ practice. While Noll was not considered part of the Algorists, I thought it necessary to trace the linear coordinate system for linear image construction. In addition, I sought Arts 2019, 8, 106 9 of 16 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16 toshow show that that the the computer computer age age resulted resulted in a in new a new kind kind of precision of precision line lineallowed allowed by the by pen the plotter, pen plotter, and andthis thismechanical mechanical device device could could exceed exceed the theexactitu exactitudede of ofthe the human human hand. hand. In In this this first first example of computer art, the basic image-making properties we werere present and provided the first first sign of a linear aesthetic that would be fully expanded by the Algorists.

Figure 6.6. ClockwiseClockwise from from top-left: top-left: A. MichaelA. Michael Noll, Noll,Gaussian-Quadratic Gaussian-Quadratic, 2003, copy 2003 of copy 1962–1963 of 1962–1963 original, IBMoriginal, 7090, IBM Stromberg–Carlson 7090, Stromberg–Carlson S-C 4020 microfilm S-C 4020 recorder;microfilm Mark reco Wilson,rder; MarkDouat Wilson, Dump Douat A2, 1981, Dump plotter A2, ;1981, plotter Manfred drawing; Mohr, ManfredProgram Mohr, 21, 1970, Program plotter 21 drawing;, 1970, plotter Jean-Pierre drawing; Hébert, Jean-PierreSelf Similarities Hébert,, 1986, Self plotterSimilarities drawing., 1986, Exhibition:plotter drawing.The American Exhibition: Algorists: The American Linear Algorist Sublimes:, 2013. Linear Image Sublime used, 2013. by Image permission, used Suzanneby permission, H. Arnold Suzanne Gallery, H. Arnold Lebanon Gallery, Valley Lebanon College. Photo:Valley College. Scot Gordon. Photo: Scot Gordon.

For the exhibit, I wanted to adequately displaydisplay the immense variety of linearlinear compositionscompositions produced by the four four artists. artists. The The capability capability of of the the computer-guided computer-guided pen pen plotter plotter was was fundamental fundamental to tohow how each each artist artist achieved achieved their their vision. vision. I included I included a number a number of major of major plotted plotted prints printsfrom each from artist, each artist,including including Manfred Manfred Mohr’s Mohr’s ProgramProgram 21, which 21, whichwas shown was shown at Mohr’s at Mohr’s first solo first exhibit solo exhibit at Musée at Mus d’Artée d’ArtModerne Moderne de la Ville de lade Ville Paris de in Paris 1971in (Figure 1971 (Figure6). The6 artist’s). The randomizing artist’s randomizing programs programs created a created playfully a playfullyrhythmic rhythmiczig-zagging zig-zagging line similar line similarto improvised to improvised musical musical notation. notation. From From Verostko, Verostko, I Iincluded masterworks from his Derivations of the Laws and Nested Swallow series,series, which which were were produced produced through the artist’s highly innovative roboticrobotic brushwork technique (Figures(Figures1 1 and and7 ).7). This This unique unique contribution contribution to mark-makingmark-making resulted resulted from from a highly a highly experimental experime approachntal approach that reimagined that reimagined the pen the plotter pen throughplotter thethrough art of the of Chinese and Japanese and Japanese calligraphy. calligraphy. By attaching By attaching a brush a to brush the machine’s to the machine’s drawing, drawing, he was ablehe was to replicateable to replicate the expressionistic the expressionistic energy energy of the humanof the human hand. hand. I also soughtI also sought out some out some of the of most the complexmost complex plotted plotted works everworks completed. ever completed. Hébert’s Hébert’sSpirale Calme Spiraleis arguablyCalme is onearguably the most one meticulous the most andmeticulous complex and single-line complex drawingssingle-line ever completed ever oncompleted a plotter on (Figure a plotter8). The (Figure e ffort 8). to The create effort such to printscreate wassuch immense. prints was Some immense. works So tookme overworks 60 took hours over to plot60 hours and any to plot impurity and any in theimpurity ink, which in the could ink, clogwhich the could pen, orclog a powerthe pen, outage or a power could ruinoutage a print. could When ruin thea print. print When was successful, the print was such successful, as Spirale Calme such, theas Spirale finely renderedCalme, the line finely created rendered an intricate line created tapestry, an almost intricate like antapestry, oscillating almost permeable like an membrane.oscillating Inpermeable Wilson’s membrane. intricate structures, In Wilson’s we intricate witness thestructures, extreme we form witn ofess exactitude the extreme and form precision of exactitude of the plotter and asprecision it rendered of the details plotter far beyondas it rendered traditional details hand-drafting far beyond techniques. traditional Mirroring hand-drafting the dense techniques. divisions andMirroring connective the dense lines divisions of chip diagrams and connective and circuit lines boards, of chip his diagramsSKEW FF10 and createdcircuit boards, a unique his abstract SKEW topography,FF10 created onea unique based abstract on schematics topography, of radial one lines based and on intersecting schematics forms of radial (Figure lines9). and intersecting forms (Figure 9).

Arts 2019, 8, 106 10 of 16 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16

Figure 7. Roman Verostko,Verostko,Derivation Derivation of of the the Laws. Laws… . . by by George George Boole Boole (1815–1864), (1815–1864), 1990, 1990, book book (edition (edition #69). #69).Exhibition: Exhibition:The American The American Algorists: Algorists: Linear Linear Sublime, Sublime, 2013. Image2013. Image used by used permission, by perm Suzanneission, Suzanne H. Arnold H. ArnoldGallery, Gallery, Lebanon Lebanon Valley College. Valley College. Photo: Scot Photo: Gordon. Scot Gordon.

Figure 8. FromFrom right right to left: Jean-Pierre Jean-Pierre Hébert, Hébert, Spirale Calme ,, 1988, plotter drawing; Jean-Pierre Hébert,Hébert, Triptych:Triptych: BrightBright Wavelets Wavelets 1–3 1–3, 2008,, 2008, inkjet inkjet drawing; drawing; Jean-Pierre Jean-Pierre Hé bert,Hébert,Un cercleUn cercle trop étroptroit ,étroit 1995,, 1995,plotter plotter drawing; drawing; (floor (floor installation) installation) Jean-Pierre Jean-Pierre Hébert, Hébert,Sand Installation: Sand Installation: Ryoan-ji Ryoan-ji, 2000,, mixed 2000, mixed media. media.Exhibition ExhibitionThe American The American Algorists: Algorist Linears: Sublime Linear Sublime, 2013. Image, 2013. usedImage by used permission, by permission, Suzanne Suzanne H. Arnold H. ArnoldGallery, Gallery, Lebanon Lebanon Valley College. Valley College. Photo: Scot Photo: Gordon. Scot Gordon.

Arts 2019, 8, 106 11 of 16 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 16

Figure 9. From right to left: Mark Mark Wilson, Wilson, csq3604csq3604,, 2008, 2008, inkjet inkjet print; print; Mark Mark Wilson, Wilson, SKEWSKEW FF10 FF10,, 1984, 1984, plotter drawing; Manfred Mohr, p-197ap-197a,, 1977,1977, plotterplotter drawing.drawing. Exhibition: TheThe American Algorists: Linear Sublime , 2013. 2013. Image Image used used by by permissi permission,on, Suzanne Suzanne H. H. Arnold Arnold Gallery, Gallery, Lebanon Lebanon Valley Valley College. College. Photo: Scot Scot Gordon. Gordon.

While the pen plotter remained central to the practice of the artists, when the Algorists formed in the the mid-1990s, mid-1990s, this this technology technology was was fast fast becoming becoming obsolete. obsolete. The The Algorists Algorists were were quick quick to master to master the nextthe next generation generation of technologies, of technologies, again again pushing pushing th thee boundaries boundaries of of print print media. media. Wilson Wilson shifted shifted his practice toward the new technologies of the ink-jet printer and its possibilities of printing on various substrates, includingincluding canvas, canvas, metal, metal, and and plastics. plastics. Wilson’s Wilson’s geometric geometric tapestry tapestry of forms of couldforms becould printed be printedon a larger on a scale, larger allowing scale, allowing for increased for increased complexity complexity and color and control color control (Figure (Figure 10). Hé 10).bert Hébert also found also foundthe new the capabilities new capabilities of ink-jet of ink-jet printers printers to open to aop newen a world new world of linear of linear configuration, configuration, one with one awith more a moreexpansive expansive scale andscale finer and detail. finer detail. As seen As in seenTriptych: in Triptych: BrightWavelets Bright Wavelets 1–3, the 1–3 new, the generation new generation of printers of printersenabled theenabled artist the to make artist even to make smaller, even more smaller, intricate more lines, intricate which lines, amplified which the amplified moiré patterns the moiré and patternssubtle visual and subtle effects visual (Figure effects8). Because (Figure the 8). artists’ Because exploration the artists’ of exploratio lines wentn of far lines beyond went print far beyond media, printI included media, other I included multi-media other projects multi-media in the projects exhibit. Fromin the California, exhibit. From we shippedCalifornia, Hé bert’swe shipped kinetic Hébert’ssand installation, kinetic sandRyoan-ji¯ installation,, which confounded Ryōan-ji, which the audience confounded with the an elegantlyaudience designedwith an lowelegantly table designedthat saw alow metal table ball that on saw a field a metal of sand ball produce on a field exquisite of sand spiral produce patterns exquisite (Figure spiral3). Complementingpatterns (Figure 3).Hé bert’sComplementing installation, Hébert’s I included installation, Mohr’s recent I included color animated-screen Mohr’s recent workscolor animated-screen based on his hypercube works basedseries, on which his hypercube further explored series, the which spatial further relationship explored of the his spatial linear structuresrelationship by of allowing his linear the structures viewer to witnessby allowing his algorithm the viewer deconstruct to witness and his reconstruct algorithm thedeconstruct cube in real-time and reconstruc (Figure t11 the). The cube algorithm in real-time that (Figuregenerated 11). Mohr’s The algorithm that could generated run continually, Mohr’s animation only repeating could the run same continually, image in aonly cycle repeating of every 100the same years. image in a cycle of every 100 years.

Arts 2019, 8, 106 12 of 16 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 16

Figure 10. MarkMark Wilson, Wilson, e20808, 2011, inkjet printprint onon canvas.canvas. Exhibition: The American Algorists: Linear Sublime,, 2013. Image Image used used by by permission, permission, Suzanne Suzanne H. H. Ar Arnoldnold Gallery, Gallery, Lebanon Valley Valley College. Photo: Photo: Scot Gordon.

Figure 11. RightRight to toleft: left: Manfred Manfred Mohr, Mohr, P1622-screenP1622-screen, 2012,, 2012, NEC NEC screen screen + Mac+ mini;Mac Manfred mini; Manfred Mohr, Mohr,P1611_2,P1611_2, 2012, 2012pigment, pigment ink on ink canvas; on canvas; Manfred Manfred Mohr, Mohr, P1611_24P1611_24, 2012, 2012, pigment, pigment ink ink on on canvas. canvas. Exhibition: The American Algorist Algorists:s: Linear Sublime , 2013. Image Image used used by by permi permission,ssion, Suzanne Suzanne H. Arnold Gallery, LebanonLebanon ValleyValley College.College. Photo:Photo: Scot Gordon.

6. American Art and National Myth Beyond the commonalities of the algorithm and linearitylinearity that united the four artists, I believed the artists’ practices could be placed into the broader narrative ofof AmericanAmerican art.art. This was contrary to the ethos of digital digital art art and and seemingly seemingly challenged challenged disciplinary norms. Since Since its its beginnings beginnings in in the the 1960s, 1960s, digital art was largely defined as international or transnational in scope. Digital artists proudly resisted any attempt to align their digital practice with a single national identity, preferring to

Arts 2019, 8, 106 13 of 16 digital art was largely defined as international or transnational in scope. Digital artists proudly resisted any attempt to align their digital practice with a single national identity, preferring to celebrate the particular universal nature of the digital process. International conferences centered on digital practices, which remained the primary venue for showing computer art in the early decades, reinforced this self-perception. For the artists, digital modalities overcame geographical boundaries, thus fostering a global outlook. As a result, a strong internationalist sentiment described much of the digital artworld. Although Hébert, Mohr, Verostko, and Wilson were American-based artists, to fit them into a national narrative did seem unnatural. Each artist had exhibited internationally, and all were active in the international community of digital art. In reality, they were internationalists by nature, continually traveling between Europe, Asia, and America. Some members were American-born, such as Verostko and Wilson, while others, such as Mohr and Hébert, were born in Europe (Germany and France, respectively). Also, their non-objective art had no discernible traces of American life—no figure or landscape that further contributed to the discourse of national identity. Moreover, their success and acclaim has been more acutely felt in Europe than in the United States. Digital art’s innately transnational character was difficult to challenge. Incongruous as it seemed, though, there were a number of reasons why the Algorists could be integrated into the story of American art. Each Algorist spent most of his career in the United States, and Mohr was elected a member of the American Abstract Artists in 1997. While their non-objective art was devoid of national themes or sentiment, it was hard to deny a sense of place when considering their artwork. As I closely examined each artists’ computer-generated forms, I felt it reverberated with the artists immediate environment. As I wrote in the exhibition catalogue, I entertained the idea that there were subconscious echoes of place in Mohr’s triangular vertices. After I visited his Manhattan studio, I could not help but see the same forms in the angled, crisscrossing Tribeca streets. In Hébert’s oscillating waves, I felt I witnessed the optical reflections generated by the blue Pacific waters moving on the sandy shoals of Santa Barbara. His studio is positioned high above the sea. Present in Versotko’s sinuous, organic lines are the cracks and crevices I recognized in Diamond Lake, which is the water body behind the artist’s studio that freezes in the winter. In Wilson’s linear banding I saw the strata of gneiss rock that curved along the Housatonic River, the tributary in front of the artist’s Connecticut studio (Taylor 2013). But it was also the similarities of the artists’ stories, which were at times immense struggles, that seemed to connect to the pioneering spirit inherent in early American art. To me, this group of self-taught artists, struggling far from the artworld and within the shifting terrains of early computing, seemed epic in nature. I immediately thought of the nineteenth-century artists of the Hudson River School who built a mythology around the lonely artist charting the outer edge of the American frontier, tenaciously recording the mysteries of a vast and untamed landscape. Members of the Algorists, such as Manfred Mohr, were the first to explore a “new frontier—not the expanding Westward territories of the New World, but the emergent digital terrain made possible by the modern computer” (Taylor 2013). This was also the first generation of artists to create new creative pathways allowed by the pen plotter, a periphery device that was exceedingly difficult to master. Each of the four Algorists produced wholly original marks generated with the exactitude and control of the pen plotter. However, it is not just the role of these artists pushing back new territories in computer-generated imagery that linked to narratives of progress in American art. The Algorists’ shared a kinship with those American landscape painters who celebrated the sublime power of nature. Rejecting the European picturesque, with its charming and contained vision of nature, the American landscape painters of the Hudson River School imagined nature as an overpowering force that could access the transcendental. There existed a parallel between the American Romantic painter’s concept of the sublime, which was emphasized by the spiritual of God’s natural world, and the algorithmic processes of the Algorists. The computer algorithm could be harnessed as a powerful generator of previously unimaginable geometric and linear form, one that unfurled a new virtual world. As described in the opening of this essay, when audiences were confronted with the intricate linear forms, they were often Arts 2019, 8, 106 14 of 16 confounded by the complexity—and the understanding of the code exceeded their comprehension, which mirrored the artists own surprised reaction when their form-generating algorithms created vast arrays of linear form. Employing a combination of the philosophies of two influential eighteenth-century philosophers, Edmund Burke and Immanuel Kant, I explored in my exhibition catalogue essay the romantic reception of the sublime experience in nature and art (Taylor 2013). In A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origins of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (Burke 1757), Burke identified a set of sublime experiences that produced a kind of thrilling terror, as opposed to the softer and temperate experience of beauty. Kant had an even greater bearing on the consciousness of nineteenth and twentieth century artists. In his Critique of Judgment (Kant 2007), Kant argued that the sublime response was a result of the tension experienced when the mind attempted to apprehend the immensity or limitlessness of a concept. In the Kantian sense, sublimity is, as Philip Shaw described it, the “moment when the ability to apprehend, to know, and to express a thought or sensation is defeated” (Shaw 2005, p. 3). This reminded me of the audience’s response to the Algorists’ algorithms. As a result, I theorized the aesthetic experience of algorithmic art as a type of “generative sublime” (Taylor 2013). Importantly, the generative sublime held an important parallel with mid-twentieth century American abstract movements. The phenomenological response to large, abstract paintings by Abstract Expressionists was frequently described as mesmeric and overwhelming. The Harold Rosenblum wrote in his influential 1961 essay, The Abstract Sublime (Rosenblum 1961), that he believed the clash with the boundlessness linked the American non-objective painters to the Romantic sublime of the 19th century. Barnett Newman in The Sublime Now (Newman 1948) denied much of the European interpretations of the sublime, advocating instead for a sublime based on the creative force of the individual artist rather than recourse to notions of God. For Newman, there was little beyond the painted surface, and if transcendence and exaltation were reached, it was, as I wrote in the exhibition catalogue, a “result of the exchange between the painted field and the spectator’s consciousness” (Taylor 2013, p. 22). When faced with the linear complexities of the Algorists, audiences described the same aesthetic response. The complexity of the lines was often visually overpowering and, combined with the tremendous power of the algorithm, reinforced the sublime response of impenetrability in the audience. This aesthetic response I described as: “Whether it is the n-dimensional hypercubes of Mohr, or the dizzying and self-similarity of Verostko’s lines, or the intricate linear rhythms of Hébert composition, or the layered of Wilson, there is often the feeling of a cognitive failure in the viewer, an inability to comprehend the astonishing power of computation” (Taylor 2013, p. 23). Following postmodern theorist Jean-Francois Lyotard’s description of the extreme space-time compression of global media, critics employed the concept of the technological sublime to describe the disorientating effects of digital age (Lyotard 1994). Historian David Nye, an author who shaped discourse on the technological sublime, understood it more broadly as convergence of technological forces supplanting the dynamic power of nature (Nye 1996). Technology generates fear and awe because our creations in a post-human age are fast becoming fully sentient (AI is the chief example), and will ultimately threaten human existence. Though both conceptions are rooted in Kantian aesthetics, Nye’s use of American history as an exemplar of the technological sublime, especially in the development of the modern computer, resonated with me. However, my understanding of the generative sublime, as applied to the Algorists, kept an element of Kant’s mathematical sublime in the vast combinatorial powers of the algorithm and the dynamic form of sublime found in nature. The colossal energy of nature’s unfolding, forcefully expressed in the artists’ linear and self-similar geometry, is made visible in the algorithmic process. Rather than the negative pleasure associated with Enlightenment sublime, or even the contemporary anxiety over the collapsing boundaries between self and machine, the aesthetic experience of the Algorists hinges on an intellectual or emotional response to an encounter with a finite abstract object (the print) within the evolution of code. Though the flows between the artist and the machine are sometimes indistinct, the aesthetic effect is not one of dehumanization, but rather a fluent expression between the two entities as one shapes and informs the other. Arts 2019, 8, 106 15 of 16

7. Outcomes and Impact In retrospect, it was the connection made between the Algorists and the aesthetics of the sublime that gained the most traction with audiences and critics. In the most comprehensive review of the exhibition, Taney Roniger, writing for On Verge: Alternative , said of the artwork in the exhibit, “. . . the cognitive failure occasioned here is as exhilarating as it is unsettling” (Roniger 2013). The reviewer wrote extensively on the aesthetic experience of viewing each artist through the lens of the sublime, thus echoing the theoretical ideas in the catalogue. However, linking the Algorists to the narrative of American art was less convincing—emerging as more of a speculative than a concrete curatorial idea. Perhaps the incongruities of the Algorists existing within a national narrative of art overwhelmed this line of inquiry. First and foremost, the artists held an internationalist attitude. Due to the fact that the computer itself had its own strong mythology independent of national narratives, the Algorists did not need to be linked to the American saga. Any exhibit focusing on digital art naturally has a propensity to develop the myths already existing within digital culture. Nevertheless, expanding our understanding of abstraction, particularly digitally generated forms of abstraction, has expanded the history of American art in previously unimagined ways. On a fundamental level, the exhibition successfully displayed the astonishing diversity of linear form made possible by computation, thus expanding the paradigm of abstraction. As a model for a small-scale travelling show, there were many successes. The sharing of recourses and funding between two institutions proved effective, allowing us to extend the reach of the exhibit with promotions and co-sponsored events. After the show’s run at the Suzanne H. Arnold Gallery and the Flatiron Gallery, there was interest from many institutions about hosting the exhibit. However, the cost associated with shipping the kinetic sand table remained cost-prohibitive for small college galleries with limited funds. Because Hébert’s sand-table installation was so popular with audiences, the gallery directors felt this important work must be included. In addition, not all the artworks for the American Algorists came from the Spalters’ collection. There were instances in which the artists’ personal collections held exceptional examples of prints with remarkable linear configuration. Drawing artworks from the artists’ collections, many in different parts of the country, increased the cost of shipping for the travelling show. However, in the years following the exhibition, gallery directors and curators (motivated by their own thematic ideas) have since lent from the Anne + Michael Spalter Digital Art Collection. Many exhibits, including Thinking Machines at MoMA, used the Spalters’ collection extensively. Consequently, it emerged as a major lending collection. Perhaps the greatest impact of the catalogue and exhibition was providing a full historical context to the development of the Algorists. The exhibit brought attention to the larger implications of the group and elevated the movement in cultural discourse. The use of the term “Algorists” also became more prevalent, though it is difficult to attribute this to the exhibition as the sole reason. The exhibition was successful in showcasing how each artist, working independently of each other, built highly experimental practices based on algorithmic processes. Unifying the four artists in the way that the exhibition did allowed a new understanding of computer-generated abstraction, and what role linearity plays in digital art practice.

Funding: This research received no external funding. Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

Burke, Edmund. 1757. A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origins of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. London: R. and J. Dodsley. Kant, Immanuel. 2007. Critique of Judgement. Translated by James Creed Meredith. Oxford: Oxford University Press. First published 1790. Knuth, Donald. 1968. The Art of Computer Programming. Reading: Addison-Wesley Pub. Arts 2019, 8, 106 16 of 16

Lyotard, Jean-François. 1994. Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime. Translated by Elizabeth Rottenberg. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Newman, Barnett. 1948. The Sublime Is Now. The Tiger’s Eye 6: 51–53. Nye, David. 1996. American Technological Sublime. Boston: The MIT Press. Paul, Christiane, ed. 2008. New Media in the White Cube and Beyond: Curatorial Models for Digital Art. Berkeley: University of California Press. Roniger, Taney. 2013. The American Algorists: Linear Sublime. On Verge: Alternative Art Criticism, December 22. Available online: http://www.on-verge.org/essays/the-american-algorists-linear-sublime/ (accessed on 20 April 2019). Rosen, Margit, ed. 2011. A Little-Known Story about a Movement, a Magazine, and the Computer’s Arrival in Art: New Tendencies and Bit International, 1961–1973. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Rosenblum, Robert. 1961. The Abstract Sublime. Art News 59: 38–41. Shaw, Philip. 2005. The Sublime. New York: Routledge, p. 3. Taylor, Grant. 2013. Linearity and The Algorithmic Search. The American Algorists: Linear Sublime. Exhibition Catalog. Suzanne H. Arnold Art Gallery: Annville, PA. Downloadable PDF of catalog can be accessed through the New York Digital Salon. Catalog can be purchased from Suzanne H. Arnold Gallery, Annville, PA. Available online: http://www.nydigitalsalon.org/american-algoriths/index.php or Roman Versotko’s website: http://www.verostko.com/algorist.html (accessed on 20 April 2019). Taylor, Grant. 2014. When the Machine Made Art: The Troubled History of Computer Art. New York: Bloomsbury. Wands, Bruce. 2019. Roman Verostko and the Algorithmic Revolution. In Roman Verostko and the Cloud of Unknowing. Exhibition Catalogue. Minneapolis: College of Art and Design.

© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, , Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).