The Late Work of Stan Ostoja-Kotkowski

arts

Article Art, Maths, Electronics and Micros: The Late Work of Stan Ostoja-Kotkowski

Melanie Swalwell 1,* and Maria B. Garda 1,2

1 College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia; [email protected] 2 Centre of Excellence in Game Culture Studies, University of Turku, 20500 Turku, Finland * Correspondence: [email protected]

Received: 30 December 2018; Accepted: 11 February 2019; Published: 15 February 2019

Abstract: To date, most work on computers in art has focused on the Algorists (1960s–) and on later cyber arts (1990s–). The use of microcomputers is an underexplored area, with the 1980s constituting a particular gap in the knowledge. This article considers the case of Polish-Australian artist, Stan Ostoja-Kotkowski (b. 1922, d. 1994), who after early exposure to computers at the Bell Labs (1967), returned to microcomputers late in his life. He was not a programmer yet used micros in his practice from the early 1980s, ﬁrst a BBC in his BP Christmas Star commission, and later a 32-bit Archimedes. This he used from 1989 until his death to produce still images with a fractal generator and the ‘paintbox’ program, “Photodesk”. Drawing on archival research and interviews, we focus on three examples of how Ostoja deployed his micro, highlighting the convergence of art, maths, electronics, and a ‘hands-on’ tinkering ethic in his practice. We argue that when considering the history of creative microcomputing, it is imperative to go beyond the ﬁeld of art itself. In this case, electronics and the hobbyist computing scenes provide crucial contexts.

Keywords: micro-computers; computer graphics; landscape; photography; hybrid arts; laser art; Mandelbrot; electronics; Australia; Poland

1. Introduction If the Algorists were the ﬁrst generation of artists working with computers, then artists working with microcomputers would be the second, with a third generation associated with the era of multimedia and cyber-arts, from the early 1990s. To date, most work on computers in art has focused on the ﬁrst generation and their use of mainframe and mini computers (Brown et al. 2008; Beddard and Dodds 2009) and on later cyber arts (Zurbrugg 1994). In Australia, Steven Jones has charted the period up to 1975 (Jones 2011), and Darren Tofts post 1992 (Tofts 2005). The use of microcomputers is an underexplored area, with the 1980s constituting a particular gap in the knowledge. The second generation of artists using microcomputers was relatively short in duration, running from the late 1970s and early 1980s through to the early 1990s, prior to the (third generation) era of digital multimedia, with its accompanying rhetoric of convergence around virtual reality, telepresence, interactivity, and the widespread use of readymade, off the shelf software (e.g., CAD, Macromedia Director, etc.). Microcomputers were so named after the microprocessors that powered them, as well as to differentiate them from their larger ‘mini’ computer siblings. Though the 1980s saw both a low and a high-end market in microcomputers, both were considerably less expensive than mini computers. The 1980s also marked the moment when computing became ‘personal’, at least in

Arts 2019, 8, 23; doi:10.3390/arts8010023 www.mdpi.com/journal/arts Arts 2019, 8, 23 2 of 25

Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 23 popular parlance,1 with the idea of a ‘home computer’ gaining traction as something that belonged in 1 householdsin popular during parlance, the decadewith the( ideaSwalwell of a ‘home 2012 ).computer’ gaining traction as something that belonged in households during the decade (Swalwell 2012). This article considers the case of Polish-Australian artist, Stan Ostoja-Kotkowski (b. 1922, d. 1994), This article considers the case of Polish-Australian artist, Stan Ostoja-Kotkowski (b. 1922, d. who after early exposure to computers at the Bell Labs (1967), returned to micro-computers later in 1994), who after early exposure to computers at the Bell Labs (1967), returned to micro-computers his life. He was not a programmer yet used micros in his practice from the early 1980s, ﬁrst an 8-bit later in his life. He was not a programmer yet used micros in his practice from the early 1980s, first BBC Micro for the BP Christmas Star commission, and later a 32-bit Acorn Archimedes computer an 8-bit BBC Micro for the BP Christmas Star commission, and later a 32-bit Acorn Archimedes (seecomputer Figure1 ).(see This Figure he used 1). This from he 1989 used until from his 1989 death until to his produce death to still produce images still with images a fractal with generatora fractal 2 andgenerator the ‘paintbox’ and the program, ‘paintbox’ “Photodesk” program, “Photodesk” (Figures2– (Figures6). 2–6).2

FigureFigure 1. 1. OstojaOstoja in inhis hisstudio studio with his with Acorn his Archimed Acorn Archimedeses microcomputer, microcomputer, date unknown. date Published unknown. Publishedwith permission. with permission. Image courtesy Image of the courtesyState Library of of the South State Australia. Library SLSA: of South PRG919/22/42. Australia. SLSA: PRG919/22/42. Focusing on three examples of how Ostoja deployed his micro—the BP Christmas star commissions,Focusing onhis Mandelbrot three examples works, of and how his landscapes Ostoja deployed with CGI—we his micro—the argue that his BP work Christmas instances star commissions,a convergence his of Mandelbrot art, maths, electronics, works, and and his a landscapes ‘hands-on’ withtinkering CGI—we ethic, arguedeveloped that hisover work many instances years a convergenceof experimental of art, practice maths, across electronics, such diverse and a media ‘hands-on’ as theatre, tinkering laser ethic,art (an developed example of over which many is seen years of experimentalin Figure 7), practicesound and across image such shows, diverse mediaelectronic ass, theatre, and television. laser art (an This example is not of a which Jenkins-like is seen in Figureconvergence7), sound of and technology image shows, (Jenkins electronics, 2006), but and there television. are continuities This is between not a Jenkins-like Ostoja’s early convergence and later of art practice in that he often seems to have combined a range of influences across his lifetime. technology (Jenkins 2006), but there are continuities between Ostoja’s early and later art practice in that he often seems to have combined a range of inﬂuences across his lifetime.

1 IBM’s 1977 micro-computer was the original personal computer or ‘PC’. 2 A description of “paintbox” type programs from the period reads: “paint systems; computers which either through software or design allow the user to draw or paint with the computer. The TV screen (or monitor) of such a paint system will typically contain two borders; one with either patterns or color bands that the user can select and another where the user can choose the ‘tools’ for painting the colors or patterns. Usually the tools are electronic symbols for traditional paint tools, i.e., a brush or pen with varying thicknesses or an airbrush . . . ” (Cancel 1987, p. 9).

Arts 2019, 8, 23 3 of 25 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 23

Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 23

Figure 2.2. Unnamed image from Ostoja’s slideslide collection,collection, possiblypossibly aa self-portrait.self-portrait. Published with permission.Figure 2. Image Unnamed courtesy image of from the StateOstoja’s LibraryLibrary slide ofcollection, South Australia. possibly SLSA:a self-portrait. PRG 919/22/394. Published with permission. Image courtesy of the State Library of South Australia. SLSA: PRG 919/22/394.

FigureFigure 3. 3.Unnamed Unnamed image image from from Ostoja’s Ostoja’s slideslide collection.collection. Published Published with with permission. permission. Image Image courtesy courtesy of of the the State State Library Library of of South South Australia. Australia. SLSA:SLSA: PRG919/22/404.

FigureFigure 4. 4.Unnamed Unnamed image image from from Ostoja’s Ostoja’s slideslide collection.collection. Published Published with with permission. permission. Image Image courtesy courtesy ofFigureof the the State 4. State Unnamed Library Library ofimage of South South from Australia. Australia. Ostoja’s SLSA:SLSA: slide PRG919/22/744.collection. Published with permission. Image courtesy of the State Library of South Australia. SLSA: PRG919/22/744.

Arts 2019, 8, 23 4 of 25 Arts 2019,, 8,, xx FORFOR PEERPEER REVIEWREVIEW 4 of 23

Figure 5.5. Unnamed image from Ostoja’s slide collection. It It seems seems to to correspond to the disk label “Homage“Homage toto Albers”Albers” (seen(seen inin aa laterlater Figure).Figure). PublishedPublished withwith permission.permission. Image courtesy of the State Library of South Australia. SLSA: PRG919/22/69.

Figure 6. Unnamed image from Ostoja’s slide collection. Figure 66 appearedappeared inin blackblack andand whitewhite onon thethe front ofof thethe AdelaideAdelaide BeebnetBeebnet computercomputer user groupgroup printed newsletter. Published with permission. Image courtesy ofof thethe StateState LibraryLibrary ofof SouthSouth Australia.Australia. SLSA: PRG919/22/464.

Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 23

have collaborated with assistants quite extensively, of whom we have been able to interview two. Though fieldwork is ongoing, preliminary findings from the larger study of creative micro- computing suggest—somewhat surprisingly—that fewer artists in the 1976–1992 period programmed than did everyday home users. Though he was very hands-on with technology, Ostoja exemplifies the tendency of those artists who used computers in their art practice to use them without necessarily learning to program. This set them apart from the earlier generation of artists, known as the Algorists, for whom programming was an essential skill.

3. Brief Survey of Ostoja’s Work Originally trained as a painter, Ostoja spent much of his life working with various new technologies. He was an innovator in laser art, beginning in 1968, and was the only Australian to be working in this field at the time. He published an article in a Leonardo special issue on the topic (Ostoja-Kotkowski 1975) and is probably best known for his laser art works (Figure 7 shows several images of his laser art). Ostoja’s influences were many—Abstract Expressionism, Bauhaus, Op Art, and more besides. He worked the art/technology nexus for decades prior to using micro-computers. In what looks like an unpublished speech found in the Warsaw archive (dated Sunday 14 June 1992), John Stringer, Senior Curator at the Art Gallery of Western Australian, calls Ostoja “the old master of multi-media” (Stringer 1992). As Macdonald puts it in his doctoral thesis, Ostoja was never only Arts 2019 8 , , 23doing one thing (Macdonald 2005). He was an innovator, leading a convergence of electronic media 5 of 25 with theatre, dance, experimental film, and light shows from as early as the 1960s (Edwards 2009).

Figure 7. JFigureózef Stanisław 7. Józef Stanis Ostoja-Kotkowski.ław Ostoja-Kotkowski. Kinoptica Kinoptica for for lasers lasers 1986. 1986. Colour Colour photographs. photographs. Gift of the Gift of the Estate of Edward Stirling Booth. Flinders University Art Museum Collection 4241.223. Photograph by Estate of EdwardFlinders University. Stirling Booth. © the Estate Flinders of the Universityartist. Published Art with Museum permission. Collection 4241.223. Photograph by Flinders University. © the Estate of the artist. Published with permission.

2. Context and Background The context for this study is an ongoing project looking into Australian ‘creative micro-computing’ between 1976 and 1992. This follows on from Swalwell’s prior research into the everyday uses that were made of micro-computers when they first became accessible to laypeople in the late 1970s and 1980s in Australia and New Zealand (Stuckey et al. 2013, 2015; Swalwell 2008; Swalwell et al. 2017). Garda has previously researched the reception of 8-bit microcomputers by computer game players and other enthusiasts in 1980s Poland (Garda forthcoming). The wider project attempts to overcome a siloed approach by any framing that might consider, say, just artists’ use of micros. The research on Ostoja is a particularly good example of this approach—whereby the use and products of use are considered in an expanded context, taking in both hobbyist engagement and fine art scenes, for example—because of his habit of seeking out collaborators with specialist expertise, developed over many years of experimental practice across diverse media. Ostoja seems to have collaborated with assistants quite extensively, of whom we have been able to interview two. Though fieldwork is ongoing, preliminary findings from the larger study of creative micro-computing suggest—somewhat surprisingly—that fewer artists in the 1976–1992 period programmed than did everyday home users. Though he was very hands-on with technology, Ostoja exemplifies the tendency of those artists who used computers in their art practice to use them without necessarily learning to program. This set them apart from the earlier generation of artists, known as the Algorists, for whom programming was an essential skill.

(Ostoja-Kotkowski 1975) and is probably best known for his laser art works (Figure7 shows several images of his laser art). Ostoja’s influences were many—Abstract Expressionism, Bauhaus, Op Art, and more besides. He worked the art/technology nexus for decades prior to using micro-computers. In what looks like an unpublished speech found in the Warsaw archive (dated Sunday 14 June 1992), John Stringer, Senior Curator at the Art Gallery of Western Australian, calls Ostoja “the old master of multi-media” (Stringer 1992). As Macdonald puts it in his doctoral thesis, Ostoja was never only doing one thing (Macdonald 2005). He was an innovator, leading a convergence of electronic media with theatre, dance, experimental film, and light shows from as early as the 1960s (Edwards 2009). In some ways, Ostoja was an outlier, a paradoxical figure: a Polish man living in Australia, who at times encountered hostility to his art.3 Yet he was one of the most successful public artists in this era in Australia, personally recognised in the Australia Day Honors List in 1992 (The Advertiser 1992), and certainly amongst the best known Australian artists we have come across who were using computers to make art at the time (though he wasn’t necessarily widely known for this). One of his murals hung in Adelaide airport, a postage stamp was made featuring his laser art in 1985, and there was a feature on his use of computers in The Australian magazine (McKenzie 1989). On the significance and reception of Ostoja’s work, Edwards writes:

He was a catalyst for a more adventurous style of theatre in Australia and he brought a modern European approach to ﬁlmmaking. His op art introduced many Australians to this genre . . . Reviews of his ﬁlms, theatre sets and kinetic productions were not always positive, mainly because Ostoja was always pushing audiences to the edge, which sometimes made them uncomfortable. He was accused of commercialism, as he appealed to a broader audience than the art gallery clientele. He was an artist who managed to live from his art, but it was his art that was important to him. (Edwards 2009, p. 32)

4. Ostoja’s Micro-Computer Works In this article, we focus on the three examples we found of how Ostoja deployed his microcomputer: (1) the Christmas star commissions for BP on St Kilda Rd in Melbourne; (2) his Mandelbrot works, and (3) his landscapes with CGI. Our method has involved archival research and analysis, combined with interviewing two of Ostoja’s collaborators, who have in turn shared archival materials from their personal collections with us. Ostoja’s archive is substantial and very rich, consisting of personal papers, artworks, press coverage, and many different media formats. He appears to have been a proliﬁc letter writer, and it was his practice to keep copies of his correspondence. The archive is held jointly by the State Library of South Australia, and the University of Melbourne’s Ballieu Library, and is recognised as internationally signiﬁcant. In 2008 it was accepted into the UNESCO Australian Memory of the World register (UNESCO 2008). We also consulted materials held in the Flinders University Art Museum, and the National Museum in Warsaw. Our overarching argument is that in each of the three cases we consider from Ostoja’s art practice, there is a convergence of art often with maths, electronics, and what we term a ‘hands-on’ tinkering ethic. This tinkering ethic was a mode of practice with which Ostoja was thoroughly familiar,

3 Ostoja’s frustration with the reception of his art in Australia is palpable in a 1970 interview:

... in Germany, a fellow who, about the same time, started electronic images, and his images were so close to mine and were done at the same time—we didn’t know about each other, but we could exchange our results and put signatures to them, they were so close. This fellow has not only been recognized and had books written about him, he’s been very strongly engaged by art institutions and galleries to talk about his art. At the same time I was shut off here, I was wiped off as something unnecessary, a waste of time, a waste of money, and nothing good can ever come of it. (Scarfe 1971) Arts 2019, 8, 23 7 of 25 having spent many years experimenting in such diverse media as theatre, laser art, sound and image shows, electronics, and television. On televisual experimentation, Robert Scarfe reported Ostoja saying in interview:

Of course with colour television the experiments could go much further. I spent some time [in 1962] at the Marconi Electronics Research lab in Chelmsford, England, and they have some beautiful equipment there to project colour television onto a screen. And when I got there ﬁrst they showed me how beautifully they could project these images. They made up the image from something pre-set, sent it through the system and projected it onto a screen; and there were beautiful images on the screen in colour. So I said, “Well can we now start to do some experimenting with this,” and they said “What do you want?” “First of all I want to get the thing out of register”—“What do you mean, out of register’—we just spent two days getting the alignment on these”. But they co-operated, and we started experimenting, and by the end of the day I just didn’t have to do anymore. The ideas just kept on pouring, one after the other. What could we do? How could one do it?—let’s separate the reds from the blues, let’s shift them, let’s curve them. By the end I could just press a button and get a beautiful image there. This was by trying to explore, by trying to do things which are not the normal things; to get off the main way and try to experiment. That’s where you’re going back to experimentation and trying to discover things. I remember the ﬁrst time we tried the experiments here at T.V. studios in Australia. The producer threw his hands [up] in despair—“What are you trying to do, you’ve lost all the half-tones”. I said, “Marvellous, good”. Now today to lose half-tones is practically a normal thing in television, but it took 5–6 years to convince the director you could get a beautiful picture without the half-tones. (Scarfe 1971)

We see many similarities between Ostoja’s earlier and later practice, where he was reliant on others to a signiﬁcant degree in the production of his artworks. In that sense, the microcomputer works represented a continuation of collaborative practice rather than a departure, and this reliance on others is particularly seen in Russell Dahms’ building of custom electronics for the BP Star commission, as well as other projects.

4.1. Christmas Stars on St Kilda Rd Ostoja received many commissions, including for the creation of a large electronic Christmas star to be installed on the BP building on St Kilda Road, in Melbourne.4 The BP Star commission was ﬁrst done by Ostoja in 1971 (in which the lights responded to sound (Sunday Mail 1971)), but it was not until the 1980s, we think,5 that the stars were programmed using a computer. (Figure8 shows a photograph of a star installed (we don’t know if it was one of Ostoja’s) on the BP Tower, taken by his friend, photographer Mark Strizic). These star installations instance a convergence of electronics and computing. Ostoja’s collaborator for these pieces, Russell Dahms (shown with a smaller prototype star in Figure9), recalls writing a small program so that Ostoja could map out the patterns that he wanted

4 Built from 1962–1964 and converted to apartments in 1995, the building at 1–29 Albert Rd, Melbourne (formerly BP House) is now known as the Domain Building. It is on the Heritage Council of Victoria’s Register, considered to be “of state significance as an example of the changing international perceptions by 1960 of the International Style tower”. The Statement of Significance notes that “the combination of architecture and art in the building, a prominent international idea at the time, incorporating a Competition winning foyer mural by Adelaide artist, Stansilaw Ostoja-Kotkowski [sic], and cast bronzes sculptures by noted Victorian sculptor, Norma Redpath, in the Theatrette foyer and exterior façade (Victorian Heritage Database 2019). 5 We have not been able to definitely resolve the date or the computer system that the star was programmed on (BBC Micro or Acorn Archimedes). Dahms remembers it being a BBC Micro, but we have not found any other evidence that Ostoja had a home computer any earlier than the Acorn Archimedes in 1989. Based on a photo we found in the Warsaw archive, we suspect the computer used was an Archimedes (based on the coloured keys layout on the keyboard and the type of monitor). Arts 2019, 8, 23 8 of 25 for the light sequences. A shot of the screen showing the computer program Dahms developed is seen in Figure 10. Dahms recalls:

I wrote a program on the computer so Ostoja could program the images for the side of BP House in Melbourne for the Christmas display. Basically it was in a BASIC language on the BBC Micro. And I wrote a program so there was a grid on the screen, and he would manually—I think it was with a mouse back then, a very primitive mouse—go and Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 23 turn on which lights he wanted to be on in that particular frame. He would then save it, heprobably would spend then increment two weeks to doing the next this, frame, because and it thenwas helike would a nine turn by nine on and matrix off theof these next lightlights. sequence And when he he’d wanted finished for thewith exhibition. it I somehow And got then it out of of course the BBC he Micro, could playprobably it back on anda floppy he would disc, probablyand then spend I took two it weekswherever doing I worked this, because [where] it wasthere like was a ninean EPROM by nine matrixprogrammer. of these So lights.I transferred And when the raw he’d data ﬁnished into an with EPROM it I somehow and I would got just it out clock of thethat BBC out Micro,with an probably opto-coupler on a ﬂoppymultiplex disc, circuit, and then and I it took would it wherever actually Idrive worked the [where] light banks there through was an EPROMthe triacs. programmer. Because in Melbourne So I transferred … someone the raw else data had into made an EPROM this big and three-phase I would justelectrical clock thatcontroller out with which an opto-couplercontrolled these multiplex light panels circuit, on and the it side would of BP actually House drive … And the each light one banks of throughthem was the kilowatts, triacs. Because and so init had Melbourne this big ...three-phasesomeone control else had system. made thisBut bigI just three-phase outputted electricalthe information controller from which the EPROM controlled to this these triacs light which panels controlled on the side the oflights…and BP House it... wouldAnd eachstep through one of them the images. was kilowatts, (private and communication). so it had this big three-phase control system. But I just outputted the information from the EPROM to this triacs which controlled the lights ... and itIn wouldanother step photograph through the not images. reproduced (private here, communication) Dahms is seen posing with Ostoja and the prototype star, with the micro-computer in the foreground on a trolley (refer n. 5).

Figure 8. Photograph of of a star installed on BP House, St Kilda Rd, Melbourne. We We do not know whether it is one of Ostoja’s stars, or not. Mark Mark St Strizic,rizic, 1976, 1976, photograph photograph of the Christmas Christmas Star installed on BP House, Melbourne. © the EstateEstate ofof MarkMark Strizic.Strizic. PublishedPublished with permission. Image courtesy: Pictures Collection, State Library Victoria.

Figure 9. Russell Dahms with the Christmas star prototype in Ostoja’s studio. Published with permission. Image courtesy Russell Dahms.

Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 23

probably spend two weeks doing this, because it was like a nine by nine matrix of these lights. And when he’d finished with it I somehow got it out of the BBC Micro, probably on a floppy disc, and then I took it wherever I worked [where] there was an EPROM programmer. So I transferred the raw data into an EPROM and I would just clock that out with an opto-coupler multiplex circuit, and it would actually drive the light banks through the triacs. Because in Melbourne … someone else had made this big three-phase electrical controller which controlled these light panels on the side of BP House … And each one of them was kilowatts, and so it had this big three-phase control system. But I just outputted the information from the EPROM to this triacs which controlled the lights…and it would step through the images. (private communication). In another photograph not reproduced here, Dahms is seen posing with Ostoja and the prototype star, with the micro-computer in the foreground on a trolley (refer n. 5).

Figure 8. Photograph of a star installed on BP House, St Kilda Rd, Melbourne. We do not know whether it is one of Ostoja’s stars, or not. Mark Strizic, 1976, photograph of the Christmas Star installed Arts 2019on ,BP8, 23House, Melbourne. © the Estate of Mark Strizic. Published with permission. Image courtesy:9 of 25 Pictures Collection, State Library Victoria.

Figure 9. RussellRussell Dahms Dahms with the Christmas star prototypeprototype inin Ostoja’sOstoja’s studio.studio. Published with Arts 2019permission., 8, x FOR PEERImage REVIEW courtesy Russell Dahms. 9 of 23

Figure 10. Screenshot of the program Dahms developed to allow Ostoja to “program” the Christmas star. Published with permission. Image courtesy Russell Dahms.

DahmsIn another further photograph recalls notthat reproduced“We [he and here, John Dahms Fleming is seen (partner) posing and with friends] Ostoja andwere the always prototype the sourcestar, with of information the micro-computer regarding in computers the foreground and electronics.” on a trolley (refer He continued: n. 5). Dahms further recalls that “We [he and John Fleming (partner) and friends] were always the Ostoja would ring up and ask how to use some software feature on the program, and source of information regarding computers and electronics.” He continued: sometimes we hadn’t even seen the program. Or he couldn’t get his computer to start, or this sortOstoja of stuff would … And ring I had up a and group ask of howfriends to as use well some … and software they were feature into computers on the program,and they hadand the sometimes BBC micros. we hadn’tThey went even to seenthat club the program.you mentioned, Or he the couldn’t computer get club—Beebnet his computer … to Theystart, would or this go sort to those of stuff meetings... And and I haddescribe a group all the of advances friends asin computers. well ... and And they to some were extentinto computers I relied on andthem they a little had bit the on the BBC comput micros.er side They of wentthings to … that (private club communication). you mentioned, Dahmsthe made computer it possible club—Beebnet for Ostoja... to They‘program’ would this go BP to Christmas those meetings star, without and describe doing allany the actual programming.advances inSharing computers. archival And images to some with extent us, IDahms relied on has them indicated a little to bit us on that the computerOstoja’s theremins side wereof also things programmed . . . . (private on the communication) Archimedes (see Figures 11 and 12) (private communication, 18/7/16). Interestingly,Dahms made these it possible were forartworks Ostoja or to instruments ‘program’ this that BP were Christmas created star,with withoutthe micro, doing but anywhich actual did programming.not require the micro, Sharing and archival so looked images more with like us, elec Dahmstronics has than indicated computer to art. usthat As Dahms Ostoja’s says: theremins “A lot wereof it was also dedicated programmed electronics on the Archimedesto produce a (see solution Figures. It may11 and have 12) involved (private communication,a computer to program 18/7/16). it orInterestingly, to design it, these but invariably were artworks it was or mapped instruments out in thatto a werestandalone created system with the that micro, could but function which without did not the computer.”

Figure 11. Russell Dahms with Ostoja’s theremin. Published with permission. Image courtesy Russell Dahms.

Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 23

Figure 10. Screenshot of the program Dahms developed to allow Ostoja to “program” the Christmas star. Published with permission. Image courtesy Russell Dahms.

Dahms further recalls that “We [he and John Fleming (partner) and friends] were always the source of information regarding computers and electronics.” He continued: Ostoja would ring up and ask how to use some software feature on the program, and sometimes we hadn’t even seen the program. Or he couldn’t get his computer to start, or this sort of stuff … And I had a group of friends as well … and they were into computers and they had the BBC micros. They went to that club you mentioned, the computer club—Beebnet … They would go to those meetings and describe all the advances in computers. And to some extent I relied on them a little bit on the computer side of things … (private communication). Dahms made it possible for Ostoja to ‘program’ this BP Christmas star, without doing any actual Artsprogramming.2019, 8, 23 Sharing archival images with us, Dahms has indicated to us that Ostoja’s theremins10 of 25 were also programmed on the Archimedes (see Figures 11 and 12) (private communication, 18/7/16). Interestingly, these were artworks or instruments that were created with the micro, but which did notrequire require the micro,the micro, and and so looked so looked more more like electronicslike electronics than than computer computer art. Asart. Dahms As Dahms says: says: “A lot “A of lot it wasof it was dedicated dedicated electronics electronics to produce to produce a solution. a solution It may. It may have have involved involved a computer a computer to programto program itor it orto designto design it, it, but but invariably invariably it it was was mapped mapped out out into into a a standalone standalone system system thatthat couldcould functionfunction without the computer.”

Figure 11. 11. RussellRussell Dahms Dahms with with Ostoja’s Ostoja’s theremin. theremin. Published Published with permission. with permission. Image courtesy Image courtesy Russell Arts 2019Dahms.Russell, 8, x FOR Dahms. PEER REVIEW 10 of 23

FigureFigure 12. 12. InternalInternal view view of Ostoja’s of Ostoja’s theremin theremin showing showing electronics. electronics. Published Published with withpermission. permission. Image courtesyImage courtesyRussell Dahms. Russell Dahms.

4.2. Mandelbrot Works 4.2. Mandelbrot Works The Mandelbrot series is the ﬁrst of Ostoja’s two still images series that we consider, that were The Mandelbrot series is the first of Ostoja’s two still images series that we consider, that were created on the 32-bit Acorn Archimedes computer (see Figures 13–22). In several news articles, created on the 32-bit Acorn Archimedes computer (see Figures 13–22). In several news articles, it’s it’s written that he “spent six months mastering difﬁcult computer programs and now uses that writtentechnology that he and “spent a mathematical six months formula, mastering known di asfficult Mandlebrot computer [sic], programs to produce and stunning now uses images that technologywhich he transfersand a mathematical to slides and setsformula, to music” known (The as Advertiser Mandlebrot1992 , [sic],1994 ).to produce stunning images which he transfers to slides and sets to music” (The Advertiser 1992, 1994). However, as Heather McKenzie noted, “Ostoja is no computer buff” (McKenzie 1989, p. 58). She quoted him as saying of the Mandelbrot: It offers the artist not only a range of colours, but a range of forms and shapes. When using the Mandelbrot, the graphic image on the screen represents the beauty of the mathematical formula; the artist recognises and responds to this beauty” (McKenzie 1992, pp. 63–64). While Ostoja had previously explored using mathematics to create art, this seems to have been limited to visual influences. Since at least the 1970s, he was interested in polyhedron stars and graph theory, for instance, a reproduction from Kircher’s Ars Magna Sciendi … (1669) was found in Ostoja’s archives (SLSA PRG 919/22/738).

Figure 13. A screenshot, apparently derived from the Mandelbrot set, manipulated in a paintbox program, and captured on slide film by Ostoja. Published with permission. Image courtesy of the State Library of South Australia. SLSA: PRG 919/21/381.

Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 23

Figure 12. Internal view of Ostoja’s theremin showing electronics. Published with permission. Image courtesy Russell Dahms.

4.2. Mandelbrot Works The Mandelbrot series is the first of Ostoja’s two still images series that we consider, that were created on the 32-bit Acorn Archimedes computer (see Figures 13–22). In several news articles, it’s written that he “spent six months mastering difficult computer programs and now uses that technology and a mathematical formula, known as Mandlebrot [sic], to produce stunning images which he transfers to slides and sets to music” (The Advertiser 1992, 1994). However, as Heather McKenzie noted, “Ostoja is no computer buff” (McKenzie 1989, p. 58). She quoted him as saying of the Mandelbrot: It offers the artist not only a range of colours, but a range of forms and shapes. When using the Mandelbrot, the graphic image on the screen represents the beauty of the mathematical formula; the artist recognises and responds to this beauty” (McKenzie 1992, pp. 63–64). While Ostoja had previously explored using mathematics to create art, this seems to have been limited to visual influences. Since at least the 1970s, he was interested in polyhedron stars and graph theory, for instance, a reproduction from Kircher’s Ars Magna Sciendi … (1669) was found in Ostoja’s Arts 2019, 8, 23 11 of 25 archives (SLSA PRG 919/22/738).

Figure 13.Figure A 13.screenshot,A screenshot, apparently apparently derived derived from from thethe MandelbrotMandelbrot set, set, manipulated manipulated in a paintbox in a paintbox program, and captured on slide ﬁlm by Ostoja. Published with permission. Image courtesy of the State Arts 2019, 8, xprogram, FOR PEER and REVIEW captured on slide film by Ostoja. Published with permission. Image courtesy of the 11 of 23 State LibraryLibrary of of South South Australia.Australia. SLSA: SLSA: PRG PRG 919/21/381. 919/21/381.

Figure 14. AFigure screenshot, 14. A screenshot, apparently apparently derived derived from from thethe Mandelbrot Mandelbrot set, manipulated set, manipulated in a paintbox in a paintbox program, and captured on slide ﬁlm by Ostoja. Published with permission. Image courtesy of the State program, and captured on slide film by Ostoja. Published with permission. Image courtesy of the Library of South Australia. SLSA: PRG919/21/398. State Library of South Australia. SLSA: PRG919/21/398.

Figure 15. A screenshot which became the artwork “Id”, apparently derived from the Mandelbrot set, manipulated in a paintbox program, and captured on slide film. Published with permission. Image courtesy of the State Library of South Australia. SLSA: PRG 919/22/756.

Figure 16. A screenshot, apparently derived from the Mandelbrot set, manipulated in a paintbox program, and captured on slide film by Ostoja. Published with permission. Image courtesy of the State Library of South Australia. SLSA: PRG919/22/810.

Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 23 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 23

Figure 14. A screenshot, apparently derived from the Mandelbrot set, manipulated in a paintbox program,Figure 14. and A screenshot,captured on apparently slide film derivedby Ostoja. from Published the Ma ndelbrotwith permission. set, manipulated Image courtesy in a paintbox of the Stateprogram,Arts Library2019 and, 8, 23of captured South Aust onralia. slide SLSA: film by PRG919/21/398. Ostoja. Published with permission. Image courtesy12 of of 25 the State Library of South Australia. SLSA: PRG919/21/398.

Figure 15. A screenshot which became the artwork “Id”, apparently derived from the Mandelbrot set, manipulatedFigure 15.Figure A screenshotin 15. a Apaintbox screenshot which program, which became became and the thecapturedartwork artwork “Id”, on “Id”, slide a apparentlypparently film. Published derivedderived from fromwith the thepermission. Mandelbrot Mandelbrot Image set, manipulatedset, manipulated in a paintbox in a paintboxprogram, program, and captured and captured on slide on slide film. ﬁlm. Published Published with with permission. permission. Image courtesyImage of the courtesy State Library of the State of LibrarySouth Australia. of South Australia. SLSA: SLSA:PRG PRG919/22/756. 919/22/756. courtesy of the State Library of South Australia. SLSA: PRG 919/22/756.

Figure 16.Figure A screenshot, 16. A screenshot, apparently apparently derived derived from from the MandelbrotMandelbrot set, set, manipulated manipulated in a paintbox in a paintbox program,Figure 16.program, and A screenshot,captured and captured on apparently onslide slide film ﬁlm derived by Ostoja.Ostoja. from Published Published the withMa ndelbrot permission.with permission. set, Image manipulated courtesy Image of thecourtesy in State a paintbox of the Library of South Australia. SLSA: PRG919/22/810. Stateprogram, Library and of captured South Aust onralia. slide SLSA: film by PRG919/22/810. Ostoja. Published with permission. Image courtesy of the State Library of South Australia. SLSA: PRG919/22/810.

Arts 2019, 8, 23 13 of 25 Arts 2019,, 8,, xx FORFOR PEERPEER REVIEWREVIEW 12 of 23

Figure 17.17. A screenshot, apparently derived from the Ma Mandelbrotndelbrot set, manipulated in a paintboxpaintbox program, andand captured captured on on slide slide ﬁlm film by by Ostoja. Ostoja. Published Published with with permission. permission. Image Image courtesy courtesy of the of State the LibraryState Library of South of South Australia. Australia. SLSA: SLSA: PRG919/22/866. PRG919/22/866.

Figure 18.18. A screenshot, apparently derived from the Ma Mandelbrotndelbrot set, manipulated in a paintboxpaintbox program, andand captured captured on on slide slide ﬁlm film by by Ostoja. Ostoja. Published Published with with permission. permission. Image Image courtesy courtesy of the of State the LibraryState Library of South of South Australia. Australia. SLSA: SLSA: PRG/919/22/1271. PRG/919/22/1271.

Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 23

Arts 2019, 8, 23 14 of 25 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 23

Figure 19. A screenshot, apparently derived from the Mandelbrot set, manipulated in a paintbox program, and captured on slide film by Ostoja. Published with permission. Image courtesy of the State Library of South Australia. SLSA: PRG919/22/1208.

Many artists were interested in fractals in the 1980s. Books such as The Beauty of Fractals: Images of complex dynamical systems (Peitgen and Richter 1986) were widely available, and exhibitions of fractal images toured. We have found a reference suggesting that the “Patterns of Chaos” exhibition—comprising 76 3D images which had been touring the world for eight years—was shown at the University of Adelaide, around 1990. It is conceivable that Ostoja would have seen either the books, or the exhibition, or both. And though he might not have understood the maths, Carl Cepurneek, his sometime collaborator with a PhD in biomedical science, did. Cepurneek is mentioned in several publications and described as a “computer specialist” (McKenzie 1992, p. 64). OstojaFigure often 19. credited A screenshot, him. Indeed, apparently we foundderived a from version the of MandelbrotMa “Id”—probablyndelbrot set, manipulated the best known in a paintbox of Ostoja’s Mandelbrotprogram, works—that andand capturedcaptured is on on co-signed slide slide ﬁlm film byby by Ostoja. Ostoja Ostoja. Published an Publishedd Cepurneek with with permission. (seepermission. Figures Image Image 20 courtesy and courtesy 21), of dated the of State the March 1989.LibraryState It was Library ofreported South of South Australia. that Aust ‘Id’ralia. SLSA:took SLSA: Ostoja PRG919/22/1208. PRG919/22/1208. two hours to produce (McKenzie 1989, p. 64).

Many artists were interested in fractals in the 1980s. Books such as The Beauty of Fractals: Images of complex dynamical systems (Peitgen and Richter 1986) were widely available, and exhibitions of fractal images toured. We have found a reference suggesting that the “Patterns of Chaos” exhibition—comprising 76 3D images which had been touring the world for eight years—was shown at the University of Adelaide, around 1990. It is conceivable that Ostoja would have seen either the books, or the exhibition, or both. And though he might not have understood the maths, Carl Cepurneek, his sometime collaborator with a PhD in biomedical science, did. Cepurneek is mentioned in several publications and described as a “computer specialist” (McKenzie 1992, p. 64). Ostoja often credited him. Indeed, we found a version of “Id”—probably the best known of Ostoja’s Mandelbrot works—that is co-signed by Ostoja and Cepurneek (see Figures 20 and 21), dated March 1989. It was reported that ‘Id’ took Ostoja two hours to produce (McKenzie 1989, p. 64).

Figure 20. “Id”,“Id”, co-signedco-signed byby OstojaOstoja andand Cepurneek,Cepurneek, andand dateddated March March 1989. 1989. SLSA: SLSA: PRG919/21/835. PRG919/21/835. Image courtesy Melanie Swalwell.Swalwell. Published with permission of of SLSA. SLSA.

Figure 20. “Id”, co-signed by Ostoja and Cepurneek, and dated March 1989. SLSA: PRG919/21/835. Image courtesy Melanie Swalwell. Published with permission of SLSA.

Arts 2019, 8, 23 15 of 25 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 23

Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 23

In a post-Photoshop world, the composited images might not seem that remarkable. However, getting work off the screen was an issue many artists using micro-computers grappled with at this time. In terms of their creation, these works are interesting digital-analogue hybrids. Ostoja had a camera mount on his desk (the small white box is visible behind him and to the right in Figure 1) and according to Dahms, he would turn the computer monitor so that it would be square on to the mount. FigureUsing Figure21. 35Close-up mm 21. slideClose-up of film, “Id”, ofhe co-signed “Id”,photographed co-signed by Ostojathe by comp Ostoja anduter andCepurneek, graphics Cepurneek, as andthey and datedwere dated displayedMarch March 1989. 1989.on the SLSA: screen. Samples of some of his CGI slides are seen in Figures 26 and 27. PRG919/21/835.SLSA: PRG919/21/835. Image courtesy Image Melanie courtesy Swalwell. Melanie Swalwell. Published Published with permission with permission of SLSA. of SLSA.

Like Dahms’ friends, Cepurneek had contact with the user group and hobbyist computing scene and was transmitting some of this knowledge to Ostoja. He suspects he found Ostoja a fractal generator, possibly from a user group. Creating “Id” would have involved using at least two different programs, Cepurneek thinks: the Mandelbrot generator, and a basic paint program, “PhotoDesk”, which was a little like early Photoshop. Using these software tools, Ostoja manipulated the Mandelbrot images, often combining them with geometrical shapes, like interlocking triangles (Figure 16), or wrapping them onto spheres. Cepurneek related that he would also show Ostoja things he’d just learned were possible to do on the Archimedes and share interesting parts of the Mandelbrot he’d discovered with him. Cepurneek talked about their collaboration as being like the kind of sharing that went on at computer user group meetings, where someone would figure out something new and go okay, “now everybody can use that new little bit to further the direction they happen to be going in” (private communication). It is possibleFigureFigure22. to 22. Onesee One ofscanlines of Ostoja’s Ostoja’s landscapes landscapeson the smaller withwith CGI.CGI. printed PublishedPublished versions with permi permission. ofssion. ‘Id’. Image ImageCepurneek courtesy courtesy of actually ofthe the counted them as heState explainedState Library Library of ofto South South us Australia. Austthatralia. theSLSA: SLSA: Archimed PRGPRG 919/21/64.919/21/64.es screen resolution was 256 × 640. We found a photographHowever, of Ostoja as with Heather a larger McKenzie version noted, of “Ostoja “Id”, isin nothe computer scrapbooks buff” in (McKenzie the National 1989, p. Museum 58). in Warsaw.She Based quoted on him correspondence as saying of the Mandelbrot:we found in the SLSA archive, we think this was probably printed using MetromediaIt offers the MMT, artist notwhich only was a range a ofthen colours, new but computer/robot-executed a range of forms and shapes. acrylic When using drum painting technology thefor Mandelbrot,outdoor advertising. the graphic imageMcKenzie on the corrobo screen representsrates this, the noting beauty ofthat the a mathematical 2 m × 1.6 m ‘painting’ of “Id” wasformula; created the using artist the recognises MMT andtechnique, responds wh to thisich beauty”.involved (McKenzie “computer 1992 scanning”, pp. 63–64) with superior resolution andWhile quality Ostoja (McKenzie had previously 1989, explored p. 64). using Ostoja mathematics was pleased to create with art, the this results, seems to though have been he felt it still neededlimited re-touching to visual inﬂuences. to be of Since the quality at least the expected 1970s, he for was fine interested art.6 in polyhedron stars and graph theory, for instance, a reproduction from Kircher’s Ars Magna Sciendi ... (1669) was found in Ostoja’s 4.3. Landscapesarchives (SLSAwith CGI PRG 919/22/738). Many artists were interested in fractals in the 1980s. Books such as The Beauty of Fractals: TheImages landscapes of complex with dynamical CGI systems are the(Peitgen latest and works Richter we1986 )are were aware widely of available, that were and exhibitionsmade with the Archimedes.of fractal These images combined toured. digital We have graphics found with a reference analogue suggesting photographs, that the often “Patterns of iconic of Chaos” Australian landscapesexhibition—comprising including Uluru, 76 and 3D images the Devil’s which hadMarble beens touring (Figures the world22–28 for show eight samples years—was from shown this at series).

Our research indicates that these images—which variously bear slide dates of late 1992 and 1993— Figure 23. One of Ostoja’s landscapes with CGI. Published with permission. Image courtesy of the 7 were not exhibitedState Library until of 1994,South Aust theralia. year SLSA: of Ostoja’s PRG919/21/69. death, at the Adelaide Festival.

6 Letter from Ostoja to MMT, dated 5 Dec 1989. The special exhibition “Computer Art” for the 1990 Adelaide Festival was cancelled, so it was not shown then. 7 Electronic media art was excluded from the 1992 Adelaide Biennale of Australian art by the curator. The landscapes with CGI seem to have been shown at the 1994 Adelaide Festival: Some documents suggest that the presentations of Ostoja’s computer graphics were set to music. We found His contribution to the 1994 Festival was a number of slide works in which patterns and lines one slide in the archival collection saying in Polish: “Computer graphics with Vangelis” (SLSA PRG of light919/21/242). and colours Russell were Dahms overlaid remembers with being images invited of to Australian slide shows landscapes. set to music at (The Ostoja’s Advertiser home, so1994). this seems plausible.

Arts 2019, 8, 23 16 of 25 the University of Adelaide, around 1990. It is conceivable that Ostoja would have seen either the books, or the exhibition, or both. And though he might not have understood the maths, Carl Cepurneek, his sometime collaborator with a PhD in biomedical science, did. Cepurneek is mentioned in several publications and described as a “computer specialist” (McKenzie 1992, p. 64). Ostoja often credited him. Indeed, we found a version of “Id”—probably the best known of Ostoja’s Mandelbrot works—that is co-signed by Ostoja and Cepurneek (see Figures 20 and 21), dated March 1989. It was reported that ‘Id’ took Ostoja two hours to produce (McKenzie 1989, p. 64). Like Dahms’ friends, Cepurneek had contact with the user group and hobbyist computing scene and was transmitting some of this knowledge to Ostoja. He suspects he found Ostoja a fractal generator, possibly from a user group. Creating “Id” would have involved using at least two different programs, Cepurneek thinks: the Mandelbrot generator, and a basic paint program, “PhotoDesk”, which was a little like early Photoshop. Using these software tools, Ostoja manipulated the Mandelbrot images, often combining them with geometrical shapes, like interlocking triangles (Figure 16), or wrapping them onto spheres. Cepurneek related that he would also show Ostoja things he’d just learned were possible to do on the Archimedes and share interesting parts of the Mandelbrot he’d discovered with him. Cepurneek talked about their collaboration as being like the kind of sharing that went on at computer user group meetings, where someone would ﬁgure out something new and go okay, “now everybody can use that new little bit to further the direction they happen to be going in” (private communication). It is possible to see scanlines on the smaller printed versions of ‘Id’. Cepurneek actually counted them as he explained to us that the Archimedes screen resolution was 256 × 640. We found a photograph of Ostoja with a larger version of “Id”, in the scrapbooks in the National Museum in Warsaw. Based on correspondence we found in the SLSA archive, we think this was probably printed using Metromedia MMT, which was a then new computer/robot-executed acrylic drum painting technology for outdoor advertising. McKenzie corroborates this, noting that a 2 m × 1.6 m ‘painting’ of “Id” was created using the MMT technique, which involved “computer scanning” with superior resolution and quality (McKenzie 1989, p. 64). Ostoja was pleased with the results, though he felt it still needed re-touching to be of the quality expected for ﬁne art.6

4.3. Landscapes with CGI The landscapes with CGI are the latest works we are aware of that were made with the Archimedes. These combined digital graphics with analogue photographs, often of iconic Australian landscapes including Uluru, and the Devil’s Marbles (Figures 22–28 show samples from this series). Our research indicates that these images—which variously bear slide dates of late 1992 and 1993—were not exhibited until 1994, the year of Ostoja’s death, at the Adelaide Festival.7

His contribution to the 1994 Festival was a number of slide works in which patterns and lines of light and colours were overlaid with images of Australian landscapes. (The Advertiser 1994)

Some documents suggest that the presentations of Ostoja’s computer graphics were set to music. We found one slide in the archival collection saying in Polish: “Computer graphics with Vangelis” (SLSA PRG 919/21/242). Russell Dahms remembers being invited to slide shows set to music at Ostoja’s home, so this seems plausible. Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 23

Arts 2019Figure, 8, 2322. One of Ostoja’s landscapes with CGI. Published with permission. Image courtesy of the17 of 25 State Library of South Australia. SLSA: PRG 919/21/64.

FigureFigure 23. 23. OneOne of of Ostoja’s Ostoja’s landscapes with CGI. Published withwith permission.permission. ImageImage courtesycourtesy ofof the the Arts 2019, 8, x FORStateState PEERLibrary Library REVIEW of of South South Aust Australia.ralia. SLSA: SLSA: PRG919/21/69. 16 of 23

Figure 24.Figure One 24. ofOne Ostoja’s of Ostoja’s landscapes landscapes with with CGI. CGI. Published with with permission. permission. Image Image courtesy courtesy of the of the State LibraryState Libraryof South of SouthAustralia. Australia. SLSA: SLSA: PRG919/21/159. PRG919/21/159.

Figure 25. One of Ostoja’s landscapes with CGI, featuring Mandelbrot imagery mapped onto a sphere. The landscape is the very recognisable Uluru. Published with permission. Image courtesy of the State Library of South Australia., PRG919/21/163.

Figure 26. Slides of the computer-generated imagery, dated January 1993. We think Ostoja shot these directly off the screen using 35 mm slide film. SLSA: PRG919/22/1981-2004. Image courtesy Maria Garda. Published with permission of SLSA.

Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 23 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 23

Figure 24. One of Ostoja’s landscapes with CGI. Published with permission. Image courtesy of the Figure 24. One of Ostoja’s landscapes with CGI. Published with permission. Image courtesy of the StateArts Library2019, 8, 23of South Australia. SLSA: PRG919/21/159. 18 of 25 State Library of South Australia. SLSA: PRG919/21/159.

Figure 25. One of Ostoja’s landscapes with CGI, featuring Mandelbrot imagery mapped onto a sphere. Figure 25. One of Ostoja’s landscapes with CGI, featuring Mandelbrot imagery mapped onto a sphere. FigureThe landscape 25. One ofis theOstoja’s very landscapesrecognisable with Uluru. CGI, Published featuring with Mandelbrot permission. imagery Image mapped courtesy onto of athe sphere. State The landscapeThe landscape is the very is the veryrecognisable recognisable Uluru. Uluru. Published Published with with permission. permission. Image Image courtesy courtesy of the State of the State Library ofLibrary South of Australia., South Australia., PRG919/21/163. PRG919/21/163. Library of South Australia., PRG919/21/163.

Figure 26.Figure Slides 26. ofSlides the ofcomputer-generated the computer-generated imagery, imagery, dateddated January January 1993. 1993. We thinkWe think Ostoja Ostoja shot these shot these Figuredirectly 26. offdirectly Slides the screen off of the the using screen computer-generated 35 using mm 35 slide mm slidefilm. ﬁlm. SLSAimagery, SLSA:: PRG919/22/1981-2004. PRG919/22/1981-2004.dated January 1993. Image ImageWe think courtesy courtesy Ostoja MariaMaria shot Garda. these directlyPublished offGarda. with the screen Published permission using with 35of permission SLSA.mm slide of film. SLSA. SLSA: PRG919/22/1981-2004. Image courtesy Maria Garda. Published with permission of SLSA.

Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 23 Arts 2019, 8, 23 19 of 25 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 23

Figure 27. Close-up of computer-generated imagery that would be combined with the landscape in Figure 29.27. SLSA:Close-upFigure PRG919/22/1981-2004. 27. ofClose-up computer-generated of computer-generated Image imagery imagery courtesy thatthat wouldMaria would be Garda. combined be combined Published with the landscapewith with the inpermission landscape ofin SLSA. Figure 29. SLSA: PRG919/22/1981-2004. Image courtesy Maria Garda. Published with permission Figure 29. SLSA:of SLSA. PRG919/22/1981-2004. Image courtesy Maria Garda. Published with permission of SLSA.

Figure 28. CompositedFigure 28. Composited landscape landscape with CGI with slide, CGI slide, dated dated February February 1993.1993. SLSA: SLSA: PRG919/22/2140. PRG919/22/2140. Image Image courtesy Maria Garda. Published with permission of SLSA. courtesyFigure 28. Maria Composited Garda. Publishedlandscape with permissionCGI slide, dated of SLSA. February 1993. SLSA: PRG919/22/2140. Image courtesy Maria Garda. Published with permission of SLSA.

Figure 29. Mark Strizic. The artist demonstrating equipment for “Sound and Image” kinetic lasers productionsFigure 29. Mark 1960s. Strizic. Black Theand artistwhite demonstratingphotograph. Gift equi ofpment the Estate for of“Sound Edward and Stirling Image” Booth. kinetic Flinders lasers Universityproductions Art 1960s. Museum Black Collection, and white photograph.Papers of Ostoja Gift-Kotkowski, of the Estate Folder of Edward 20. © Stirling the Estate Booth. of the Flinders artist. PublishedUniversity withArt Museum permission. Collection, This is Papersone of ofmany Ostoja photographs-Kotkowski, we Folder found 20. showing© the Estate Ostoja of the with artist. his apparatus.Published withNote permission.the multiple Thisslide isprojectors one of many in the photographs background. we found showing Ostoja with his apparatus. Note the multiple slide projectors in the background.

Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 23

Figure 27. Close-up of computer-generated imagery that would be combined with the landscape in Figure 29. SLSA: PRG919/22/1981-2004. Image courtesy Maria Garda. Published with permission of SLSA.

Figure 28. Composited landscape with CGI slide, dated February 1993. SLSA: PRG919/22/2140. Image Arts 2019, 8, 23 20 of 25 courtesy Maria Garda. Published with permission of SLSA.

Figure 29.Figure Mark 29. Strizic.Mark Strizic. The Theartist artist demonstrating demonstrating equi equipmentpment for for “Sound “Sound and Image”and Image” kinetic kinetic lasers lasers productionsproductions 1960s. 1960s.Black Black and andwhite white photograph. photograph. Gift Gift ofof the the Estate Estate of Edwardof Edward Stirling Stirling Booth. Booth. Flinders Flinders University Art Museum Collection, Papers of Ostoja-Kotkowski, Folder 20. © the Estate of the artist. University Art Museum Collection, Papers of Ostoja-Kotkowski, Folder 20. © the Estate of the artist. Published with permission. This is one of many photographs we found showing Ostoja with his Publishedapparatus. with permission. Note the multiple This slide is one projectors of many in the photographs background. we found showing Ostoja with his apparatus. Note the multiple slide projectors in the background. In a post-Photoshop world, the composited images might not seem that remarkable. However,

getting work off the screen was an issue many artists using micro-computers grappled with at this time. In terms of their creation, these works are interesting digital-analogue hybrids. Ostoja had a camera mount on his desk (the small white box is visible behind him and to the right in Figure1) and according to Dahms, he would turn the computer monitor so that it would be square on to the mount. Using 35 mm slide ﬁlm, he photographed the computer graphics as they were displayed on the screen. Samples of some of his CGI slides are seen in Figures 26 and 27. We are not sure how Ostoja made the composited images, an example of which is seen in slide form in Figure 28. Like many artists working with computers in the micro era, he was concerned with the quality of output from the computer. In 1992, McKenzie wrote:

For the future, Ostoja is working to devise a method which reproduces computer art in its original clarity and colour, as it appears on the screen. At present, he feels that the brilliance of the screen images is lost when transferred to ﬁlm. He feels optimistic that research will ﬁnd a solution and believes that liquid-crystal technology may well provide an answer, allowing an image to be transferred to a liquid-crystal display plate or board. (McKenzie 1992)

We initially thought that Ostoja must have projected the CGI slide images simultaneously with slides of the landscapes and re-photographed these on 35 mm slide ﬁlm. He often used multiple slide projectors at installation events as seen in Figure 29, so this was a reasonable guess (there are many such photographs of him with multiple slide projectors). There were no scanlines visible to us in the landscape elements of these works (unlike, say in Figure4, the Einstein image), suggesting the landscapes were analogue images. Furthermore, in the course of his proposal to Tony Salvis of Barton computers in Collingwood (to whom Ostoja proposed trading some of his artworks for a computer memory upgrade, from 1 to 4 MB), Ostoja suggested that the images might be exhibited this way, though he clearly recognised that this was not an ideal solution. However, projection on the one screen would not explain how the black backgrounds of the CGI images were masked. We assume some kind Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 23

We are not sure how Ostoja made the composited images, an example of which is seen in slide form in Figure 28. Like many artists working with computers in the micro era, he was concerned with the quality of output from the computer. In 1992, McKenzie wrote: For the future, Ostoja is working to devise a method which reproduces computer art in its original clarity and colour, as it appears on the screen. At present, he feels that the brilliance of the screen images is lost when transferred to film. He feels optimistic that research will find a solution and believes that liquid-crystal technology may well provide an answer, allowing an image to be transferred to a liquid-crystal display plate or board. (McKenzie 1992). We initially thought that Ostoja must have projected the CGI slide images simultaneously with slides of the landscapes and re-photographed these on 35 mm slide film. He often used multiple slide projectors at installation events as seen in Figure 29, so this was a reasonable guess (there are many such photographs of him with multiple slide projectors). There were no scanlines visible to us in the landscape elements of these works (unlike, say in Figure 4, the Einstein image), suggesting the landscapes were analogue images. Furthermore, in the course of his proposal to Tony Salvis of Barton computers in Collingwood (to whom Ostoja proposed trading some of his artworks for a computer Artsmemory2019, 8 ,upgrade, 23 from 1 to 4 MB), Ostoja suggested that the images might be exhibited this21 way, of 25 though he clearly recognised that this was not an ideal solution. However, projection on the one screen would not explain how the black backgrounds of the CGI images were masked. We assume ofsome scanner kind mustof scanner have been must used, have though been used, this is thou speculationgh this is at speculation the moment. at Currently the moment. Ostoja’s Currently slides areOstoja’s accessible slides to are researchers, accessible but to notresearchers, his disks, but so ournot analysishis disks, has so been our conductedanalysis has without been theconducted benefit ofwithout access the to thebenefit digital of access files. Itto is the hoped digital that files. further It is hoped clues asthat to further the creation clues ofas theseto theimages creation might of these be foundimages once might Ostoja’s be found floppy once disks Ostoja’s are imaged floppy and disks made are accessibleimaged and to researchers made accessible (Figures to 30researchers–32 show some(Figures of his30–32 floppy show disks, some from of his the floppy State Library disks, offrom South the AustraliaState Library archive). of South Access Australia to the disks archive). may alsoAccess clarify to the which disks computer may also systemclarify which the Christmas computer star system was programmed the Christmas on. star was programmed on.

Figure 30. One of Ostoja’s ﬂoppyfloppy disks, showing his descriptive use of line drawings to label disks, and hishis referencereference toto thethe Mandelbrot-derivedMandelbrot-derived images images using using everyday everyday referents referents which which they they resembled resembled in somein some way way (“ﬂower”, (“flower”, “frequency”). “frequency”). SLSA SLSA disks disks taken taken in Flinders in Flinders Computer Computer Archaeology Archaeology Lab. Image Lab. Arts 2019courtesyImage, 8, x courtesy FOR Melanie PEER Melanie REVIEW Swalwell. Swalwell. Published Published with permission with permission of SLSA. of SLSA. 19 of 23

Figure 31. One of Ostoja’s ﬂoppyfloppy disks, showing his descriptive use of line drawings to label disks, and use of white-out on disk labels. SLSA disks ta takenken in Flinders Computer Archaeology Lab. Image courtesy Melanie Swalwell. Published with permission of of SLSA. SLSA.

Figure 32. One of Ostoja’s floppy disks, clearly showing neologisms (e.g., “Seamandel”, “Bubelbrot”), descriptive use of line drawings, and use of white-out on disk labels. SLSA disks taken in Flinders Computer Archaeology Lab. Image courtesy Melanie Swalwell. Published with permission of SLSA.

5. Concluding Thoughts By way of conclusion, we offer three sets of reflections, drawing from and contextualising this case study. First, we note that Ostoja’s uses of the micro diverged in several important ways from those of his contemporaries, both Australian and international artists. Internationally, not very many artists seem to have used low-end consumer micro-computers as Ostoja did. An as yet unpublished but related survey of computer art catalogues held in the Patric Prince collection at the Victoria and Albert Museum, reveals that of those artists who were making ‘computer art’ from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, a considerable proportion were working with higher end systems, e.g., Qantel Paintboxes, Silicon Graphics workstations, or machines in commercial or military or university premises (e.g., David Em used the machines at the Jet Propulsion Labs). In the Australian context, Ostoja seems to have been working in quite a different paradigm and also exhibiting different concerns to his contemporaries. Computer art theorist, Grant D. Taylor, writes that many artists of the 1980s understood their practice in terms of photographic theory, and the continental philosophies that attached to postmodernism, but that this was an ill-fitting paradigm for much computer art, which shared allegiances with science and technology and the modernist paradigm (Taylor 2014, p. 23). The potential to make art using microcomputers was embraced by younger Australian artists in

Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 23

Figure 31. One of Ostoja’s floppy disks, showing his descriptive use of line drawings to label disks, Arts 2019and, 8use, 23 of white-out on disk labels. SLSA disks taken in Flinders Computer Archaeology Lab. Image22 of 25 courtesy Melanie Swalwell. Published with permission of SLSA.

Figure 32. OneOne of of Ostoja’s Ostoja’s floppy ﬂoppy disks, disks, clearly clearly showing showing ne neologismsologisms (e.g., (e.g., “Seamandel”, “Seamandel”, “Bubelbrot”), “Bubelbrot”), descriptive use of line drawings, and use of white-outwhite-out on disk labels. SLSA disks taken in Flinders Computer Archaeology Lab. Image courtesy Melanie Swalwell. Published with permission of of SLSA. SLSA.

5. Concluding Concluding Thoughts By way of conclusion, we offer three sets of reﬂections,reflections, drawing from and contextualising this case study. First, First, we we note that Ostoja’s uses of the micro diverged in several important ways from those of of his his contemporaries, contemporaries, both both Australian Australian and and inte internationalrnational artists. artists. Internationally, Internationally, not very not many very artistsmany seem artists to seem have toused have low-end used consumer low-end consumer micro-computers micro-computers as Ostoja did. as OstojaAn as yet did. unpublished An as yet butunpublished related survey but related of computer survey art of catalogues computer held art catalogues in the Patric held Prince in the collection Patric Princeat the Victoria collection and at Albertthe Victoria Museum, and Albertreveals Museum, that of those reveals artists that who of those were artistsmaking who ‘computer were making art’ from ‘computer the late art’1970s from to the lateearly 1970s 1990s, to thea considerable early 1990s, aproportion considerable were proportion working werewith workinghigher end with systems, higher ende.g., systems, Qantel Paintboxes,e.g., Qantel Silicon Paintboxes, Graphics Silicon workstations, Graphics workstations, or machines or in machines commercial in commercialor military oror militaryuniversity or premisesuniversity (e.g., premises David (e.g., Em Davidused the Em machines used the machinesat the Jet atPropulsion the Jet Propulsion Labs). In Labs).the Australian In the Australian context, Ostojacontext, seems Ostoja to seems have to been have working been working in quite in quite a di afferent different paradigm paradigm and and also also exhibiting exhibiting different different concerns to his contemporaries. Computer Computer art art theori theorist,st, Grant Grant D. D. Taylor, Taylor, writes that many artists of the 1980s 1980s understood understood their their practice practice in in terms terms of of photographic photographic theory, theory, and and the the continental continental philosophies philosophies that attached to to postmodernism, but but that that this this wa wass an an ill-fitting ill-ﬁtting paradigm paradigm for for much much computer computer art, art, which sharedshared allegiancesallegiances with with science science and and technology technology and and the the modernist modernist paradigm paradigm (Taylor (Taylor 2014 2014,, p. 23 p.). 23).The The potential potential to make to make art usingart using microcomputers microcomputers was was embraced embraced by youngerby younger Australian Australian artists artists in the in 1980s, many of whom came from either a visual arts or musical background. Only a few were programming, interfacing electronics with computers, or using code to generate imagery, however, with the majority of the visual artists, at least, tending toward video art. Apart from offering a convenient output for computer work, video artists were—per Taylor’s thesis—working with a lexicon of photographic and moving image aesthetics.8 Though Ostoja was no stranger to multimedia shows, his work with the computer produced a visual art that was about still rather than moving images. Indeed, at a time when local artists were eschewing the landscape tradition—curator Peter Callas suggests post-war Australians may be more interested in, and comfortable with mediascapes

8 Though Ostoja did not belong to this cohort, he was clearly known and respected by local artists. He corresponded with Stelarc (there was talk of them collaborating on a project in Adelaide, but the funding didn’t eventuate) and Stephen Jones. Stelarc noted that:

... he was one of the few, perhaps the only, Australian artist working with technology and lasers at that time ... I think he’s an Australian artist who deserves more credit ... I was highly inﬂuenced by his use of technology, of searching for an alternate aesthetic that wasn’t based in the traditional media. (Stelarc 1994, p. 378) Arts 2019, 8, 23 23 of 25

(Callas 1994, p. 5)—Ostoja was captivated by the quality of Australian light and remade iconic landscapes, juxtaposing natural elements with CGI, inventing a hybrid (digital-analogue) aesthetic. His practice produced a distinct aesthetic from others working with computers at the time, who were embracing grainy, pixelated images, utilising the computer as an animation tool. More than 20 years later, Ostoja’s defamiliarised landscapes remain remarkably fresh: they are no longer just Uluru or the Devil’s Marbles. Denaturalised, they almost seem to make visible an unseen energy or presence. Second, Ostoja’s use of micros suggests that there is a need for an expansion of the narrative on artists’ uses of microcomputers in the 1980s that goes beyond that of the “artist-programmer” and “user of off-the-shelf-software” continuum. In his “A little piece on Algorithmic Art” from 1987, Bill Kolomyjec offers a narrative on how artists came to computing and developed application software:

In the beginning there was no application software. If a person wanted to be creative with a computer, i.e., be a computer artist, s/he had to either write algorithms or collaborate with someone who could. Application software often grew out of such collaborations or dialogs between artist/designers and engineer/scientists. People who knew how to write algorithms began to provide software for the less knowledgeable. Eventually, artist/designers acquired these skills for themselves. (Kolomyjec 1987, p. 3)

Ostoja’s practice complicates the scenario Kolomyjec outlines and offers a useful case for rethinking the narrative around the extent to which artists were able to experiment with micro-computers in the period. Often, the narrative seems to be that artists were either hamstrung by the software they had available, or by their limited coding abilities, and that these were factors that impeded experimentation. Ostoja is neither an artist-programmer nor just a user of off-the-shelf application software. He collaborates not just with programmers (Cepurneek, Dahms), but also with a technician with a deep expertise in electronics (Dahms), to undertake a range of artistic experiments that exceed the category of ‘software’ or ‘algorithm’. His extensive use of assistants was arguably a collaborative method that he was well used to from years of collaboration, working in labs, and befuddling technicians. He was heavily reliant on others to do the programming and circuitry, having no understanding nor grasp of either programming or electronics, and “no capability”, as Dahms put it. According to Dahms, Ostoja was always more interested in the outcome than in understanding how the electronics worked.9 Yet the Archimedes seems to have given him a remarkable degree of creative control. He could do much more on his own with the computer than with other equipment. Using Dahm’s program for the BP star, he could try different settings by himself; not to mention the countless hours he must have spent tinkering with the Mandelbrot images in editing programs. He once described the computer as the ‘artist’s apprentice’ (Harris 1989), and in a sense, for him, it was. As Edwards writes:

He was able to harness the knowledge of others when his inspiration was not matched by his technological knowledge, and by doing so, extended the freedom of the artists who were to follow, who found themselves no longer bound by convention and form. (Edwards 2009, p. 33)

9 Ostoja was eloquent on the role of computers in art, and the potential he saw for computing: it was only ‘natural’— “painters will move from brushes to ... ” computers (SLSA PRG 919/3/58). He was always looking for new techniques and possibilities, always in search of the artist’s palette of the future that would combine science and art. Electronics played a signiﬁcant part in his vision, from early on. For example, in an interview from 1970 he said: “Electronics today helps us to execute ideas which we could once only dream about.” And “Exhibitions around the world have proved that electronics can be used very successfully in the works of art, in the exhibitions and the exhibits” (Scarfe 1971). But while electronics was central to his vision, he did not feel that he himself had to master the domain. In the same interview he comments, in response to the question: “ ... to be able to do electronics you must surely have had electronics training?”, “It’s analogous to you driving a car without knowing how the car is built, you don’t have to know how the engine is built in order to know how to [drive] it”. In McKenzie’s article, Ostoja is quoted as saying: “A pianist doesn’t have to know how to build a piano to play it” (McKenzie 1989, p. 64) Arts 2019, 8, 23 24 of 25

Ostoja’s practice calls for a rethinking of the assumption whereby programming competence is thought to equal greater capacity for experimentation. His collaborative method of working with the microcomputer and others with specialist skills presaged many of the art-science collaborations that are undertaken today (such as the Synapse program run by ANAT). Edwards actually calls Ostoja an “artist-scientist” (Edwards 2009, p. 27). Other artists at the time were mostly doing solo works, whereas he was seeking out knowledgeable others who could take his art somewhere he could not on his own. Finally, the Ostoja case study demonstrates the great value of an expanded approach to what we call ‘creative micro-computing’. The imbrication of different creative computing scenes at this time—from art to hobbyist/computer tinkerer, to electronics, to professional science-maths knowledge—is well illustrated. It was through Dahms and his friends that Ostoja was connected to the BBC Computer User group. Meanwhile, as a postdoctoral biomedical research specialist, Cepurneek provided contacts to both the professional research sector and the Archimedes hobbyist computing scene.10 These connections and collaborations followed on from earlier ones Ostoja had enjoyed with many labs, industries, scientists and technicians (3M, Philips, Weapons Research, CSIRO), and universities (Budrewicz 1982, p. 19). There is also good evidence of him reaching out to commercial entities, such as computer companies (including Barton Computers in Collingwood and the Australian branch of Acorn), seeking their support for the further development of his computer graphics, and offering samples of his art as a showcase of what could be produced using their machines. In this, he was not alone: preliminary ﬁeldwork indicates that many artists working with micros during the period were working in and proximate to industry as well as to art scenes (examples in Australia include Sally Pryor and Linda Dement). Others were connected to enthusiast culture. Yet such an expanded approach to computer art history has rarely if ever been undertaken. The Ostoja case study supports our argument for an expanded microcomputer history, one that is able to attend to the crossovers between art, industry, and hobbyist pursuits. Rather than a media arts history that is only curious about what artists were doing, or a computer history that ignores the popular, it is important to attend to the overlaps and the nexus between different computing scenes. This is something we expect our future work to contribute to.

Author Contributions: Funding acquisition, M.S.; Investigation, M.S. and M.B.G.; Project administration, M.S.; Writing—original draft, M.S.; Writing—review & editing, M.S. and M.B.G. Funding: This research was funded by the Australian Research Council, grant number FT130100391. Acknowledgments: We acknowledge Flinders University which provided co-investment funding to support Garda’s postdoctoral position. We also thank the staff of the archives we consulted, particularly the State Library of South Australia and Flinders University Art Museum, for their assistance in preparing and permission to re-publish images. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest.

References

Beddard, Honor, and Douglas Dodds. 2009. V&A Pattern: Digital Pioneers. London: V&A Publishing. Brown, Paul, Charlie Gere, Nicholas Lambert, and Catherine Mason, eds. 2008. White Heat Cold Logic: British Computer Art 1960–1980. Cambridge: MIT Press. Budrewicz, Olgierd. 1982. Wsrod Polskich Kangurow. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Interpress. Callas, Peter. 1994. An Eccentric Orbit: Video Art in Australia (Catalogue Essay). New York: American Federation of Arts, pp. 4–7. Cancel, Luis R. 1987. Introduction. In The Second Emerging Expression Biennial: The Artist and the Computer. New York: The Bronx Museum of the Arts. Edwards, June. 2009. Explorer in Light. Biblioﬁle, 27–33.

10 We are still searching to see whether there might be a demo-scene connection. Arts 2019, 8, 23 25 of 25

Garda, Maria B. Forthcoming. Microcomputers. In Alternative Media Usage During the Decline of the Polish People’s Republic. Edited by Piotr Sitarski, Maria B. Garda and Krzysztof Jajko. Lodz: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Lodzkiego. Harris, Samela. 1989. Computer Artist Takes a Byte of the Future. The Advertiser, December 14. Jenkins, Henry. 2006. Convergence Culture. New York and London: New York University Press. Jones, Stephen. 2011. Synthetics: Aspects of Art and Technology in Australia. Cambridge: MIT Press. Kolomyjec, Bill. 1987. A Little Piece on Algorithmic Art. Paper presented at SCAN Seventh Annual Symposium on Small Computers in the Arts, Philadelphia, PA, USA, October 9–11. Macdonald, Ian S. 2005. Josef Stanislaw Ostoja-Kotkowski: Explorer in Light and Sound. Ph.D. thesis, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, Australia. McKenzie, Heather. 1989. Requiem for a Paintbrush. The Australian Magazine, October 17, 56–59, 64. McKenzie, Heather. 1992. Images from Chaos. Craft Arts International 25: 62–64. Ostoja-Kotkowski, Stanislaw. 1975. Audio-Kinetic Art with Laser Beams and Electronic Systems. Leonardo 8: 142–44. [CrossRef] Peitgen, Heinz-Otto, and Peter H. Richter. 1986. The Beauty of Fractals: Images of Complex Dynamical Systems. Berlin: Springer. Scarfe, Robert. 1971. Untitled interview with Ostoja-Kotkowski. The Griffen, March 10, 3. Stelarc. 1994. Just Beaut to Have Three Hands (Interviewed by Martin Thomas). Continuum 8: 377–94. [CrossRef] Stringer, John. 1992. Ostoja’s Computer Graphics. Stuckey, Helen, Melanie Swalwell, and Angela Ndalianis. 2013. The Popular Memory Archive: Collecting and Exhibiting Player Culture from the 1980s. In Making the History of Computing Relevant. Edited by Arthur Tatnall, Tilly Blyth and Roger Johnson. Berlin and Heidelberg: IFIP/Springer. Stuckey, Helen, Melanie Swalwell, Angela Ndalianis, and Denise De Vries. 2015. Remembering & Exhibiting Games Past: The Popular Memory Archive. Transactions of DiGRA 2. Available online: http://todigra.org/ index.php/todigra/article/view/40 (accessed on 30 December 2018). Sunday Mail. 1971. 20-story star. Sunday Mail, December 4, 12. Swalwell, Melanie. 2008. 1980s Home Coding: The Art of Amateur Programming. In Aotearoa Digital Arts Reader. Edited by Stella Brennan and Su Ballard. Auckland: Clouds/ADA, pp. 193–201. Swalwell, M. 2012. Questions about the Usefulness of Microcomputers in 1980s Australia. Media International Australia 143: 63–77. [CrossRef] Swalwell, Melanie, Helen Stuckey, and Angela Ndalianis, eds. 2017. Fans and Videogames: Histories, Fandom, Archives. New York and Oxon: Routledge. Taylor, Grant D. 2014. When the Machine Made Art: The Troubled History of Computer Art. New York and London: Bloomsbury Academic. The Advertiser. 1992. Laser Artist’s Dream in Sight. The Advertiser, January 25. The Advertiser. 1994. Master who was light years ahead, Obituary: Stan Ostoja-Kotkowski 1922–94. The Advertiser. Tofts, Darren. 2005. Interzone: Media Arts in Australia. Fisherman’s Bend: Thames & Hudson. UNESCO. 2008. Archives of Joseph Stanislaus Ostoja-Kotkowski. Available online: http://www.amw.org.au/ register/listings/archives-joseph-stanislaus-ostoja-kotkowski (accessed on 30 December 2018). Victorian Heritage Database. 2019. Former BP House: Statement of Signiﬁcance. Available online: https: //vhd.heritagecouncil.vic.gov.au/places/183680 (accessed on 30 December 2018). Zurbrugg, Nicholas. 1994. Electronic Arts in Australia. Continuum 8.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, 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/).