S of Real-Time Computing

historical perspective Early Visions of Interactivity: The In(put)s and Out(put)s of Real-Time Computing

Andrew Utterson

a b s t r a c t

Analyzing technical and other texts of the late 1960s and early 1970s, this paper explores hile the notion of interactivity is today a gineers, articulated a desire to inter- the early discourses of inter- W activity—including writings by familiar and widely discussed aspect of the discourses and act with computers as quickly and aesthetics of computing, it was 40 years ago, in the late 1960s easily as they might converse with Charles Csuri, J.C.R. Licklider, and early 1970s, that artists and technologists first explored people or work with other tools. Michael Noll, Ivan Sutherland and other notable figures—via this phenomenon in detail. Notably, these endeavors fore- Considerable possibilities were seen the intersecting fields of comput- grounded a certain type of interactivity, in a conception of in this mode of computing; input ing and the arts, with a particu- the term that differs from contemporary usage; it primarily would be transmitted to the display lar emphasis on the dynamic involved aligning the artist with the role of programmer and in less than the fifteenth of a second (in this instance, a disjuncture) between visionary ideas and the a more fluid mode of input and output in the creative act of for which persistence of vision oc- technical preconditions neces- programming. This focus was a precursor to the more complex curs, with computations processed sary for their realization. interactivity of an end-user’s engagement with a computer pro- fast enough to give the impression cess flexible enough to allow feedback and control. of an immediate response. Such im- Provocative proclamations emerged, most notably in the mediacy was defined as real time: context of technological developments in computer input and “That is,” according to Charles Csuri of Ohio State University, output that were part of a growing culture of so-called real- “time which is ‘real’ because the moment the user makes a de- time computing. While interactive interfaces were not alto- cision also becomes the moment of materialization” [1]. This gether new, advances in input and output devices and related type of operation was still a rarity, despite notable precedents programming occasioned a heightened interest in real-time such as Whirlwind and the Semi-Automatic Ground Environ- computing and in the significant potential of artists’ interac- ment (SAGE) [2] (Fig. 1), as well as the Digital Equipment tive engagement with computers. Corporation (DEC) PDP-1, the first commercially available In research laboratories—not least (but not exclusively) computer to foreground a more direct and responsive rela- in the U.S.A., site of a number of high-tech hubs—and via tionship between operator and computer. a flurry of technical and other papers, artists and technologists attempted to grapple with the computer’s changing na- ture. These efforts were part of a concerted shift away from punch cards (in terms of input) and printed paper (in terms Fig. 1. SAGE: An early example of real-time computing that is not a of output) and toward sequential batch processing as a modus part of the arts environment. The SAGE system allowed interactive operandi. input from its operators, who monitored the visualization of flight paths through a graphics-based interface used to select and interact Looking back, what models of interactivity were proposed? with individual trajectories using a light-gun device. (Courtesy of In what ways did these conceptions anticipate the discourses IBM Archives) and practices of today? What dynamic existed between concep- tual developments and the technical preconditions necessary for their realization?

Batch Processing vs. Real-Time Computing In the late 1960s and early 1970s, artists and technologists alike sought a more direct, flexible, intuitive relationship with computers. Artists of various kinds, alongside scientists and en-

Andrew Utterson (educator), Roy H. Park School of Communications, Ithaca College, Ithaca, NY 14850, U.S.A. E-mail: . See for supplemental files associated with this issue.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LEON_a_00487 by guest on 27 September 2021 from responsive enough for the specific needs of filmmakers and other artists. Ivan Sutherland pointed to a similar difficulty when he described a bespoke programming language designed and employed by Knowlton for the creation of computer animation (Fig. 3). “The hard part of using Knowlton’s language is figuring out what the picture is going to look like as you write,” Suther- land complained, describing what he perceived as one of a number of “unresolved problems” in the area of computer graphics.

Since you want an artistic picture, you have to make a little sketch ahead of time on graph paper. You then pick off the coordinates from the sketch and jot the coordinates down on a piece of paper to give to the computer. Knowlton’s language has the motion capability but it doesn’t have the online characteristics. I should be able to sit at the console and draw what I want. I should be able to ad- just it until it is artistic. I don’t care about the exact coordinates and I shouldn’t have to write them down [4].

Such ideas reflected Sutherland’s earlier work at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he pioneered a key interactive design program. Intro- duced in 1963, Sketchpad [5] (Fig. 4), as Fig. 2. IBM 29 Card Punch, circa 1964: The card punch machine is emblematic of the era Sutherland’s software was known, func- of batch processing when code would be keypunched into cards (or tape). After the punch- tioned as part of a system that combined ing was done, a dedicated system operator would sequentially schedule and batch tasks for a display and a light pen—technology computer execution at a later time. (Courtesy of IBM Archives) derived from the earlier Whirlwind and SAGE—with the more general apparatus of a keyboard and control board. Although conceived in the context of Real-time computing was crucial to ful scheduling, over the load placed on electrical engineering, Sketchpad never- the development of the discourse con- the computer. This was in diametrical op- theless conveyed a significant aesthetic cerning the computer as a potentially position to the mode of real-time com- dimension. Line drawings could be gen- interactive machine, based on the de- puting, which requires a processor that erated interactively by using the light velopment of computer graphics as an can respond immediately (or as nearly pen directly on the display, in conjunc- intuitive interface between input and so as to be perceived as such), process- tion with a control board comprising a output. While one can imagine a mode ing data as fast as it is input, in order to series of knobs, buttons and switches, of interactivity that does not occur in real enable direct control by, and feedback the results of the manipulation of which time, or real-time operations that do not to, the operator. could be viewed nearly instantaneously. involve a significant degree of interactiv- In batch operation, a disparity existed The user could draw simple geometric ity, the discourse of the late 1960s and between the speed of thought and the shapes but could also manipulate and early 1970s witnessed an effort to con- ability to implement these thoughts. For modify these designs in a series of ways: ceptualize these principles as deeply example, Ken Knowlton of Bell Labora- moving an object around the screen, intertwined. tories stated, regarding his collaboration storing it in memory, zooming in and Real-time computing represented a with filmmaker Stan VanDerBeek: out and so on. “The Sketchpad system,” departure from the existing practice of Sutherland proclaimed, “by eliminating sequential batch processing, a type of When VanDerBeek says “let’s try this typed statements (except for legends) combination,” my immediate reaction computing that emerged as a response is to think for a while about what this in favor of line drawings, opens up a to the high cost of computers and the means, and in the meantime his mind new area of man-machine communica- length of time that one would typically is already off on something else. With tion” [6]. An interactive interface was take to complete a task, due to con- the present batch system, we do perhaps seen as fundamental to the prospect of straints of processing power, memory equally well at discovering interesting liberating the operator to engage with designs; with a much-to-be-preferred in- and so on. Tasks would be batched to- teractive system he’d be far ahead [3]. the computer in unprecedented ways— gether, coded using a card punch (Fig. whether in electrical engineering or 2) and processed in sequence at a later The use of punch cards as input and beyond. time. The major benefit of this approach batch processing as the computational In contrast to this perceived ideal, the was the control, achieved through care- means of dealing with this input was far computers first encountered by artists of

68 Utterson, Early Visions of Interactivity

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LEON_a_00487 by guest on 27 September 2021 Fig. 3. Kenneth C. Knowlton, Collideoscope (detail, 1966). A frame Fig. 4. Ivan Sutherland’s 1963 Sketchpad design system was used illustration from Collideoscope, a computer animation produced for the real-time creation, manipulation and visualization of by Stan VanDerBeek (with Knowlton) using an extended process geometric shapes on a display. (Reprinted with permission of MIT that involved plotting coordinates ahead of batch processing. Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, Massachusetts.) (© Kenneth C. Knowlton)

that time could not yet be used interactive potential, framing their discussion in In the immediate display of an artwork tively, because of the delay of minutes, terms of the “new form possibilities that as it was generated via the computer, the hours and even days involved in batch can be generated by the computer” [10] animator, like traditional artists, was able processing. Writing while at Bell Labora- and “the prospect of a new medium to to control numerous parameters and im- tories in 1967, Michael Noll recognized enable the exploration of visual ideas” mediately see the effects of their applica- that “the computer has creative poten- [11]. In pursuing such “new form pos- tion. tialities beyond those of just a simple sibilities,” Csuri aimed to establish an in- While not referring explicitly to tool,” but also noted that “the computer teractive system that explicitly invited the Sutherland, Csuri even proposed a com- medium is still restrictive in that there artist’s participation, one that would be parison between the paper sketchpad is a rather long time delay between the dedicated to the specific issue of animat- of the traditional artist and the “spe- running of the computer program and ing objects in real time. What Csuri ar- cial sketchpad” provided by the com- the production of the final graphical or rived at, in the first instance, was a system puter. “Let us imagine,” he proposed, acoustic output” [7] (Fig. 5). that operated not unlike Sutherland’s “an artist with a special sketchpad upon Sketchpad. Using IBM computers, pro- which he can draw his symbols. Such a grammed using FORTRAN (a general sketchpad allows symbols and words to Toward the scientific language developed by IBM in change their size and shape, to move Artist-Programmer 1957), connected to a display unit and in time and space, where he can illus- Those who did experiment with com- a light pen similar to that pioneered by trate his ideas dynamically with moving puters looked ahead to a revised techno- Sutherland, the operator could place an images” [13]. Instead of paper, Csuri logical apparatus and associated mode of object into motion or change its shape used a display connected to a computer, interactive operation. For example, film- and size, manipulating its properties with images composed using a light maker John Whitney—who spent time and dimensions directly through the pen—instead of a traditional pencil— in residence at IBM between 1966 and display. in conjunction with a set of computer 1969—argued in favor of the expressive Computer animation in particular was programs. “Through the use of buttons potential of real-time computing. “One seen as capable of providing the artist and switches next to the TV set,” Csuri thing that is urgently necessary is real with a dynamic means through which to continued, time,” he proposed. “I think as soon as view the interactive process, one that was we have computer graphic systems with the consequence of his or her interven- he [the artist] can control the size, rotation, speed and the viewing angle of his this kind of fluidity . . . then we’re going tion, providing instant feedback. “A com- images. . . . With the light pen he can to be able to achieve something fantastic” puter environment for film animation is draw a path which his images will follow [8]. J.C.R. Licklider, meanwhile, went so a unique application of the computer for and then the computer solves the prob- far as to declare that “the most important artistic purposes,” Csuri argued, empha- lem of drawing all the individual frames things computers can do for the arts are sizing the importance of a visual inter- or drawings (twenty-four frames per second) to make it appear as motion picture to enhance the interaction between the face. film [14]. artist and his work” [9], affirming the po- In this “real-time” environment the ani- tential role of programming as a creative mator has the opportunity to see his vi- The cathode-ray tube (CRT) display in process. sual ideas animated almost as rapidly as particular changed how a person might Elsewhere, the collaborative pair of he can make certain artistic decisions. work with and respond to—that is, in- He can study many alternatives to an Csuri, in the role of “artist,” and James artistic problem within a short period teract with—the computer. Competing Shaffer, in the role of “technologist,” of time before he commits the result to methods of early output included print- likewise wrote of the computer’s interac- film [12]. ers—which could produce simple pat-

Utterson, Early Visions of Interactivity 69

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LEON_a_00487 by guest on 27 September 2021 terns composed of numbers, letters and other symbols—and graphics plotters— Fig. 5. An example of mechanical drawing devices, driven by Michael Noll’s “graph- computers, which could plot coordinates ical output” in the and delineate linear configurations. form of stereoscopic The screen-based display represented a pairs used in his computer animation more intuitive interface than either the Three-Dimensional printer or plotter. As Jasia Reichardt, cu- Computer-Generated rator of the influential 1968 Cybernetic Movies (1965). Far Serendipity exhibition at the Institute of from real-time or Contemporary Arts, London, noted, the interactive, the creation of the work display offered a “distinct advantage in involved a significant that it could be used interactively, that delay between com- is, it allows direct access to the person puter input and sub- drawing so that he can alter the image sequent output. (© A. Michael Noll) or the data with no significant lapse of time” [15], quite in contrast to the time it would take a printer or graphics plotter to render its output. “He is able to control many parameters in combina- tions of his own choice,” Reichardt continued, “and is able to evaluate the tours of an evolving apparatus, Noll its initial creation is just as important as relationships of the forms he is manip- wrote, the initial relationship between artist and ulating, making use of both intuition computer, was also widely discussed in and the knowledge of the problem Equipment has recently become avail- this milieu, long prior to the universal- able for immediate real-time visual dis- in hand” [16]. plays of computer-generated data. This ity of such principles. In this sense, the Whitney, likewise, spoke of the com- equipment usually uses a large cathode- discourse of the era largely predated the puter’s increasingly “interactive conve- ray tube to display the data, and pro- technical preconditions and other de- nience,” referring to the ability to see the vides light pens and other facilities for terminants necessary for their practical results of his programming in something interacting with the computer while the program is running [22]. realization. close to real time, adding that “design Several artists, filmmakers, etc. took ideas can be formulated, input into the Indeed, recalling the “new area of up the challenge of working toward a computer at a typewriter keyboard and man-machine communication” referred new type of computer art, defined ac- then displayed by a selectable sampling to by Sutherland, as well as Licklider’s no- cording to the kind of interactivity de- of the action, all in rather rapid order” tion of “man-computer symbiosis” [23], scribed by Licklider as an “amenability [17]. This “rapid order” was far removed Noll pointed to the “tightening of the to intervention, alteration, influence, or from punch-card programming, in which man-machine feedback loop” [24] of- control by an external agent” [27]. Such artists were unable to see their output fered by such technology, whereby “an art then was defined not only in terms until long after input—with the display artist-programmer can interact with the of the interactive input of the artist in in particular for Whitney “beginning computer through an intermediary dis- the creation of his or her work—some- to present new real-time visualizations” play unit” [25], seeing in real time the thing taken for granted in most forms of [18]. results of his or her programming. The art but rendered difficult by the batch Input devices developed in the 1960s roles of “artist” and “programmer” were operation and other computing con- [19] advanced the idea that the com- conceptualized as increasingly linked—a straints of the time—but by real-time puter might further evolve as an interac- reflection of the changing characteristics engagement, as Licklider put it, “be- tive machine, founded on real-time input of the computer and its status as what tween the appreciator and the artist’s and output mediated through computer Expanded Cinema (1970) author Gene product” [28], whereby the “apprecia- graphics. The light pen, for example, Youngblood described as “the aesthetic tor” might interact with a work in its un- applied directly to the face of a display, machine” [26]. folding. could be used to cause the screen to react Yet, if developments in real-time or in- Csuri and Shaffer, for example, contin- in nuanced ways (Fig. 6). Other devices teractive computing were starting to oc- ued to pursue the quest for a real-time or included the graphics tablet, the first of cur for the “artist-programmer” referred interactive mode of animation, a type of which was produced in 1964 by research- to by Noll, what of the end-user? How computer graphics experienced and en- ers at the Rand Corporation [20]. By po- could the initial conception of interac- gaged with using a joystick, dials, a light sitioning a stylus on the tablet, as opposed tivity between artist and technology be pen and other input devices, rather than to directly onto a display, the operator expanded to encompass the relationship viewed as a singular, fixed object. “This could produce finely detailed drawings between the end-user—the spectator, kind of computer art,” Csuri explained, that were mirrored on the screen. Else- viewer, etc.—and a work of computer- “exists for the time the participant and where, Douglas Engelbart’s mouse––now based art? the computer with the CRT display are universal, but first demonstrated in 1968 interacting as a process. The art object [21]—offered an additional means of is not the computer or the display, but interactive input. Toward the the activity of both interacting with the Increasingly, such technology did be- Interactive End-User participant” [29]. An artwork, such as a gin to change the relationship between This more complex mode of interactivity, film, could be plural, occurring in mul- artist and computer. Outlining the con- in which interaction with a work beyond tiple forms through the engagement

70 Utterson, Early Visions of Interactivity

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LEON_a_00487 by guest on 27 September 2021 of the butterflies, but only within the limits of the starting state (the several butterflies on the screen) and the internal complexities of the algorithm [35].

The authoring of such a work would be decentralized, split between the artist, computer and end-user, who would collectively determine and process, through various modes of interactive engagement, the contours of its evolving forms. Yet, revealing a disparity between the elevated discourse of the era and the realization of experiments in this area, Csuri also acknowledged the current limitations of achievements in such art, suggesting the endurance of existing aesthetic and cultural paradigms. Describ- ing the linear, fixed, time-based form of a film, for instance, he wrote, “The film as a temporal event (event having dura- tion) remains relatively constant through Fig. 6. A frame illustration from John Whitney Sr.’s Experiments in Motion Graphics (1967/ 1968). The image illustrates the process of using a light pen and display, as well as other successive showings. . . . It is not interac- devices. (© Estate of John and Janet Whitney) tive and one cannot expand or compress time or change the combination or the order of visual events” [36]. No matter how interactive or intui- between computer and “appreciator,” to a work, which would grow to maturity tive the mode of creation, the major- use Licklider’s term. in the programmed computations of ity of finished works—whether films or As one component of this dynamic, the computer (as per Youngblood) and otherwise—remain fixed, interactive the computer—operating according whose fluid meanings would flower with only in the more traditional sense of to the programmed instructions of the the interactive input of the “appreciator” psychological, emotional and cognitive artist-programmer—was conceptualized (as per Licklider). engagement as opposed to allowing the as responsive to the instructions it was How might such an art form—founded “passive” spectator’s evolution as an “ac- fed, as it too moved toward becoming on interactive computer graphics, with tive” participant in the context of a film an interactive participant in the cre- artist, computer and end-user situated or other work that encourages a degree ative process. Youngblood pointed to as collaborators in the creative process— of intervention in its unfolding. the productive coming together of the look and feel? How would it compare In terms of technology, too, despite expressive powers of the artist and the with more traditional art (typically final- significant advances in realizing the processing power of the computer. “The ized, once output)? types of interactive engagement now digital computer opens vast new realms Csuri himself offered the following de- generally taken for granted, consider- of possible aesthetic investigation” [30], scription of one example of a “real-time able constraints remained. Although, he proposed, precisely because “the computer art object” [33]—regarded as Csuri noted, “an image of five to ten computer is an active participant in the nothing less than a “unique art form” thousand edges can be displayed in as creative process” [31]. In its capacity to [34]—mediated through computer little as several seconds,” allowing users implement instructions defined in its graphics and interacted with according to “make basic judgments about objects programming, the computer linked tra- to the artist’s programmed instructions. in terms of their position, intensity, speed ditional artistic virtues of creative vision “Consider five butterflies moving about with the ability to harness, manipulate, the screen flapping their wings,” he pro- control and respond to additional input posed, describing an idea that resembled concerning the technological design of his own interactive art object, Butterfly this expression. Dance (1971) (Fig. 7). Fig. 7. An image of Butterfly Dance in action, illustrative of Csuri’s efforts to create a new The end-user, meanwhile, was recon- The artist specifies through a computer type of interactive art founded on the real- figured as an interactive participant in program that two of the butterflies will time manipulation of computer graphics. the production of meaning—in one vari- move about elliptical paths. . . . The axes (© Charles A. Csuri) ation of Roland Barthes’s “death of the of rotation and the speed of flapping are author” [32], as the ostensible creator variable and set externally by the partici- of a work was supplanted as the sole fig- pant. The participant also sets the speed of movement of the two butterflies on el- ure responsible for its meaning. Beyond liptical paths. A program that generates Barthes, the computer was increasingly random numbers within predetermined seen as a way of liberating the “author” limits determines the position, intensity, and “reader” in equal measure, allowing size, orientation, and movement of the three remaining butterflies. Each of the the former a more dynamic and intuitive three butterflies moves at a different engagement in the conceptualization speed. Thus, the participant can deter- and programming of the initial seeds of mine the appearance and the behavior

Utterson, Early Visions of Interactivity 71

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LEON_a_00487 by guest on 27 September 2021 of motion, clipping, etc.,” he also noted achievements in this area were limited, 15. Jasia Reichardt, The Computer in Art (London: that “complicated and/or large objects the discourse of this era nevertheless Studio Vista, 1971) p. 10. cannot be displayed in real time” [37]. advanced significant ideas concerning 16. Reichardt [15] p. 10. A disparity remained between real-time interactivity, including its power and 17. John Whitney, “Notes on Matrix,” Film Culture, interactivity as a principle and the prac- potential as a principle of computing, Nos. 53–54–55, 79–80 (1972) p. 80. tical implementation of complex artistic that continue to resonate. Their work 18. John Whitney, “A Computer Art for the Video visions. was part of a broader effort to establish Picture Wall,” Art International, Vol. 15, No. 7, 35–36 In later years, of course, computing the computer as inherently interactive, (1971) p. 35. would evolve, aligning with “the attract- an ideal that would rapidly become the 19. For one discussion of contemporary input and ing, motivating force of interaction,” norm. The shift from sequential batch output devices, see Ivan E. Sutherland, “Computer which Licklider proclaimed, as early processing was a necessary precursor to Inputs and Outputs,” Scientific American, Vol. 215, No. as 1968, to be “the strongest force in real-time computing in general and to 3, 86–96 (1966). the world of the computer,” referring the more complex and technologically 20. See M.R. Davis and T.O. Ellis, “The RAND Tablet: to “the interplay, the communication, problematic conceptualization of inter- A Man-Machine Graphical Communication Device,” RAND Corporation Memorandum RM-4122-ARPA the reciprocal stimulation that goes on activity in terms of the engagement and (1964). between two or more reactive organ- participation of the spectator, viewer, 21. For a discussion of the relative merits of various isms”: “the person(s) at the console, etc., with an artwork flexible enough to input devices, including the mouse, see William K. on the one hand, and the programmed incorporate and respond to post-pro- English, Douglas C. Engelbart and Melvyn L. Ber- computer(s), on the other” [38]. Yet, if gramming input. The latter was further man, “Display-Selection Techniques for Text Ma- nipulation,” IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Licklider had argued early on that explored throughout the 1970s and be- Electronics, Vol. HFE-8, 5–15 (1967). yond. Even today, these concerns remain 22. A. Michael Noll, “Computer-Generated Three- the computer—considered in the broad a source of considerable speculation and sense that includes input and output de- Dimensional Movies,” Computers and Automation, Vol. 14, No. 11, 20–23 (1965) p. 23. vices and computer programs as well as experiment. the computing machine itself—is poten- 23. J.C.R. Licklider, “Man-Computer Symbiosis,” IRE tially a medium through which art can be Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, Vol. HFE- freed of heavy constraints that are inher- References and Notes 1, 4–11 (1960). ent in all the media presently employed and through which art can be brought Unedited references as provided by the author. 24. Noll [7] p. 93. into hitherto unrealizable interaction 1. Charles A. Csuri, “Real-Time Computer Anima- 25. A. Michael Noll, “Computers and the Visual with its creators and appreciators [39], tion,” in Proceedings of the IFIP Congress 74, ed. Jack L. Arts,” in Design and Planning 2: Computers in De- Rosenfeld (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing, sign and Communication, eds. Martin Krampen and this ambition remained elusive—theo- 1972) p. 707. Peter Seitz (New York: Hastings House, 1967) p. 79. This text is a revision of “Computers and the retically envisaged, but still to be fully 2. See Kent C. Redmond and Thomas M. Smith, From Visual Arts,” Design Quarterly, Nos. 66–67, 64–71 realized. Whirlwind to MITRE: The R&D Story of the SAGE Air (1966). Defense Computer (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000). 26. Gene Youngblood, Expanded Cinema (New York: 3. Kenneth C. Knowlton, “Collaborations with E.P. Dutton, 1970) pp. 189–193. Conclusion Artists—A Programmer’s Reflections,” in Graphic Languages: Proceedings of the IFIP Working Conference 27. Licklider [9] p. 278. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, art- on Graphic Languages, eds. Frieder Nake and Azriel ists across a range of media sought to Rosenfeld (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing, 28. Licklider [9] p. 294. 1972) p. 402. challenge the idea of the computer as 29. Charles A. Csuri, “Computer Graphics and Art,” a sequential batch processor, proposing 4. Ivan E. Sutherland, “Computer Graphics: Ten Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 62, No. 4, 503–515 (1974) interactive alternatives to existing tech- Unresolved Problems,” Datamation, Vol. 12, No. 5, p. 511. 22–27 (1966) p. 25. nology and associated aesthetic forms. 30. Youngblood [26] p. 189. Interactivity was discussed in technical 5. See Ivan E. Sutherland, “Sketchpad: A Man-Ma- chine Graphical Communication System,” AFIPS 31. Youngblood [26] p. 191. and general papers, at least to begin Conference Proceedings, Vol. 23, 329–346 (1963). with, as a relatively narrow conception— 32. Roland Barthes, “The Death of the Author,” 6. Sutherland [5] p. 329. Aspen, Nos. 5–6, not paginated (1967). Translated an increasingly real-time relationship be- from the French, by Richard Howard. tween artist and computer at the point 7. A. Michael Noll, “The Digital Computer as a Cre- 33. Csuri [29] pp. 511–514. of a work’s creation. This discussion fell ative Medium,” IEEE Spectrum, Vol. 4, No. 10, 89–95 short of a sustained application of such (1967) p. 93. 34. Csuri [29] p. 511. methods, involving the active participa- 8. John Whitney, “John Whitney 2,” Film Comment, 35. Csuri [1] p. 711. Vol. 6, No. 3, 34–38 (1970) p. 37. tion of the end-user in a dynamic text— 36. Csuri [29] p. 511. the readerly corollary of an interactive 9. J.C.R. Licklider, “Computer Graphics as a Me- mode of authorship. dium of Artistic Expression,” in Computers and their 37. Charles A. Csuri, “Computer Animation,” Potential Applications in Museums, ed. Metropoli- Computer Graphics, Vol. 9, No. 1, 92–101 (1975) p. 94. In this sense, a disparity or disjuncture tan Museum of Art (New York: Arno Press, 1968) 38. Licklider [9] p. 292. exists between the discourse of the era p. 294. (what was anticipated of the computer) 39. Licklider [9] p. 274. 10. Charles A. Csuri and James Shaffer, “Art, Com- on the one hand and the practical realiza- puters and Mathematics,” AFIPS Conference Proceed- tion of its ideas (what could be achieved ings, Vol. 33 (Part 2), 1293–1298 (1968) p. 1294. Manuscript received 7 April 2011. with the available technology, among 11. Csuri and Shaffer [10] p. 1295. other considerations and determinants) Andrew Utterson is Assistant Professor of on the other. 12. Charles A. Csuri (ed.), Interactive Sound and Visual Systems (Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, Screen Studies at Ithaca College. He has writ- However this disparity is no reason 1970) p. 4. ten widely on media technology and is the to dismiss the visions of Csuri, Lick- author of From IBM to MGM: Cinema at 13. Csuri [12] pp. 4–5. lider, Noll, Sutherland and others in the the Dawn of the Digital Age (London: BFI U.S.A. and elsewhere. While tangible 14. Csuri [12] p. 5. Publishing, 2011).

72 Utterson, Early Visions of Interactivity

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LEON_a_00487 by guest on 27 September 2021