LEON4102_pp169-174.ps - 3/11/2008 12:37 PM
From Technophilia to Technophobia: The Impact of the Vietnam War on the Reception ABSTRACT Using the Los Angeles County Museum of Art’s 1971 exhibition REFRESH! CONFERENCE PAPERS of “Art and Technology” “Art and Technology” as a case study, this essay examines a shift in attitude on the part of influential American artists and critics toward collaborations Anne Collins Goodyear between art and technology from one of optimism in the mid- 1960s to one of suspicion in the early 1970s. The Vietnam War dramatically undermined public confidence in the promise of new technology, linking it with corporate support of the war. Technology is not art—not invention. It is a simultaneous hope and technology. In response to the Ultimately, the discrediting of and hoax. . . . Technology is what we do to the Black Panthers perceived Soviet threat, American industry-sponsored technology and the Vietnamese under the guise of advancement in a mate- education emphasized science and not only undermined the prem- ises of the LACMA exhibition rialistic theology. technology, while influential theo- but also may have contributed rists such as C.P. Snow, Reyner —Richard Serra [1] to the demise of the larger “art Banham and Marshall McLuhan and technology” movement in stressed the need for interconnec- the United States. In September 1970 artist James Turrell made a prophetic re- tion between art, science and tech- mark about Maurice Tuchman’s “Art and Technology” exhi- nology [5]. In 1967, engineer Billy bition at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art: Klüver, co-founder of Experiments in Art and Technology (E.A.T.), argued that “the new inter- You could make this thing [“Art and Technology”] historically face between artists and engineers . . . has not developed only significant if you want[ed] to. I have the feeling that whatever is happening here is a symptom of something that’s going on—but out of the historical relationship between art and technology. I think—I hope—it’s going to be vastly overshadowed by the It has rather been born out of the direction and the nature of thrust of things going on independently [2]. contemporary art itself” [6]. Klüver’s observation fits with re- sponses by artists Dan Flavin, Robert Morris and Allan Kaprow As Turrell intuited, the “Art and Technology” exhibition to a 1966 questionnaire circulated by art historian and critic was the product and the victim of a confluence of social, eco- Barbara Rose to assess the “Sensibility of the Sixties.” Dan nomic and political factors that initially inspired, and ulti- Flavin reported that “it would not surprise me to see the evo- mately curtailed, widespread support for projects linking lution of a type of scientist-artist, or engineer-artist” [7]. Robert art, science and technology during the late 1960s and early Morris affirmed: “Some kind of center is needed. . . . Even with 1970s [3]. A close study of Tuchman’s exhibition, planned and a few machines for working plastics and metal the artists them- executed between 1967 and 1971, suggests larger lessons for selves could experiment. Since this doesn’t happen in indus- interpreting the growth and demise of a cluster of similar proj- try it would undoubtedly lead to new ways of working materials” ects, demonstrating in particular the role played by the Viet- [8]. Allan Kaprow, who harbored his own plans to form such nam War in undermining collaborations between the “two an “experimental research” center for the arts, observed: cultures” [4]. Although there is good work being done in the conventional arts—painting, sculpture, music, dance, poetry, etc.—the newest TECHNOPHILIA AND energies are gathering in the cross-overs, the areas of impurity, AMERICAN ART OF THE 1960S the blurs which remain after the usual boundaries have been If the Vietnam War was to undermine in the early 1970s a ma- erased. This zone is increasingly referred to as the “intermedia,” Dick Higgins’ term for the media between the media [9]. jor art project embracing technology, it is worth observing that only a few years earlier the political climate of the Cold War Such opinions were consistent with viewpoints expressed by had encouraged an outlook better described as “technophilic” several pop artists earlier in the decade. As James Rosenquist on the part of many American artists, curators and critics. observed, “Doing a painting now seem[s] very old-fashioned” The launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union in 1957 created [10]. Roy Lichtenstein asserted: “I think the meaning of my a climate favorable to art projects embracing new science work is that it’s industrial, it’s what all the world will soon be- come” [11]. Warhol claimed that “everybody should be a ma-
Anne Collins Goodyear (curator), National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, chine” and later came to refer to his “studio” as “The Factory” PO Box 37012, Victor Building–Suite 4100 MRC 973, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, [12]. U.S.A. E-mail:
©2008 ISAST LEONARDO, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 169–173, 2008 169
Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/41/2/169/1574044/leon.2008.41.2.169.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 LEON4102_pp169-174.ps - 3/11/2008 12:37 PM
Brooklyn Museum of Art; Cybernetic The exhibition, originally projected cardboard pyramids; Robert Whitman’s Serendipity, at the Corcoran in Wash- for 1970, was intended to showcase the mirror-generated virtual images; Newton ington, D.C., in 1969; Software Informa- first results of an ongoing series of col- Harrison’s glowing tubes of color; Roy tion Technology, at the Jewish Museum laborations structured by Tuchman. In Lichtenstein’s films; and Andy Warhol’s in New York in 1970, and Explorations, launching his program, Tuchman aimed Rain Machine. The political cache of proj- at the Smithsonian the same year [13]. high, securing the participation of inter- ects celebrating the combined power of Many of these were supported by or- nationally renowned artists such as Andy the United States’ technological and cul- ganizations formed during this period, Warhol, Robert Rauschenberg, Claes tural resources, in the context of the Cold including E.A.T., established in 1966, and Oldenburg and Richard Serra [19]. Em- War, was reflected in the commentary of REFRESH! CONFERENCE PAPERS the Center for Advanced Visual Studies ploying commercial techniques of his an American journalist reporting on the (CAVS), founded in 1967 at the Massa- own, Tuchman created an incentive. Cor- installation, who observed: chusetts Institute of Technology [14]. porations who joined the venture agreed It must . . . be attractive to the govern- These exhibitions and new art groups to allow a particular artist, with needs ment to consider how “A&T” seems to reflected a broad acceptance of what that matched the company’s strengths, to embody democratic ideals of co-opera- Leo Steinberg described as the model of work at its facilities in exchange for pub- tion and interaction between various lev- els of the society. Pragmatically, “A&T” “the artist as [corporate] engineer and licity from the museum and the oppor- could be interpreted as embodying [Pres- research technician” [15]. Industrial part- tunity to acquire an artwork “issuing from ident Nixon’s] “bring us together” phi- nerships were widely viewed as advanta- the collaboration” [20]. losophy [24]. geous for artists seeking to exploit new technologies. The young curator ambitiously sought THE INCEPTION AND AIMS OF to connect the “futuristic” setting of “ART AND TECHNOLOGY” “Art and Technology,” the only major Los Angeles with the desire of avant-garde exhibition of its kind to originate on the West Coast, sought to capitalize on artists to embrace new technological the enthusiasm for such collaborations. Indeed, as curator Maurice Tuchman ex- methods and materials. plained, the spirit of the time seemed to demand it. According to Tuchman, the show grew out of his negative response to New to the city, Tuchman had reason FISSURES IN “ART the 1966 Venice Biennale: to believe that this undertaking would not only complement the futuristic AND TECHNOLOGY” These works were completely unrelated ARTNERSHIPS to modern times. Ninety-nine percent of setting of Los Angeles but would also en- P it was an irrelevant exercise. The senti- hance the museum’s financial and cul- Yet despite praise for the exhibition’s ments expressed had to do with a view of tural standing. As critic Peter Plagens small-scale debut in Osaka in 1970, man as if he were still existing before the observed, the exhibition catalogue for underlying challenges posed by its in- machine was developed. I then started thinking of artists using different tools. the show, A Report on the Art and Technol- dustrial-artistic partnerships became ap- I had just moved to California, a place ogy Program of the Los Angeles County Mu- parent when it officially opened several where one is always conscious of the fu- seum of Art, 1967–1971, “is not so much months later in Los Angeles. No longer ture. It made me think this would be an the narrative of a completed project, but benefiting from the strategic editing re- exciting thing to do [16]. an interim report on a hoped-for ongo- quired for the Osaka venue, “Art and The young curator ambitiously sought ing metamorphosis of modern art, cen- Technology” encountered difficulty con- to connect the “futuristic” setting of Los tered in Los Angeles” [21]. clusively demonstrating that important Angeles with the desire of avant-garde The ambitious aims of the exhibition benefits could be reaped from collabo- artists to embrace new technological were buoyed by the opportunity to par- rations between artists and corporate methods and materials [17]. Accord- ticipate in the American Pavilion, spon- technologists. The very appearance of ingly, Tuchman initially strove to create sored by the United States Information the catalogue itself, juxtaposing in a grid- something even more influential than Agency (USIA), at Expo ’70 in Osaka. like pattern mug-shots of clean-cut “cor- an exhibition, attempting to establish a The decision of the USIA to focus on porate-types” with long-haired artists and sustainable program that would create “topics dealing with Science, Technology, intended to convey the show’s unifying partnerships between artists and techno- and the Arts” made selections from Tuch- influence, unintentionally created an im- logically oriented companies in the area, man’s “Art and Technology” exhibition pression of incompatibility between the an effort similar to those of E.A.T. and an ideal choice and also suggested that two groups [25]. CAVS. As he explained: Tuchman had correctly read prevailing When “Art and Technology” opened art-world trends in designing his proj- in May 1971 at LACMA, only 16 collabo- My primary motive in attempting to make ect [22]. As Tuchman later explained, rations had come to fruition, although the resources of industry available to artists was emphatically not to simply the opportunity was a prestigious one, 76 artists were listed as “participating” mount an exhibition. . . . I believed it was giving “Art and Technology” the “im- [26]. Despite Tuchman’s assertion that the process of interchange between artist primatur” of the USIA [23]. Tuchman he was not simply interested in the cre- and the company that was most signifi- included works by eight artists in the Os- ation of tangible products, the dearth of cant. . . . I did not regard the “success” or exhibitable pieces indicated a high per- “failure” of the project as resting . . . with aka installation: Claes Oldenburg’s Ice- the quantity or even quality of the “re- bag; Boyd Mefferd’s strobe room; Tony centage of failed collaborations. Of 76 sults” [18]. Smith’s “cave,” composed of interlocking artists, only 23 were able to secure real
170 Goodyear, From Technophilia to Technophobia
Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/41/2/169/1574044/leon.2008.41.2.169.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 LEON4102_pp169-174.ps - 3/11/2008 12:37 PM
partnerships from industrial sponsors and splashing of Mud Muse, enabled him tions about the future of art. Given the of the exhibition. Despite high hopes, to demonstrate the playful and sensual effects of a Republican recession, the role many collaborations had dissolved due to qualities of technology [32]. Lewis Ell- of large industry as an intransigent beneficiary of an even more intractable mutual misunderstandings. John Cham- more, the engineer assigned to work with federal government, and the fatal envi- berlain, for example, who undertook a him, found his interaction with the artist, ronmental effects of most of our tech- residency at the RAND Corporation to whose interactive art intrigued him, both nologies, few people are going to be create a conceptual work consisting of stimulating and enjoyable [33]. After seduced by three months of industry- sponsored art—no matter how laudable “answers,” encountered resistance from Oldenburg’s collaboration with Walt Dis- the initial motivation [37]. employees who supplied the following material: “There is only one answer: You REFRESH! CONFERENCE PAPERS have a beautiful sense of color and a “I told them they should just cooperate warped, trashy idea of what beauty and talent is”; “The answer is to terminate with [the artist] and get him out of there Chamberlain” [27]. Even artists who worked successfully as fast as possible.” with their corporate sponsors voiced un- foreseen concerns about the pairing of art with industrial technology. R.B. Kitaj, ney Productions disintegrated, he estab- Maurice Tuchman similarly acknowl- whose time at Lockheed led to the fabri- lished a successful relationship with Kroft edged at the time of the show’s opening, cation of simulated artifacts from the In- Enterprises, a theatrical animation com- dustrial Revolution as well as sculptures pany, which published an article on the If Art and Technology were beginning now instead of in 1967, in a climate of using airplane parts, despaired that “over mechanical innovations in his Icebag [34]. increased polarization and organized de- the last fifty years, these art and science For other artists, collaborations estab- termination to protest against the poli- people only manage light jabs and then lished by “Art and Technology” provided cies supported by so many American seem to wither . . . while an immense tech- new means of thinking about art-making. business interests and so violently op- nology remains . . . progressive, destruc- Robert Irwin (whose collaborator, James posed by much of the art community, many of the same artists would not have tive, what have you” [28]. Despite Kitaj’s Turrell, dropped out of the exhibition) participated [38]. prolific output, the attitude toward the established a long-term working part- collaboration reflected in the comments nership with physicist Ed Wortz of the He also confirmed that “Art and Tech- of Robert Robillard, manager of indus- Garrett Corporation, and Newton Harri- nology” would not be an ongoing project trial design at Lockheed, suggests the son credited the exhibition with encour- [39]. artist’s concerns may not have been mis- aging him to work collaboratively and to Perhaps more than any other factor, placed. “I had a call from one of the other pursue scientific questions through artis- the Vietnam War and related tragedies companies participating in the project tic channels with his wife, Helen [35]. eroded support for “Art and Technol- who said they were tearing their hair out,” ogy.” Tuchman’s observation that the recounted Robillard. “I told them they war “undermined [the exhibition] al- should just cooperate with [the artist] THE VIETNAM WAR AND most month to month” is born out by and get him out of there as fast as possi- THE DISCREDITING OF events [40]. When the show opened in ble” [29]. Kitaj’s increasing pessimism INDUSTRY-SPONSORED May 1971, on the heels of a major anti- about the implications of technology was TECHNOLOGY war demonstration staged the previous matched by Richard Serra, who com- month in Washington, D.C., the Ameri- Despite such successes, however, a seri- pleted a sculpture project with Kaiser can public had been largely polarized by ous blow to the show was dealt by shift- Steel, but insisted on distinguishing “art” the pivotal events of the Tet Offensive, ing political and social circumstances from “technology.” “Technology is not the My Lai massacre, the American inva- that exacerbated differences between art—not invention,” asserted Serra. “It is sion of Cambodia and the killings at Kent counter-culture artists and the “estab- a simultaneous hope and hoax. . . . Tech- State [41]. As Todd Gitlin has noted, by lishment”-oriented corporations that nology is what we do to the Black Pan- 1971 the anti-war movement had spread controlled the technologies to which the thers and the Vietnamese under the to the military itself, leading to an or- artists sought access. Increasingly, artists guise of advancement in a materialistic chestrated protest at 19 bases just 5 days and critics came to identify the perils of theology” [30]. after the opening of the exhibition [42]. new technology with the companies that This is not to say that “Art and Tech- The publication of the Pentagon Papers, developed and deployed it, making col- nology” generated only animosity be- leaked by Daniel Ellsberg, a former sup- laborations between art and industry un- tween participating artists, engineers porter of the war, the following month, tenable. and scientists, although even Robert in June 1971, further inflamed public Much of the commentary about the Rauschenberg, a co-founder of E.A.T., ac- opinion, contributing to at least one show, whether by Tuchman or critics in- knowledged problems encountered by critic’s negative reception of the exhibi- cluding David Antin, Jack Burnham, Amy artists exposed to the “skepticism [and] tion, which was on view through August Goldin and Max Kozloff, referred to its patronizing” of “middle-management” [43]. timing, signaling a palpable shift in sen- [31]. In some cases, such as those of Of particular concern to several critics timent from one of embrace to one of re- Rauschenberg and Claes Oldenburg, in- of “Art and Technology” was the as- jection of industrial technology [36]. As dustrial partnerships ultimately provided sociation of many of the participating Jack Burnham reported in his review: artists with vital technical support and companies with the war effort. Several, including the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, productively challenged their collabora- If presented five years ago, A&T would tors. Rauschenberg felt that his work with have been difficult to refute as an im- the RAND Corporation, and Teledyne, Teledyne, which led to the sputtering portant event, posing some hard ques- Inc., were connected with the aerospace
Goodyear, From Technophilia to Technophobia 171
Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/41/2/169/1574044/leon.2008.41.2.169.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 LEON4102_pp169-174.ps - 3/11/2008 12:37 PM
industry, leading Max Kozloff to charac- then became untenable. It is worth not- References and Notes terize the corporate partners Tuchman ing, by contrast, that just 3 years earlier 1. Gail R. Scott, “Richard Serra,” in Maurice Tuch- had solicited as “a rogue’s gallery of the the British organizers of Cybernetic Ser- man, ed., Art and Technology: A Report on the Art and violence industries” [44]. Amy Goldin endipity, a show that traveled to the Technology Program of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1967–1971, exh. cat. (New York: Viking, 1971) insisted that artists could not divorce United States in 1969, were able to solicit, p. 300. Also quoted by Jack Burnham, “Corporate themselves from the sociopolitical envi- without criticism, the support of several Art,” Artforum 10, No. 2 (October 1970) p. 68. ronment in which they worked, writing: sponsors—including the U.S. Air Force 2. James Turrell, quoted in Jane Livingston, “Robert “Making art is not simply esthetic be- research lab—that would contribute to Irwin, James Turrell,” in Tuchman [1] p. 140. havior. It is bound into the social system the war effort [48]. 3. Rainer Usselmann’s study of Jasia Reichardt’s Cy- REFRESH! CONFERENCE PAPERS in very specific ways. Ways that affect Major exhibitions showcasing part- bernetic Serendipity Exhibition at the London ICA in 1968 provides a useful analysis of the socioeco- the kinds of meaning it makes available. nerships between art and new technology nomic factors underlying the exhibition. Rainer Us- Art plays its own part in our ecology— came to a dramatic halt in the wake of selmann, “The Dilemma of Media Art: Cybernetic whether we like it or not” [45]. Although “Art and Technology.” Indeed, as Char- Serendipity at the ICA London,” Leonardo 36, No. 5, 389–396 (2003). 4. The concept of the “two cultures,” referring to the Of particular concern was the association arts and humanities on the one hand and the sci- ences on the other, was popularized by C.P. Snow, who coined the phrase in The Two Cultures (Cam- of many of the participating companies bridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993 [1959, part II added 1964]). with the [Vietnam] war effort. Artistic 5. Anne Collins Goodyear, “Gyorgy Kepes, Billy Klüver, and American Art of the 1960s: Defining At- titudes Toward Science and Art,” Science in Context collaborations with industrially sponsored 17, No. 4, 613–617 (2004). 6. Billy Klüver, “Interface: Artist/Engineer,” E.A.T. technology became untenable. Proceedings, No. 1 (1967) p. 3. 7. Dan Flavin, Letter to Barbara Rose, 13 June 1966, Papers of Barbara Rose, “Sensibility of the Sixties,” Folder, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian In- only 2 years earlier, Billy Klüver, founder lie Gere has observed, with the exception stitution, Washington, D.C. and President of E.A.T., had been able to of video, very little attention was directed 8. Robert Morris, Letter to Barbara Rose, 12 August placate a speaker who asked: “Should an to technologically oriented artwork by 1966, Papers of Barbara Rose [7]. artist accept money earned by a corpo- British and American museums and gal- 9. Alan Kaprow, response to questionnaire on “The ration that is manufacturing explosives, leries during the 1970s and into the 1980s Sensibility of the 1960s,” ca. Fall 1966, Papers of Bar- or gasses, or napalm?” with the response, [49]. Such technophobia also impacted bara Rose [7]. Kaprow’s remarks were cited in a re- “It is important to keep politics out of the historical record. Aside from a few sulting article, Barbara Rose and Irving Sandler, “Sensibility of the Sixties,” Art in America 55, No. 1 art,” this distinction was no longer possi- studies published by enthusiasts in the ( January–February 1967) p. 45. In his reply to Rose’s ble in 1971 [46]. early 1970s, the dynamic engagement by questions about the needs of contemporary sculp- tors, Otto Piene referred the critic to Allan Kaprow American artists with new technology regarding the question of “a center for experimen- and science during the late 1960s has tal research in sculpture,” suggesting, “Ask Kaprow been largely overlooked by scholars [50]. (he has been planning one for a long time).” Otto CONCLUSION Piene, Letter to Barbara Rose, 3 July 1966, Papers of Fortunately, this is now beginning to Barbara Rose [7]. While the Vietnam War clearly influ- change [51]. However, a thorough study 10. James Rosenquist, interviewed by Gene Swenson, enced the perceptions of critics evaluat- of the historiography and criticism of ing “Art and Technology” in 1971, its “What Is Pop Art,” Part 2, Art News 62, No. 10 (Feb- the period is still required to discern the ruary 1964) p. 63. Quoted by Caroline Jones, Machine influence on the larger reception of art impact of sociopolitical events on our in the Studio: Constructing the Postwar American Artist projects incorporating science and tech- (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996) pp. understanding not only of Maurice Tuch- 357–358. nology may have been far more pro- man’s “Art and Technology,” but of the found. During the 1960s, access to many 11. Roy Lichtenstein, interviewed by Gene Swenson, broader context of “art and technology” “What Is Pop Art,” Part 1, Art News 62, No. 7 (No- new technologies, from computers to collaborations from which it grew. As this vember 1963) p. 63. Quoted by Jones [10] p. 359. communications media to new materials, essay has attempted to argue, such ex- 12. Andy Warhol, interviewed by Gene Swenson [11] was controlled by corporations. Indeed, amination must address not only those p. 26. Quoted by Jones [10] p. 189; Jones’s study pro- E.A.T., not unlike Tuchman’s “Art and forces that gave rise to widespread artis- vides a detailed examination of the influence of the Technology” program, specifically billed corporate “model” on art practice and the self-rep- tic experimentation with industrial tech- resentation of artists. itself as a “matching-agency” that could nology during the 1960s but also those help facilitate partnerships between art- 13. Eddie Shanken similarly sees this burst of exhi- that curtailed it. bitions as an index for interest in these interdiscipli- ists and industry [47]. With the escala- nary collaborations: Edward A. Shanken, “Gemini tion of the Vietnam War, it became Rising, Moon in Apollo: Attitudes on the Relation- ship Between Art and Technology in the US, increasingly clear to artists and critics, as Acknowledgments 1966–71,” in Anders Nereim, ed., Proceedings of the explained above, that industrially driven Eighth International Symposium on Electronic Art, technology was integral to the military The ideas developed in this essay benefited from pres- reprinted in Leonardo Electronic Almanac 6, No. 12, entation at REFRESH!: The First International Con- ( January 1999). On Jack Burnham’s Software exhi- campaign waged by the United States ference on the Histories of Media Art, Science and bition see Edward A. Shanken, “The House that Jack against North Vietnam. In such an at- Technology, at the Banff New Media Institution, The Built: Jack Burnham’s Concept of ‘Software’ as a Banff Centre, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 28 Septem- Metaphor for Art,” in Roy Ascott, ed., Reframing Con- mosphere, the destructive associations of ber–1 October 2005. I thank panel chairs Eddie sciousness (Exeter, U.K.: Intellect, 1999) pp. 156–161. technology rapidly replaced the positive Shanken and Charlie Gere for their input as well as Marga Bijvoet addresses this activity in Art as Inquiry: connotations that predominated only a my fellow panelists and other participants in RE- Toward New Collaborations Between Art, Science, and FRESH! for their interest, in particular Fred Turner. Technology (New York: Peter Lang, 1997) pp. 15–79. few years earlier. Artistic collaborations I thank also two anonymous reviewers for their help- Cybernetic Serendipity was organized by Jasia Re- with industrially sponsored technology ful feedback on an earlier version of this essay. ichardt of the Institute of Contemporary Art in Lon-
172 Goodyear, From Technophilia to Technophobia
Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/41/2/169/1574044/leon.2008.41.2.169.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 LEON4102_pp169-174.ps - 3/11/2008 12:37 PM
don and was on view 2 August–20 October 1968. The he had glimpsed in Ohio. (Morton Mintz, “Nixon’s 40. Author’s interview with Maurice Tuchman, Feb- show subsequently traveled to the Corcoran Gallery Great Goal: ‘Bring Us Together,’” Washington Post, 7 ruary 1999. of Art’s Dupont Center in Washington, D.C. (16 November 1968, A1 and A6.) Numerous scholars July–31 August 1969) and then to San Francisco. On have demonstrated the link between federal support 41. Max Kozloff notes the negative impact of these this exhibition, see Jasia Reichardt, ed., Cybernetic of art and culture in the United States and the Cold events (Kozloff [25], p. 76). The literature on Viet- Serendipity: The Computer and the Arts, exh. cat. (Lon- War; see for example Serge Guilbaut, How New York nam and the responses it engendered is voluminous; don, Institute of Contemporary Arts, 2 August–20 Stole the Idea of Modern Art: Abstract Expressionism, Free- see, for example, Fred Turner, Echoes of Combat: The October 1968) (Studio International special issue; dis- dom, and the Cold War, Arthur Goldhammer, trans. Vietnam War in American Memory (New York: Anchor tributed by New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1968); (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983); and Books, Doubleday, 1996) pp. 17–44; and Stanley Jasia Reichardt, “Spaces in Between,” paper delivered Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The Karnow’s Vietnam: A History (New York: Penguin at Stuttgart 1960: Computers in Theory and Art, In- CIA and the World of Arts and Letters (New York: The Books, 1991 [1983]). The impact of My Lai on the ternational Symposium, Akademie Schloss Solitude, New Press, 1999). art world is detailed in Francis Frascina, Art, Politics, and Dissent: Aspects of the Art Left in Sixties America 30 September–2 October 2004
Goodyear, From Technophilia to Technophobia 173
Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/41/2/169/1574044/leon.2008.41.2.169.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 LEON4102_pp169-174.ps - 3/11/2008 12:37 PM
A WORD OF THANKS
Thanks to Our Supporters
Leonardo/ISAST is a nonprofit organization that serves the international arts community by documenting work at the intersection of the arts, sciences and technology and by encouraging and stimulating collaboration through its programs and activities. Donations and grants are integral to the future of Leonardo. Contact
Leonardo Codex William Fawley Charles Ames Robert Kadesch ($5,000 and above) Arana Greenberg Craig Anderson Marshall Kaplan The California Tamarack Foundation Michael Joaquin Grey Art Science Collaborations Inc. Ken Knowlton College of Extended Learning, Rosemary Jackson (ASCI) Zdenek Kocib San Francisco State University Larry Larson Roy Ascott Kenji Kohiyama CRSS Architects Lynn Hershman Leeson Yasuhiro Asoo Thomas Kostusiak The Ford Foundation Guy Levrier Bret Battey Kathleen Laziza Interval Research Corporation Jacques Mandelbrojt Marc Battier Levi Family Foundation Roger Malina Isabel Maxwell Mark and Lauren Beam Frederick Loomis The Malina Trust Merrill Lynch Foundation Patricia Bentson Carl Machover Sonya Rapoport Emanuel Nadler Timothy Binkley William Marchant Rockefeller Foundation Nessim & Associates The Birse Family Delle Maxwell The San Francisco Art Institute Sam Okoshken Marc Böhlen Elliot Mazer Al Smith Steve Oscherwitz Deborah Branton Kevin Meehan U.S. National Endowment for the Arts Trudy Reagan Robert A. Brown Minneapolis College University of Texas at Dallas David Rosenboom Ronald Brown of Art & Design Jack Sarfatti Willi Bruns Mit Mitropoulos Joel Silverman Annick Bureaud Moët Hennessy- Sforza Monument Christian Simm James Burke Louis Vuitton (The Bronze Horse) Tami Spector David Carter Jason Monberg ($1,000 to $4,999) Meredith Tromble Rosa Casarez-Levison Roger Mulkey Martin Anderson Webster Cash Geetha Narayanan Art Science Research Lab Katherine Casida Alex Nicoloff Lisa Bornstein Flying Machine Joel Chadabe Greg Niemeyer CalArts ($250 to $499) John Chowning Hiroshi Ninomiya Concordia University Loren Basch Richard Clar Elaine Petschek Donna Cox Ray Bradbury Computer Art Studio/Gunter Schulz Anne Brooks Pfister Creative Disturbance Bettina Brendel Eva Craig Glenn R. Phillips The Daniel Langlois Foundation David Carrier Ivo Cristante Victor A. Pickett Char Davies Holly Crawford Elizabeth Crumley Otto Piene The Exploratorium Eugene Epstein Mary & Michael Cunningam Ann Pizzorusso Penny Finnie Lawrence Fane Danish Film Festival Herbert & Joan Steve Forestieri Herbert Franke Bob Davis Webster Price John Hearst Doreen Gatland Goery Delacote Patric Prince Intel Corporation Pamela Grant-Ryan Lily Diaz Wolf Rainer The LEF Foundation Oliver Grau Agnes Denes Peter Richards Alan Malina Linda Dalrymple Henderson Emma Lou Diemer Ron Rocco Marjorie Malina Robert Hill Steve Dietz Peter Rudolfi Christine Maxwell-Malina Curtis Karnow Augus Dorbie David M. Russell Ontario College of Art & Design Melinda Klayman Hubert Duprat Mr. and Mrs. Sheila Pinkel Kathleen Laziza Elmer Duncan Robert Russett Michael Punt Thomas Mercer Ann Elias Colin Sanderson Rhode Island School of Design Frieder Nake Sherban Epure Piero Scaruffi Itsuo Sakane Barbara Nessim Theodosia Ferguson Patricia Search School of the Art Institute Jack Ox John Fobes Allan Shields of Chicago Ed Payne and Liss Fain Tim Fox Gregory C. Shubin Martin Segal Nancy Perloff Alan & Mickey Friedman Joel Slayton Sonia Sheridan Frank Popper Ryozo Fujii John Slorp swissnex San Francisco Harry Rand David Gamper Avril Sokolov Darlene Tong Beverly Reiser Jonathan & Donna R. Gennick Kirill Sokolov Makepeace Tsao Mark Resch George Gessert Christa Sommerer UCLA Art / Sci Center Eric Roll Ken Goldberg Rejane Spitz University of Plymouth, U.K. Edward Shanken Yusef Grillo Anait Stephens University of Washington DXARTS Leonard Shlain Karen Guzak Robert Strizich UTS Creativity and Cognition Marcia Tanner Craig Harris The Sun Microsystems Studios Jesse Tischler Isabel Hayden Foundation, Inc. Joan Truckenbrod Margaret Hermann Tamiko Thiel Jonathan Willard Doris Herrick Rodrigo B. Toledo La Gioconda Barbara Lee Williams Estate of Dick Higgins Heinz Trauboth (Mona Lisa) Richard A. Wilson Anthony Hill Mark Tribe ($500 to $999) Stephen Wilson Toshiyuki Hiruma Karen Tsao Lars Ole Belhage Gary Zellerbach Gerald Holton Roman Verostko Anna Campbell Bliss Hungarian University Alexandre Vitkine Leif Brush of Crafts & Design Natalie & Mark Whitson James D. Burke Angel Amy Ione Alan Thompson & Sharon A. Richard Clar ($249 and under) Susan Joyce Widmayer Una Dora Copley Anonymous Raymond Jurgens Ioannis Yessios Michele Emmer Aaron Alpar Eduardo Kac Robert Zimmerman
Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/41/2/169/1574044/leon.2008.41.2.169.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021