How would you describe the main themes in your work?
Systems have been the core of my work for the last twelve years and for the
last six years I’ve been creating dynamic systems in software. I work
in two areas: organic systems and conceptual systems. The organic systems
are derived from my interest in artificial life and the phenomenon of emergence.
The conceptual systems are more formal and explore the nature of software,
representation, notation, and process. I’m fascinated with the way temporal
and logical processes are encoded and decoded through symbols.
In their most basic form, your pieces are evolving
systems based on a set of rules. Why is that?
Actually, none of my work “evolves” in the biological sense. The
state of the programs change, but the structure remains constant. I’ve
thought about making evolving work and some people have encouraged me into
this direction, but I haven’t felt compelled to go there.
The visual form of the work emerges through the interactions of autonomous
software elements. Complex holistic structures emerge from the interactions
of simple parts.
Working with such dynamic systems means that the result
isn't completely predictable. How do you start designing such an art work?
Do you set strict boundaries for the direction the system can follow and the
results it will produce? Or is it rather an instinctive process, using trial
and error perhaps?
I like to work in diverse ways. Sometimes I set strict rules, build it, and
then observe the result. More frequently, I begin with a core behavior, built
it, observe the result, and then let the idea flow instinctively from there.
Sometimes an idea will begin with a drawing, sometimes an idea with come from
an essay, and sometimes from fussing around with code. I work with dynamic
systems with the intent of arriving at unpredictable results. Computers are
built to be predictable and this is a way of generating incongruous results
which I find more satisfactory than randomness.
What are your criteria for deciding if a dynamic
system is successful?
I have many criteria and I don’t apply them to every piece. It’s
successful if it holds my interest over a period of months, if I want to keep
using it or watching it. It’s successful if it holds the interest of
other people. If they want to spend time with the work – to explore
and discover its core. It’s successful if it reveals something I haven’t
previously known. I often think about these issues:
Who is in control? Is the system controlling the interaction or is the participant?
Is there a balance between action and response?
If it always behaves the same way, it becomes boring. If there is no relation
between the stimulus and the response, there is no feeling of engagement.Is
there a fine level of control? The human body is amazingly dexterous and expressive.
Does the interface allow us to use our potential or does is restrict?Does
the work engage the entire body? Is there total involvement?
Like many people of my generation I grew up playing video games. They were my first experience using computers and I judge all interaction with computing machines in relation to this early experience.
The idea of emergence is present in many contemporary
scientific models. Do you get inspired by science? If so, how important is
that source of inspiration and how does it interact with you work?
I’m interested in biology (particularly physiology), and psychology,
but I’m not very concerned with physics. I don’t actively study
the sciences, but observe carefully and occasionally read essays, articles,
and books. I’m more interested in metaphysics and engineering.
I’ve been interested in artificial life, artificial intelligence, the
principle of emergence, and robotics for many years. This interest motivated
me to learn how to write software and build electronics. The related courses
I took at MIT further fed these interests and the core of my work in the past
few years is derived from ideas explored in these communities.
The concept of “emergence” refers to the generation of structures
that are not specified or intentionally programmed. Instead of consciously
designing the entire structure, I write simple programs to define the interactions
between elements. Structure emerges from the discreet movements of each organism
as it modifies itself in relation to the environment. The structures generated
through this process cannot be anticipated and evolves through continual iterations
involving alterations to the programs and exploring the changes through interacting
with the software.
I’ve recently been reading more art theory and writings on conceptual
art. I’m actively bringing together ideas from both directions.
You wrote your master thesis on the kinetic art of the 60s and 70s, which
is in many ways a predecessor of what we now call information arts. Do you
see any striking similarities and differences between the two? Do you feel
related to the ideas of the kinetic artists?
During the height of the interest in kinetic art, a group of sculptors were
creating cybernetic sculpture (the term “cybernetic” was a buzzword
during that time and referred to a synthesis of information theory and biology).
Work by artists such at Nicolas Schöffer, Wen-Ying Tsai, and James Seawright
were an intersection between kinetic art and information theory. This thread
was picked up more recently by artists such as Simon Penny, Wim Delvoye, and
a host of other individuals interested in the interaction of behavior, information,
and material. I’m awed by the physical presence of autonomous sculpture
and it is viscerally engaging in a way that pixel-based work is not.
Context
Usually, you are not presenting your work on a normal desktop PC. Instead,
you create custom interfaces, and the computer running the code is hidden
from the viewer. Could you tell us something about that? For example, what's
the idea behind the discs in 'TI'?
TI is an environment of enigmatic growing forms. It is a software installation
projecting images onto disks hovering above the floor and configured to encourage
people to move through the space, stopping to look at the different images.
I feel strongly that all software should have a method of presentation that
is optimum for the concept. I’m very frustrated to show my work on standard
computer screen using peripherals like a mouse or keyboard. These are arbitrary
physical objects which have no intrinsic relation to my work. My previous
projects Tissue and RPM both also have interfaces built to relate to the software’s
controls. In the future, I’m working to always integrate my software
into objects and environments.
You made DVD and print versions of your software
pieces. How do you decide which medium to use? And how does a software work
evolve into print or DVD?
The concept exists outside of any physical media and seeing different manifestations
in diverse media give a more complete view of the whole. MicroImage is also
a good example of exploring a concept through diverse media. The core of all
my work is the concept, not the implementation. I work in print to reveal
the resolution of the system, I work with animation to have complete control
of how the image unfolds over time, and I implement the structure in software
so it’s possible to interact with it. The software implementation is
closest to my actual concept, but the other media provide additional views
into the structure.
For example, in addition to the software MicroImage is also manifested as prints and animation. There is a series of medium format prints and a triptych of large format prints of 5x2.8 meters which was commissioned by the Ars Electronica Center. We printed them at a commercial printer who usually prints enormous advertisements. The quality of the printing decreases tremendously at this size but the scale allows for a different experience of the underlying structure. To augment the software and prints, an eight minute animation was carefully scripted. The animation explores an image density not possible in live software due to the processor’s speed not being able to draw as many lines as I want in each frame. For each different medium, I alter the software to enhance the unique qualities.
Your visual language is abstract; there isn't any
direct representation. However, your recent works all have an organic, living
feeling. What's the motive for this?
I love representational and narrative painting and film, but when I make my
own work, abstraction comes naturally. I don’t think of abstraction
as devoid of representation, but there are different levels of abstraction
along the path from pure representation to pure abstraction. For example,
there are the abstractions of landscape found in the work of Diebenkorn and
the abstractions of Rothko which make no reference to our physical environment.
In my work I create abstractions of the systems of the natural world, rather
than the appearance of the natural world. The fact that people see recognizable
forms in my work is symptomatic of how our brains work, but is inconsequential
in understanding the work. The works Tissue and MicroImage are based on writings
of neuroanatomist Valentino Braitenberg. Because this software is derived
from natural systems, sometimes natural visual patterns appear in the form
and motion.
I read in an online interview (http://www.artificial.dk/articles/reas.htm)
that you started to perform with your works for an audience. Where does this
interest in performing come from? Do you plan on continuing this?
I think this is a misunderstanding. I’ve never performed software live
for an audience. When I interact with my software, though, I do consider it
a performative action. I recently spent one year created works which were
not interactive. I took that away from the audience as a way of giving myself
more control. That was interesting, but I’m back creating work which
interacts with the audience.
How does the traditional art world relate to media
artists like you?
There are a few ways to think about it and there are very different communities
of “traditional artists” and “media artists”. The
communities I’m a part of are converging. In the past, there have been
cross-over artists and both domains share some heroes including Nam June Paik
and John Cage. There were many events and exhibitions in the late 1960’s
where many pioneers of media art were engaged in the same communities as traditional
artists. This diminished and has diffused but contemporary art magazines and
newspapers publish reviews of media art exhibitions along side exhibition
of painting and sculpture. There were extreme technical and monetary impediments
to creating media art boundaries in the past and while they still exist today,
they are fewer obstacles. I think I’ll see a complete convergence in
my lifetime, the same way that video is now entirely integrated into the world
of traditional art.
Are museums a good place for showing interactive
art? What's the best type of place to present your work?
I’ve been shocked by the difference the venue makes for viewing interactive
art. Depending on the setting, people quickly dismiss the work or treat it
with a high degree of respect. I’ve had people physically destroy my
pieces by being extremely rough with the interface and I’ve had wonderful
experiences where people take time to explore and understand the work. Some
works are very successful at media art festivals where there are large groups
of people with short attention spans, while some works fail in this environment
and succeed in others.
Interactive work is often fragile and most traditional museums don’t
have experience or the staff to maintain it. They have enough difficultly
maintaining mechanical kinetic art and interactive work can be even more problematic.
Museums such at the Ars Electronica Futurelab are excellent for showing work
because they have a superb staff of technicians and guides.
I enjoy showing my work in shows including work in other media (painting,
sculpture, video, etc.) I think this helps take the emphasis away from the
technology. Galleries are an excellent place to show work. They are typically
carefully maintained by the staff and are free to the public. They are usually
not extremely crowded and it’s possible to spend time with the work.
Because gallery spaces are small, there is no pressure to rush off and see
other pieces, which is a tendency in a large museum or media festival. I hope
more galleries with eclectic, media-art-friendly programs like bitforms in
New York, chromosome in Berlin, and telic in Los Angeles will continue open.
Technology
How important is technology in your work? Are computers
and software simply tools, or do they have an essential role in what you do?
I like to think of software as a medium and my work is not possible without
it. I didn’t create any form of art before I began creating software.
I’ve drawn my whole life and I didn’t approach drawing with the
rigor I now produce software. The essence of my work is dynamic systems and
software is the medium in which I’m able to construct my vision.
I use computers as tools as well. I’m currently writing this text using
a word processing tool.
While many other multimedia artists use software packages (such as MAX/MSP)
or special programming languages (such as Flash ActionScript), you work with
more complicated, general-purpose languages. What is your reason for this
choice?
For some people, tools like MAX/MSP and Flash are more complicated than general
purpose languages. It depends on they way peoples’ brains are wired.
The decision to make software with one environment should be made based on
the goals of the final work and the process individuals are comfortable with.
Because I want to make generative work (typically the only visual element
in my software is a line), I don’t need many of the form editing controls
and image editing tools embedded into software like Flash or Director. Because
my work is complicated logically, using Max would tedious.
Another aspect is the “quality” of the result. To use problematic
metaphors, acrylic paint has a different quality than oil and paster has a
different quality than stone. Different software materials also have different
“qualities” and I prefer the quality of C++ using OpenGL. My materials
give me more resolution in time and space and this is important.
I’ve been learning about computer programming since 1998 when I was 26. I spent many years working with visual media before thinking about it in relation to writing code. I still hold many prejudices from this time and I think it allows me to not be consumed by the technology. In some ways I’m constrained because I don’t have the programming skills of some of my contemporaries, but it also helps me to put the focus on the work on the concept rather than technical innovation. I don’t accept programming for what it is, but instead think critically about how it can be improved for making visual and interactive work. Programming languages all developed for making precise calculating programs and this heritage can be very confining for people wanting to do different things with the technology.
Can you describe the Processing software? What's
the importance of it and where is it heading?
Processing is a programming language and environment built for the electronic
arts and visual design communities. It was created to teach fundamentals of
computer programming within a visual context and to serve as a software sketchbook.
The software exports Java applets which may be posted on the Internet
and shared with other artists and designers. Processing.org is the online
hub for the international community of people using the software. It hosts
examples, reference, a public exhibition, and a discussion space.
Graphical user interfaces became mainstream nearly twenty years ago, but programming
fundamentals are still primarily taught through the command line interface.
Classes proceed from outputting text to the screen, to GUI, to computer graphics
(if at all). It’s possible to teach programming in a way that moves
graphics and concepts of interaction closer to the surface. Processing is
a text programming language specifically for making responsive images, rather
than a visual programming language. The language enables sophisticated visual
and responsive structures and has a balance between features and ease
of use. Many computer graphics and interaction techniques can be discussed
including vector/raster drawing, image processing, color models, events, network
communication, etc.
Processing is a prototyping and learning environment. In the same way architects
use cardboard to build models and musicians use a keyboard to develop arrangements,
Processing may be used as a tool for writing software sketches. Ideas can
quickly be realized in code, with programs usually much shorter than their
Java or C++ equivalents. Processing allows similar functionality of Java and
C++ but with a simplified syntax, and is more general than other design environments
such as Macromedia’s Flash and Director. The Processing syntax
is designed to be a useful base for future learning. Feedback from the community
reveals that skills learned through Processing are transferable to other languages
and APIs suitable for different contexts including web authoring (ActionScript),
networking and communications (Java), and computer graphics (OpenGL).