Rhizome Digest<\/b>
\nDate: 11.05.04
\nFrom: Gloria Sutton
\nSubject: Exhibiting New Media Art (Part 1 of 2)
\n
\nExhibiting new media art \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Gloria Sutton<\/p>\n
Rhizome and lists devoted to new media curating such as CRUMB have recently
\nspurred heated discussions about the practical and theoretical issues of
\nexhibiting new media art within a traditional museum context. As I sat
\neavesdropping on these some of these debates, it became clear to me how much
\nof the critical syntax around exhibition display strategies and audience
\ninteraction echoed the conversations of the late 1960s and early 1970s.<\/p>\n
And more striking to me was the fact that at an earlier moment discussions
\nabout contemporary art and new media used to take place in the same
\nconversation, be written about in the same publications and show in the same
\nvenues. In the 1960s-1970s artists interested in issues of media,
\ncomputation, social networks, and communication theories used to be in
\nactive dialogue with their contemporaries probing other issues under the
\ngeneral guise of “conceptual art.” There was a moment when Stan Vanderbeek
\nwould be exhibiting with Robert Whitman and Dan Graham (The Projected Image
\nshow at ICA Boston, 1967) or Les Levine could be in the same show as Hans
\nHaacke, Douglas Huebler, and Lawrence Wiener (Software, 1970).<\/p>\n
Of course back then the issue wasn\u00c2\u00b9t about NEW media art, but the
\nintroduction of media art within established venues for contemporary art and
\nthe exponentially increasing impact of media and computer technology on the
\narts writ large. Questions commonly asked included: what exactly was the
\nrole of the arts in a technologically driven society? Are computers,
\nconsumer electronics and communication theory transforming art production or
\nsimply obscuring it? What was technology\u00c2\u00b9s relevance to art, if any, and did
\nart operate under a technological imperative? Sound familiar? While these
\nquestions could have come from any one of the many new media art discussion
\nlists, they were questions posed by Philip Leider, a founding editor of
\nArtforum, as well as by other critics and artists in the pages of art
\njournals and exhibition catalogs between 1962 and 1972. These lines of
\ninquiry would get rehashed at gallery openings from Howard Wise in New York
\nCity to Phyllis Kind in Chicago and the Albright-Knox in Buffalo, which were
\nsome of the first commercial venues for media art in the U.S. Queries
\nregarding the relationship between art and technology would find their way
\ninto basically every other influential site producing the discourse on art
\nin the 1960s and 1970s. However, within the discordant conversation on art
\nand technology, clear divisions emerged at the end of the1960s. One
\ntrajectory followed earlier modernist preoccupations with \u00c2\u00b3machine art\u00c2\u00b2 and
\nthe other became more attuned to work based on what could be defined as
\n\u00c2\u00b3systems and information\u00c2\u00b2 technology.<\/p>\n
In line with recent efforts to look back at new media\u00c2\u00b9s now historical
\nstatus (think of Ars Electronica celebrating its 25th anniversary in
\nSeptember 2004 and the upcoming Refresh conference on the history of new
\nmedia art), I thought it would be worth while to revisit the checklists and
\narguments posed by three pivotal art exhibitions: The Museum of Modern Art\u00c2\u00b9s
\n\u00c2\u00b3The Machine as Seen at the End of the Mechanical Age\u00c2\u00b2 and the Institute of
\nContemporary London\u00c2\u00b9s \u00c2\u00b3Cybernetic Serendipity,\u00c2\u00b2 both from 1968 and The
\nJewish Museum\u00c2\u00b9s \u00c2\u00b3Software\u00c2\u00b2 exhibition from 1970. These exhibitions can be
\nseen as recorded conversations capturing the particular voices and
\ninflections of the two trajectories of media technology-influenced art
\npractices during this pivotal period in which the terms and conditions for
\nart production were becoming solidified through their institutionalization
\nin art schools and museums. Through published catalogs and reviews, these
\nexhibitions allow us to eavesdrop on the debates, and note the shifting
\nvocabulary and rhetorical strategies regarding media technology\u00c2\u00b9s
\napplication to art, which had a resounding impact on multiple strains of not
\njust of media art, but other neo-avant garde practices including Fluxus,
\nHappenings, and Expanded Cinema and various strains of Conceptual art. This
\nweek\u00c2\u00b9s installment will focus the \u00c2\u00b3machine art\u00c2\u00b2 trajectory established by
\nThe Museum of Modern Art\u00c2\u00b9s historical survey entitled, \u00c2\u00b3The Machine as Seen
\nat the End of the Mechanical Age\u00c2\u00b2 and the Institute of Contemporary London\u00c2\u00b9s
\n\u00c2\u00b3Cybernetic Serendipity,\u00c2\u00b2 which focused on \u00c2\u00b3cybernetic devices\u00c2\u00b2 and their
\nmaterial output both from 1968.<\/p>\n
In a marked contrast from these two exhibitions which prioritized art
\npractices that were invested in melding formalist ideals with motion, light,
\nand digital imaging into different sculptural or three-dimensional forms,
\n\u00c2\u00b3systems and information\u00c2\u00b2 related projects applied a distinctly computing
\nvernacular to the art and technology conversation. In 1970 two exhibitions
\nopening within nine months of one another, presented a survey of
\ncontemporary work that attempted to introduce the notion that art could be
\nconceived of, exchanged, transferred, and shared as information. More
\nprominent of the two exhibitions, \u00c2\u00b3Information\u00c2\u00b2 curated by MoMA\u00c2\u00b9s Kynaston
\nMcShine was held between July 2 and September 20, 1970. Next week\u00c2\u00b9s digest
\nwill focus on the show that appeared just north of MoMA, on the upper east
\nside of Manhattan at the Jewish Museum, then known as a supporter of
\ncutting-edge art. \u00c2\u00b3Software: Information Technology: Its New Meaning for
\nArt\u00c2\u00b2 was organized by art historian and artist, Jack Burnham who curated
\ntwenty-six international contemporary artists into what would become a
\nsprawling display of Conceptual art and engineering experiments and ran from
\nSeptember 16 to November 8 1970.<\/p>\n
Under examined by art historians, the exhibition presented a decidedly
\nidiosyncratic object of study from the late 1960s. The show\u00c2\u00b9s unique premise
\nand intriguing mix of disparate artistic practices and media, combined with
\nthe fact that the exhibition was organized under the auspices of both The
\nJewish Theological Seminary and the American Motors Corporation, certainly
\nset it apart from other exhibitions from the same period. More importantly,
\n\u00c2\u00b3Software\u00c2\u00b2 signaled not only a break from the conception of \u00c2\u00b3technology\u00c2\u00b2 as
\na purely machine-based proposition, but demonstrated that Conceptual artists
\nduring the late 1960s were in direct dialogue with artists that actively
\nengaged new technology discussed in the same room with its more analytic or linguistic based
\ncounterparts, but was nevertheless invested in a meta-critical discourse.<\/p>\n
Machine Art and Cybernetics<\/p>\n
Historically, the term \u00c2\u00b3machine art\u00c2\u00b2 has tended to refer specifically to
\nworks that have incorporated light and movement into sculpture\u00c2\u00b9s existing
\nvocabulary. The most prevalent result was kinetic sculptures that relied on
\nsimple motor-driven devices and the inclusion of various light sources.
\nEarly 1960s experiments in light and kinetics included a wide variety of
\ndiffering approaches to creating three-dimensional, dynamic works. Key
\nexamples include Yves Klein\u00c2\u00b9s, Double Sided Wall of Fire (1961) in which
\nbursts of flames were contained within an evenly spaced geometric grid
\nmounted on a wall. Jean Tinguely\u00c2\u00b9s Radio Drawing (1962) was comprised of
\nstripped wires and exposed radio components, which were strapped and mounted
\nto a wall. Industrially produced, tube lighting would become the signature
\nmaterial for Dan Flavin\u00c2\u00b9s fluorescent light sculptures. These iconic sixties
\nworks all found a precedent in a variety of earlier modernist models and in
\nparticular reference the interests of the Italian Futurists like Boccioni,
\nand Russian Constructivists as represented by Naum Gabo. Bauhaus pedagogy as
\ngleaned from Laszlo Moholy-Nagy became widely influential during this period
\nand in particular instruments such as his Light-Space Modulator (1922-1931)
\nbecame a reoccurring point of reference for artists experimenting with light
\nand motion in the 1960s.<\/p>\n
The burgeoning interest in kinetic sculpture in United States is what led
\nRen\u00c3\u00a9 d\u00c2\u00b9Harnoncout, MoMA\u00c2\u00b9s Director during the early 1960s, to approach Karl
\nG. Pontus Hult\u00c3\u00a9n, then Director of Moderna Museet in Stockholm to curate
\nMoMA\u00c2\u00b9s first show dedicated to kinetic art. Plans for what would be called
\n\u00c2\u00b3The Machine as Seen at the End of the Mechanical Age\u00c2\u00b2 began in 1965 and
\nopened at MoMA on November 25, 1968 traveling to Houston and San Francisco
\nover the course of the next year. Although Hult\u00c3\u00a9n plainly stated that the
\nexhibition was not intended as an illustrated history of the machine, his
\nintroductory essay rehearses the development of machines and devices. In
\nHult\u00c3\u00a9n\u00c2\u00b9s account, major technological advancements directly correlate to a
\nstrictly chronological survey of modern art movements, in which artists are
\npresented as responding to specific moments within this technological linear
\nprogression. This method of linking the introduction of new consumer
\nelectronics with new art forms becomes the reductive logic that historians
\nwill rely on later when they suggest that the Sony Port-o-pac created video
\nart and the introduction of computers begets new media art. That the artists
\nengaged with video and new media were somehow never engaged with earlier
\nrepresentational strategies.<\/p>\n
Tracing the etymology of the Greek word techn\u00c3\u00a9 as meaning both art and
\ntechnics, Hult\u00c3\u00a9n situated the origin for \u00c2\u00b3mechanic art\u00c2\u00b2 in ancient Greek and
\nRoman ideas of scientific law and mechanical engineering. The narrative
\nfollows mechanical and technical advances in the Western world up through
\nthe middle ages, including steam engines, clocks and other precision
\ninstruments. Arriving at the nineteenth century, Hult\u00c3\u00a9n pointed to the
\nmechanization of labor in England and the proliferation of industrial
\nfactories as the precursor for what he described basically as the twentieth
\ncentury\u00c2\u00b9s machinist impulse not only within industry, but culture at large.
\nThe exhibition solidified the clich\u00c3\u00a9d model of the hybrid scientist\/artist
\nby presenting sixteenth century drawings of Leonardo da Vinci\u00c2\u00b9s flying
\nmachines, and ended with a contemporary version through the artist\/engineer
\ncollaborations, which were picked through a competition process organized by
\nExperiments in Art and Technology (EAT). Between these two bookends, the
\nexhibition was able to represent multiple perspectives from each designated
\nmovement in modern art from the Italian Futurists, Cubist painting and
\ncollaged works, to Dada and Surrealist experiments in psychic automatism
\nwith the intention to present a comprehensive overview of modernist
\ninterpretations of technology in various aesthetic forms. Included were also
\ninfluential pieces from Picabia, Man Ray, Tatlin, Schwitters, Ernst, and
\nMoholy-Nagy (Light Space Modulator, 1921-1930), which would have been
\nconsidered standard fare for the Museum of Modern Art. More surprising was
\nthe inclusion of drawings by Rube Goldberg, Charlie Chaplin\u00c2\u00b9s films and a
\nproto-type for Buckminster Fuller\u00c2\u00b9s Dymaxion Car (1933).<\/p>\n
When Hult\u00c3\u00a9n\u00c2\u00b9s narrative arrived at the late 1930s, he paused to interject
\nthe effect of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which \u00c2\u00b3were the
\nmost terrible shock that the world has ever received. Fear and horror sapped
\nthe faith in technology and the confidence in rational behavior that might
\nhave been expected to follow a long period of destruction.\u00c2\u00b2 Hult\u00c3\u00a9n
\ncontinued by making the suggestion that from the mid-fifties onward, artists
\n\u00c2\u00b3devoted themselves to an attempt to establish better relations with
\ntechnology\u00c2\u00b2 and that Pop artists in particular took \u00c2\u00b3a step toward finding a
\nway out of this alienation.\u00c2\u00b2 Curiously, he claims that Pop art was somehow
\nable to evade the alienating impulse of technology in the face of nuclear
\nannihilation by relating, \u00c2\u00b3mass products to human will.\u00c2\u00b2 Positioned in
\nsequence along with the Pop examples was Hans Haacke\u00c2\u00b9s Ice Stick (1964). A
\nslender metal rod covered in ice and mounted upright on a low podium, the
\n\u00c2\u00b3stick\u00c2\u00b2 contained a motorized freezing coil inside causing the ice to form
\nin thick or thinner layers in relation to the local air temperature and
\nhumidity. In the same section, works by Robert Rauschenberg were also
\nincluded along with Oracle (1965), a collaboration between Rauschenberg and
\nBilly Kl\u00c3\u00bcver. In addition, the inclusion of the E.A.T. competition for
\nengineers and artists, along with Kenneth Knowlton\u00c2\u00b9s computer processed
\nphotographic prints and Nam June Paik\u00c2\u00b9s McLuhan caged (1967) would draw
\nparallel links between their inclusion in \u00c2\u00b3The Machine\u00c2\u00b2 show at MoMA and
\ntheir earlier incarnation as part of the Institute of Contemporary Art\u00c2\u00b9s
\n\u00c2\u00b3Cybernetic Serendipity\u00c2\u00b2 exhibition where they were installed in London just
\na month prior to being shipped to New York.<\/p>\n
\u00c2\u00b3Cybernetic Serendipity\u00c2\u00b2 was large-scale international exhibition curated by
\nthe ICA\u00c2\u00b9s Associate Director, Jasia Reichardt and ran from August 2 to
\nOctober 20,1968. According to Reichardt, the exhibition was an attempt to
\n\u00c2\u00b3explore and demonstrate some of the relationships between technology and
\ncreativity.\u00c2\u00b2 The selected work could be divided into three distinct
\nsections. The largest was the first group comprised of computer-generated
\ngraphics, animated films and musical compositions printed and framed for the
\nviewers. The second group could be described as \u00c2\u00b3cybernetic devices as
\nworks of art\u00c2\u00b2 and included environments, remote-control robots and \u00c2\u00b3painting
\nmachines.\u00c2\u00b2 The majority of these works were three-dimensional objects
\npresented as sculptural objects in vitrines or on podiums. The third
\ncategory of work demonstrated various computer functions and offered a
\nhistory of cybernetics as it related to Norbert Wiener\u00c2\u00b9s theories on the
\nsubject.<\/p>\n
Within the category of computer graphics, Kenneth Knowlton\u00c2\u00b9s computer
\ngenerated images of everyday objects and landscapes were situated among a
\nvariety of other types of simple, black and white graphs and schematic
\ngeometric forms which were some of the first attempts at computer animation
\nand computer generated imagery. Knowlton\u00c2\u00b9s crude images with their simple
\npixilated shapes and rough shading, were made from an early technique of
\n\u00c2\u00b3scanning\u00c2\u00b2 thirty-five millimeter transparencies, which were then digitized
\ninto various digital characters and aligned in a particular coded sequence
\nmanipulating their scale and color to register at different focal lengths
\nfrom the page on which they were printed. Nam June Paik\u00c2\u00b9s electromagnetic
\nmanipulations of television sets such as McLuhan caged (1967) were referred
\nto as \u00c2\u00b3painting with magnetic fields\u00c2\u00b2 situating them in the second category
\nof the exhibition. By waving large horseshoe magnets over black and white
\ntelevision sets, Paik was able to manipulate, warp and distort the images
\nthat appeared on the screen. Based on Norman Bauman\u00c2\u00b9s published account of
\nencountering the piece, viewers could actually manipulate the magnets and
\nalter the magnetic fields themselves. Describing the process Bauman
\nextolled, \u00c2\u00b3The feeling of holding a magnet in your hand and seeing a
\nvisible, striking result, must be experienced to be appreciated. This is not
\nchickenshit iron filings, but a real, living, breathing, MAGNETIC FIELD,
\nthat you can really use to deflect real, live, glowing, electrons.\u00c2\u00b2<\/p>\n
While EAT\u00c2\u00b9s collaborative work was not directly represented in the
\nexhibition, the group must have felt that the audience and artists who would
\nbe drawn to \u00c2\u00b3Cybernetic Serendipity\u00c2\u00b2 and the ICA in general were their
\ntarget audience. They tapped this audience to solicit submissions for their
\ncompetition to be exhibited at MoMA\u00c2\u00b9s \u00c2\u00b3Machine\u00c2\u00b2 show in the fall of 1968.
\nEAT took out a full-page ad in the ICA\u00c2\u00b9s January bulletin promoting the
\ncompetition for collaborative projects between engineers and artists. EAT
\noffered to facilitate contact between interested parties and would then
\njudge the entries along with a jury of \u00c2\u00b3scientists and engineers from the
\ntechnical community who are not necessarily familiar with contemporary art.\u00c2\u00b2
\nWhile EAT would judge who was awarded the first and second place cash prizes
\n($3,000 and $1,000 respectively), the ad clearly stated that Hult\u00c3\u00a9n would
\nmake the final selection of the works to be shown at MoMA.<\/p>\n
Overall the majority of the work chosen to be included in \u00c2\u00b3Cybernetic
\nSerendipity\u00c2\u00b2 reinforced the focus on the technological apparatus and
\nperipheral devices such as computers, electronic robots, printers, and
\nmonitors. A result was that most of these three-dimensional machines were
\neither photographed and the computer generated images printed and then
\nframed and hung on the wall along with explanatory labels. Computer
\ngenerated films were shown as projected films during the evenings, but then
\nrepresented in the exhibition and in the catalogue as black and white
\nstills. Through this process, the exhibition transferred the experience of
\ninteracting with the machines into iconic images. Visitors were denied the
\nusual spectacles or frustrations that accompany trying to use any type of
\nelectronic device in a public space, and the interaction remained confined
\nto a surface glance. However, due to the two dimensional format inherent in
\nthe printed catalogue, organizers were able to foreground the discussion
\nregarding technology\u00c2\u00b9s relevancy to art production specifically in the
\ntheories of Norbert Wiener by excerpting sections from his widely
\ninfluential book The Human Use of Human Beings, which they were not able to
\ndo in the exhibition space.<\/p>\n
– Gloria Sutton<\/p>\n
Notes:<\/p>\n
1 – Based on Jack Burnham\u00c2\u00b9s definition of systems and information
\ntechnology as described in \u00c2\u00b3Art and Technology: The Panacea that Failed,\u00c2\u00b2 in
\nThe Myths of Information: Technology and Postindustrial Culture, edited by
\nKathleen Woodward (Madison, Wisconsin: Coda Press, 1980), 213.<\/p>\n
2 – Karl Hult\u00c3\u00a9n, The Machine as Seen at the End of the Mechanical Age. exh.
\ncat. (New York: Museum of Modern Art and New York Graphic Society, 1968),3;
\nJasia Reichardt, \u00c2\u00b3Introduction,\u00c2\u00b2 Cybernetic Serendipity. exh. cat. (London:
\nInstitute of Contemporary Art and W&J Mackay Press,1968), 5.<\/p>\n
3 – Based on Jack Burnham\u00c2\u00b9s definition of systems and information technology
\nas described in \u00c2\u00b3Art and Technology: The Panacea that Failed,\u00c2\u00b2 in The Myths
\nof Information: Technology and Postindustrial Culture, edited by Kathleen
\nWoodward (Madison, Wisconsin: Coda Press, 1980), 213.<\/p>\n
4 – According to the exhibition\u00c2\u00b9s catalog, The Jewish Museum in New York was
\ngoverned by The Jewish Theological Seminary of America. While the American
\nMotors Corporation was the show\u00c2\u00b9s main sponsor, the exhibition benefited
\nfrom in-kind donations from a variety of computer and consumer electronic
\ncompanies including Digital Equipment Corp., 3M, and Mohawk Data Systems.<\/p>\n
5 – In the introduction to the exhibition catalogue for \u00c2\u00b3The Machine\u00c2\u00b2 Hult\u00c3\u00a9n
\nexplains the origins of the exhibition as follows: \u00c2\u00b3Plans for this
\nexhibition were begun several years ago; the first letters discussing it
\nwere exchanged in 1965. When Ren\u00c3\u00a9 d\u00c2\u00b9Harnoncourt, the late Director of MoMA
\nasked me whether I should like to organize an exhibition on kinetic art for
\nhis institution.\u00c2\u00b2 The exhibition traveled to two addition venues: The
\nUniversity of St. Thomas, Houston, Texas from March 25-May 18, 1969 and then
\nto the San Francisco\u00c2\u00b9s Museum of Art from June 23-August 24. 1969, Hult\u00c3\u00a9n,
\n3.<\/p>\n
6 – Hult\u00c3\u00a9n, 13.<\/p>\n
7 – Hult\u00c3\u00a9n, 14.<\/p>\n
8 – Description based on Anne Rorimer\u00c2\u00b9s account in New Art in the 60s and
\n70s: Redefining Reality (New York: Thames and Hudson, 2001), 269.<\/p>\n
9 – Reichardt, 5.<\/p>\n
10 – Norman Bauman, \u00c2\u00b3Five-Year Guaranty\u00c2\u00b2 in Cybernetic Serendipity, exh.
\ncat. (London: Institute of Contemporary Art and W&J Mackay Press,1968), 42.<\/p>\n
11 – Description of the competition is based on the instructions listed in
\nthe ad EAT took out in the ICA\u00c2\u00b9s January 1968 Bulletin, a 5\u00c2\u00b2x7\u00c2\u00b2 black and
\nwhite publication that was circulated among the ICA\u00c2\u00b9s membership and
\nvisitors to the gallery.<\/p>\n
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<\/p>\n
Rhizome.org is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and an affiliate of
\nthe New Museum of Contemporary Art.<\/p>\n
Rhizome Digest is supported by grants from The Charles Engelhard
\nFoundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, The Andy Warhol Foundation for
\nthe Visual Arts, and with public funds from the New York State Council
\non the Arts, a state agency.<\/p>\n
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<\/p>\n
Rhizome Digest is filtered by Kevin McGarry (kevin@rhizome.org). ISSN:
\n1525-9110. Volume 9, number 44. Article submissions to list@rhizome.org
\nare encouraged. Submissions should relate to the theme of new media art
\nand be less than 1500 words. For information on advertising in Rhizome
\nDigest, please contact info@rhizome.org.<\/p>\n
To unsubscribe from this list, visit http:\/\/rhizome.org\/subscribe.
\nSubscribers to Rhizome Digest are subject to the terms set out in the
\nMember Agreement available online at http:\/\/rhizome.org\/info\/29.php.<\/p>\n
Please invite your friends to visit Rhizome.org on Fridays, when the
\nsite is open to members and non-members alike.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rhizome Digest Date: 11.05.04 From: Gloria Sutton Subject: Exhibiting New Media Art (Part 1 of 2)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kris.constantvzw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kris.constantvzw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kris.constantvzw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kris.constantvzw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kris.constantvzw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/kris.constantvzw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kris.constantvzw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kris.constantvzw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kris.constantvzw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}