DASH Archives - April 2005
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Sue:
Regarding "the origin of computer arts"
you may be interested in the following.
Ken Knowlton
-------------------
            PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG SCIENTIST
                        (c) 2004 Ken Knowlton

[ Begin Epigraphs ]

If you don't know where you're going, you will surely end up somewhere else.
Yogi Berra

To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first, and call whatever you hit the
target.  Ashleigh Brilliant

Basic research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I am doing.  Werner
von Braun

One never goes so far as when one doesn't know where one is going.  Goethe

[ End Epigraphs ]

Through today's lens -- near-future and pragmatic -- it was a place of misty
legend:  that brick and mortar fortress on a hill in the Northeast Kingdom of
New Jersey.  Quiet and apparently innocuous.  But stealthy, to those who read
its press releases as warnings of upheaval down the road.  To most folks, its
announcements -- about atoms, plasmas, phonons, and such figments of science
-- were of little relevance to their composures or bottom lines.

Bell Telephone Laboratories, as my colleagues and I experienced it during the
1960s and 1970s, was a beehive of scientific and technological scurrying.
Practitioners within, tethered on long leashes if at all, were earnestly seeking
enigmatic solutions to arcane puzzles.  What happened there would have
baffled millions of telephone subscribers who, knowingly or not, agreeably or not,
supported the quiet circus.

For people who believe in science, and who still believe in technology, it
was the epitome of free exploration into how the world did, or could, work.  For
those concerned with tangible results, the verdict, albeit delayed, is
indisputable:  fiber optics, the transistor, Echo and Telstar, radio astronomy
including confirmation of the Big Bang.  Advances in metallurgy, computational
methods, and all manner of information storage, transmission and processing.  Bell
Labs truly was a national resource, and for anyone who was there or who
cared, its decline is one of the great tragedies of the past half century.

You may be familiar with the names of people I knew there: Claude Shannon,
John Pierce, William Baker, and a dozen Nobel laureates, McCarthur Fellowship
"geniuses" and other notables.  Like Richard Hamming who, soon after I arrived
from MIT in 1962, advised me to "slow down -- if everyone here made more than
one contribution to the Bell System in his lifetime, the System would be in
chaos."  At first startled, I did accepted this as an excuse not to obsess over
telephones.

My main interest was computers, particularly their use in picture-making.
The Labs had a new microfilm printer that exposed letters and vectors on 35 mm
film.  Some of my friends -- Mike Noll, Ed Zajac and Frank Sinden -- were soon
making simple movies (with terrible vertical jitter because the camera lacked
filmgate registration pins).  My own shtick became a sort of greyscale picture
made by filling the screen with thousands of different letters chosen for
their brightness.  I soon wrote a memo to department head Tom Crowley, suggesting
the possibility of a "computer language" for making animated movies;  his
two-part response launched my career in raster graphics: "It sounds rather
ambitious, but why don't you see what you can do?"

Within a year, I had a set of subroutines someone dubbed BEFLIX, acronym for
"Bell Flicks," arguably the first computer language specifically for movie
making. (I have also been called the inventor of the pixel, which is a bit of a
reach, though I might claim independent discovery.)

I used BEFLIX, of course, to make a movie about the process by which it was
made.  It had no sound track, was unbearably dreary and highly schematic.  But
in 1964 it was a first of sorts, and Bell Labs arranged a press conference for
fellow movie makers and me to crow about our accomplishments.  I remember in
particular one reporter who badgered me about the possibility of someday
resurrecting Rock Hudson and Doris Day, by computer, to star in posthumous movies.
I argued that nothing like that would ever happen: it was too complicated,
and certainly not worth the effort; computers were for serious scientific
movies, for example about atoms, whose cavorting could be scripted by vectors and
equations.  Unswayed, his newspaper story about computer animation featured Rock
Hudson and Doris Day.  (As we all now know, the obstreperous reporter's
imagination was right on target.)

The BEFLIX language did serve, non-reflexively, a couple years later for a
set of films that I made about my list-processing language L-6 (the
Laboratories' Low-Level Linked List Language);  it contained an early case of articulated
animation in which insect-like base pointers crawled about in the computer,
pointing to blocks of memory.

The nonscientific, some say artistic, aspects of computer graphics arose for
me via a sophomoric prank.  Ed David, two levels up, was away for while and
the mice, one might say, played ever more freely.  Leon Harmon stopped by to ask
me for help with a brilliant idea:  when Ed returns, one entire wall of his
office will be covered with a huge picture made of small electronic symbols for
transistors, resistors and such.  But overall, they will form a
somewhat-hard-to-see picture of, guess what, a nude!  And so the renowned Harmon-Knowlton
nude was conceived, coaxed into being, and duly hung on Ed's wall.

Ed was delighted but worried.  More viewers than we had expected were
apparently familiar with the subject matter, and could "see" the 12-foot-wide picture
from as many feet away.  It was therefore judged an unseemly decoration for
the Labs, especially midway up the hierarchy.  After just one day of glory
there, she was retired to Ed's basement rec-room.  Smaller versions of the big
picture mysteriously did propagate (we had not the slightest idea how);  the PR
department scowled and warned that "you may circulate this thing, but be sure
that you do NOT associate the name of Bell Labs with it."

But the big version burst forth a while later at a press conference on Art
and Technology in Robert Rauschenberg's loft, and on the watershed date of
October 11, 1967, it appeared atop the first page of the second section of the New
York Times, which made not the slightest effort to conceal its birthplace.
Billy Kluver claims that this was the first time ever that the Times printed a
nude!  The PR department huddled and decided, so it seems, that since she had
appeared in the venerable Times, our nude was not frivolous in-your-face
pornography after all, but in-your-face Art.  Their revised statement was:  You may
indeed distribute and display it, but be sure that you let people know that it
was produced at Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc.

We did make similar pictures -- of a gargoyle, of seagulls, of people sitting
at computers -- which have appeared here and there.  But it was our Nude who
would dolphin again and again into public view in dozens of books and
magazines.  Sometimes it is excused by a more dignified title, like Studies in
Perception I;  once the two of us were photographed in front of it, providing a scant
two-piece cloak of modesty. Just recently I encountered it in Lewis Mumford's
The Myth of the Machine (1970) where, as last in a three-panel display, it
demonstrates progress (or regress) in mechanization of the portrayal of woman.

That was the beginning for me of a fascination with large pictures made of
small things that has occupied my eyes, hands and mind ever since.  It was also
my first conscious buffeting by chaos:  a mischievous butterfly had flapped,
and a huge chunk of my career and persona veered onto a new course.

On the other hand, and again by chance, my debut as artist was postponed for
several years.  How so?  Because Art-and-Technology was the rage, and The
Museum of Modern Art had a "Machine Show," and the Brooklyn Museum and other
places had similar parties, and in each case Leon and I submitted the Nude to
demonstrate a collaboration between artist and techno-geek (or whatever).  One of
us had to be an artist.  So by the whim of a spin-launched coin, Leon became
the artist and I remained a technologist (pretense aside, so did he).  I did not
understand until ten years later that I had lost the toss, since artists, I
was learning, were the perceptive predictors, the daring, flamboyant and
revered analysts of past, present and future, the grand but sly commentators on
human joy and sorrow.  (After another ten years, and exposure to a hundred
artists, I learned that that notion was 90 percent humbug.)

Other breeds than scientists crept into the Laboratories, especially at night
and on weekends.  Encouraged especially by Max Mathews and Billy Kluver, they
were musicians and artists seeking access to big machines and to people who
knew how to use them.  I was one of the native knew-hows, and thus became the
engineer/scientist/programmer/technologist of a series of art-technology
collaborations.

We were all trying, exploring and enjoying things made possible by new
hardware and software.  Few of us were aware that we were making History -- a
misfortune for historians because both stories and artifacts, who knows how many,
have slid into oblivion. I think, for example, of my worst seashell portrait, so
washed-out in appearance that it served only as my entry in a "Vague Art"
show in Phoenix AZ; I later flung it, face-down, two-arm Frisbee style, into a
New Hampshire landfill (where it may possibly survive intact longest of all).

I slowly lost my sense of awe at artists.  Art, ten or a hundred years after
the fact, can be inspiring, admirable and mysterious.  But few artists are
more stunningly awe-inspiring than, say, gardeners or woodworkers or masons.  Or
than children.  With the perceived barrier lowered, I decided that although I
was still a communications scientist, I was also an artist -- mostly at home,
puttering away, taking pictures apart and putting them back together in
idiosyncratic ways, and keeping a low profile.  I had already had my fifteen minutes
on stage.

Most of my work concerns people's faces -- an unendingly rich subject area,
as is well demonstrated, for example, by Terry Landau's entertaining book About
Faces.  An in-your-face face is hard to ignore.  It is also a good proving
ground if the visage well-known.

You may, quite rightly, have serious skepticism about the use of computers
for art -- how much humanity can be expressed by the use of such an unwieldy
machine?  Perhaps, paraphrasing Abraham Kaplan, you may say that, because I have
a hammer, everywhere I look I see things that need pounding.  Well, ah, yes.

I do look here and there and see existing or potential images that do need my
kind of pounding.  And I think that some of the results might be worth
keeping. That's how I see the results presented here -- a thrust into several new
possibilities for picture-making, including serious first tries at artwork of
intrigue and substance.

Perhaps these are examples of esoteric art about art.  But quietly so -- they
are non-assaultive; you have to invite, and process, them.  The main
questions here, old as art itself, are:  Can these images help you to experience in a
new way the things and people pursuits alluded to?  Why do you see what you
think you see, and more than is in fact really there?  How is it that crude or
oddly structured pictures can be more evocative than scrupulously detailed,
explicit ones?

                                           KCK  Parsippany NJ October 2004