— Symbiogenic Experience

Continuing my discussion from last time, this post represents my first attempt at developing a taxonomy if interactive artworks for my dissertation.

Tentatively titled “The Emergent Arts”, this chapter outlines a various characteristics of new media and interactive arts practice that engage in processes that establish a foundation for the shifts in perceptual and bodily experience that I characterize as co-evolutionary. These artworks thematize reciprocal interplay (and even co-evolution) of humans and machines and give an intuitive sense of connection or enmeshment with an increasingly intelligent technological environment. Many of the artworks I draw from may be characterized by the drive for “symbiotic intelligence” between humans and their increasingly technologized environments that Jack Burnham described . These works engage in similar processes and approaches to the artworks documented in Chapter 5 (the chapter on my own projects) and form the basis for understanding symbiogenic experiences. I refer to this range of works collectively as the “emergent arts”. The parameters chosen for the development of this taxonomy come directly from my conceptual framework. Part of this framework (and of the dissertation in general) is establish connection between cybernetics and Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology. While the bulk of the phenomenological and cybernetic analysis will be done in another chapter of the dissertation, I think it is important to keep this in mind when reading this taxonomy. The cybernetic aspects at least will become evident as we move along.

To further clarify what I mean by emergent arts, it may help to look at interactive art more broadly. What is it about interactive art in particular that can give rise to a heightened or transformative sense of co-evolution with an intelligent, technological environment? While the general conception is that interactive art offers heretofore unparalleled levels of gestural and immersive interface to technological systems, others have given a more nuanced account of it’s uniqueness. From Gordon Pask’s “ambiguity of role” Pask , to Burnham’s “symbiotic intelligence”, to Mark Hansen’s embodied technicity , all have as a basis a certain level whether directly discernible or not a sense of agency. Novel forms of animism, autonomy and even raw information processing power, which may sometimes be interpreted as form of agency or even intelligence.

This sense of agency and autonomy is the foundational element to what I maintain is the most crucial aspect that distinguishes what I call the emergent arts from other interactive arts practices – namely the evolving, emergent relations of agency and alterity — characterized here as co-evolutionary — that give rise to an experience that I describe as symbiogenic. This is where the emergent arts sets its self apart as a distinct form interactive art experience. What is attractive and compelling in these works is not only the cybernetic and “systems approach to creation” that Roy Ascott describes , nor just their abilities to expand human consciousness and transform our experience of the world and of our being within it by encouraging us to enter into states of mutual influence with them. But rather like 2nd-order cybernetics and its concern with observing systems, autonomy, self-organization and emergence, the emergent arts are also reflexive and self-referential, as they often explore, examine or critique the very systems and technologies used in their making. The emergent arts typically do not marshal interactive techniques in services of more “traditional” arts practice such as narrative or emotional evocation via raw sonic or visual power or some external subject matter. Emergent art systems are on some level, about the systems themselves – often simply about their agency, autonomy, ability to self-organize and to simply be, to exist and get on in the world and with others. As such they often thematize or are characterized by interactions and behaviors that give rise to experiences that I characterize as a co-evolutionary, as these works literally, couple with their environments, not simply through a series of input/output relations but rather as an ongoing (re)organization of the system in response to environmental perturbations, which circle back and perturb aspects of the environment, which in turn cause new perturbations to the system, and so on. Cybernetic indeed.¹

Another important aspect to consider is that in my view of the emergent arts are not cold detached representations of generative or complex process but instead materially encompass and generate those processes through their material configuration. Thus, merely simulating complex emergent process visually or sonically on a digital computer does not in and of itself constitute emergent art as I conceive it. Rather it is differing relations of adaptivity and unpredictability relative to complex and dynamic environmental conditions that form the aesthetic and experiential “DNA” of the emergent arts.

With this in mind I will now outline various characteristics of emergent arts practice that I consider relevant to themes and concepts of co-evolution with intelligent systems. These works are analyzed not so much according to their respective mediums or technologies, but rather through the approaches taken and perhaps more importantly by the set of emergent relations they set-up and bring forth and which aspects of experience they emphasize, whether it is interaction or reflection on material or the cybernetic processes themselves, etc. They also cannot be defined simply by listing a set of characteristics (and in fact works in one category may share many characteristics with those in other categories). They must be considered holistically, where overall “top-down” patterns of relations provide context for the experience of sensorial or interactional modalities. Thus, an interactive sound piece that responds to ones presence and motion like David Rokeby’s Very Nervous System exhibits quite different holistic patterns of relations than another interactive sound piece that responds to one’s presence and motion like Usman Haque’s Evolving Sonic Environment. The intent here is for the framework I am developing to be flexible and dynamic. Nevertheless, the aim here and now lies in providing an overview of the emergent art field and a context for evaluating these individual artworks, as well as those discussed in Chapter 5. The works explored here can be analyzed across five general characteristics:

Intertwining/direct coupling. Many emergent artworks feature a directly physical or embodied form of interaction. These works necessitate direct physical human interaction with some kind of intelligent technological system. Participants are directly active in the work (whether voluntarily or involuntarily via like monitoring of their heart rate for example). I refer to this as an intertwining or direct coupling of human and system. Here, participants directly perceive (though not necessarily control) the interaction. These often produce mirror like transformations of participant’s actions and choices. The machines also exhibit some perceived agency of their own, whether or not they are “intelligent” in a technical/computational sense. This agency may or not be a major driver of the interaction but it is nevertheless a part of the experience of the work. These may be considered as the most apparently “interactive” as they engage a participant’s sensorium in direct physical ways whether via responsive sound, vision and tactility, and also direct inner body responses (e.g. biofeedback). What is stressed here is a direct physical interaction with a technological system with some agency; a sort of embodied alterity. This is perhaps the largest group, encompassing what we often take to be interactive art and is best exemplified by works such as David Rokeby (especially Very Nervous System), Diane Gromala’s Biofeedback VR works and Stahl Stenslie’s “psychoplastic” wearable computing works.

Disturbance/Perturbation. Other works display looser or altogether non-existent physical couplings with the interactive system, with artworks perhaps demonstrating greater agency of their own.These works feature systems that operate and respond to environmental perturbations or disturbances and are often in some kind of cybernetic feedback loop with that environment (and often with itself). Here, direct conscious human input is typically not vital (or as vital when compared to intertwining/coupling). Relations often happen outside of human input although human presence or action often acts as some kind of trigger for the systems and is thus important (from a human point of view) for the piece to be considered “activated”. The interaction here begs for reconsideration of what exactly constitutes interactivity (e.g. does one need to know that they are interacting for the piece to be considered interactive?). Nevertheless these works feature relations where humans often enter into some kind of existing set of emergent relations and influence those relations in the process in some way so that there is some discernible effect on the piece that is attributable to human presence and actions, although it may take some time for this to become apparent and may not even be perceived. In doing so these works instill in the human interlocutors a sense of being connected to a larger system or set of systems, whose complex interactions effect and are effected by human behavior. The effect may be considered longitudinal as system and participants may flow in and out of emergent relations whose full impact may not be fully appreciated for some time and may be require numerous interactions. These works are perhaps most closely resemble cybernetic or autopoietic models of interactions between system and environment. Environmental perturbations function as triggers or indirect forms of interaction and foster a general sense of embeddedness and complexity of interacting systems. These characteristics are best exemplified by works such as Usman Haque’s Evolving Sonic Environment, Simon Penny’s Sympathetic Sentience and Ken Rinaldo’s The Flock.

Inter-corporeality/Performative. Some works stage performances of human-technology symbiosis and co-evolution. “Performance” in this case is not limited to stage performance but is simply meant to describe works where we experience at things to some extent from the “outside” or from a distance. Nevertheless we feel it ourselves on some level. These works function by engendering a sense of what Merleau-Ponty refereed to as intercorporeality (i.e empathically “feeling” the same thing as someone else; what modern neuroscience explains though the function of hat are called “mirror neurons”). In a sense a way of collapsing that distance. Some works may be interactive or collaborative while others are not what is normally considered interactive. There is however some form of at least implied technological agency and some form of coupling with human. This is often not experienced directly but through sort of staged performances. This is best exemplified by Stelarc’s Internet controlled body performances and telepresent installations and performances such as Paul Sermon’s Telematic Dreaming.

Material/Organic Complexity. Sometimes the material itself becomes an important aspect of the work and even a context for the experience of it. Like all the works here these works take a “systems approach to creation” but instead of a direct focus on systems as such these works feature relations grounded in the unique complexity of the materials employed in the artwork/system. The material substrate(s) that a work is built upon functions as the driver and locus point of experience. The participant is drawn to the strange and unusual material instantiation or substrate of the work (e.g. chemical solutions, biological systems, etc), which sometimes combine with digital and/or intelligent technologies (or sometimes constituting that very technology). These practices are loosely related to “bio-art” they are still primarily cybernetic systems – just non-traditional ones. They not only stage similarities but like certain cybernetic practices, begin to blur the lines that western culture has erected between the technological and the biological; the living and non-living; organic and inorganic; and ultimately between people and things. In blurring these lines they may be said to engender a sense of co-determination and mutual embeddedness between all systems in the environment. In other words a world where its constituent system are constantly co-evolving with one another. These approaches are best exemplified by projects such as SymbioticA’s MEART – which features cultured rat neurons communicating over the Internet in order to “learn” how to draw – and some of Andy Gracie’s work connecting technological and biological systems. Other work from the cybernetics and contemporary science would also fit in here, such as Gordon Pask’s electrochemical experiments and contemporary versions of the his cybernetic model such as slime-mold-controlled robots or rat brains learning to fly airplanes.

Distributed/Apparitional. Some works feature processes that are outside any direct human perceived effect (at least immediate effect) but give a sense of longitudinal intertwining (play out over time). These are experiences where the sense of intelligent technology is “in the air”, monitoring us, performing tasks for us or otherwise linked to us in some way. Here the work engages us beyond the physical presence and experience of the gallery space. It bleeds into our daily lives and functions as a sort of distributed or networked version of ourselves, a sort of “data other”. This experience is best exemplified by works such Victoria Vesna’s NoTime and Datamining Bodies as well as mundane non-art practices such as online credit card transactions, e-mail, online calendars, etc. This is a more cognitive than active or physical aspect of symbiogenic experience and also has a strong longitudinal component. In some ways it is the opposite end of intertwining as it often occurs at various indistinct times and locations, has no direct physical connection to the body and the experience is continuous and longitudinal, especially if it is part of mundane everyday processes.

Notes
1. Many of the works discussed here could simply be labeled as AI, a-life, generative art works. However, I maintain that it is more appropriate to rely on cybernetic and neocybernetic models and concepts as they are broader and encompass ideas closer to those explored by the artists reviewed here, while not being tied to particular techniques, technologies or approaches. In fact cybernetics foresaw much work in artificial intelligence and artificial life and in fact is seen as having a crucial influence on these fields and numerous others. Many concepts central to these fields, such as
complexity, self-organization, and autonomy, were first explored by cyberneticists during the 1940’s and 1950’s. Furthermore, with its focus on goal-directed and purposive behavior, cybernetic concepts are well-suited for the analysis of what are essentially cybernetic art systems whose emergent relations unfold in complex patterns of purposive action and behavior. Nevertheless, for expediency and simplicity I will often use the term “intelligent systems” or “autonomous systems” to describe these works, though perhaps a better term would be “goal-directed systems”.

Works Cited