Observations from "The Future"

Stan Lipsey and Nigel Hunt, the two producers of TVOntario's former art and technology program, "The Future", discuss their observations of field that came out during their work.

Nigel Hunt: When you talk about technology, it's all computers. I mean, computers are getting more and more involved in art. So that was a big current, you know, we start off with art and technology, and it turned out virtually every piece had something to do with computers.

Stan Lipsey: Something to do with digital. That's right. Reduced to some kind of digital bit of information, transfer reproduction and the conception of art.

NH: And there were interesting ideas in terms of it. One of the pieces I did was about this idea of evolutionism, where people are using computers to mimic natural processes such as evolution, creating computer software that would mimic natural processes like mutation and selection. And the artist would then -- or a computer programmer -- would sort of play God or gardener and make selections. That way they'd come up with art that otherwise they would never have dreamed of just sitting at a program or at a drawing board or something like that, doing it. So that was kind of interesting, seeing convergence, if you will, of technology and the natural world. And that kind of interaction, getting technology in a way to learn from nature, is something that you're seeing more and more of, this kind of cross-over or convergence between technology and biology. I think that was one of the subjects I dealt with that I felt was really interesting.

SL: One thing, that I believe in the overview, of what's going on is what started off as a low level panic among the perpetrators of the traditional media, arts media, is now I think being cranked up to something like, "We'd better get on the bandwagon", from "Oh, it's just a tool, and I've got tools. I've got paintbrushes anyway, why should I use Photoshop or Painter?" to "This is not just a tool, this is a different medium". It's tools, yes, that mimic the existing three-dimensional traditional tools, but it is an entirely new medium, and that will reach many more people. And the younger, more optimistic artists who are actually feeding into this are charging ahead with it. And the ones who are most optimistic are those who are taking it upon themselves to learn this media/tools. So that was encouraging.

NH: The hard thing for a lot of artists is -- unless if they're younger they're probably growing up with computers and they're going to be using this from day one, we dealt with people who were doing this, but they're in the minority. I think a lot of artists, especially if they're already practicing, probably don't have the money or the sort of interest to learn about these new tools -- unless they're in commercial design, in which case they're already using a lot of this stuff it's all computer Photoshop kind of stuff. They're at the age of probably really getting sort of left behind or lost. They're losing out, because they don't have the access to it and they don't have the interest, the interest isn't passionate enough to somehow of create the access for themselves. I think that's kind of an interesting, maybe a kind of lost generation of artists. Because we know people who know about this, but I'd say they're in the minority in terms of already established artists. You know in 20 years all the younger artists will be people who grew up with computers and never thought twice about it. Meanwhile there's a kind of generation gap.

SL: That's why the last show was an overview of what's going in the art schools. That's why we did that specifically as the last one, to find out how far back the next generation is, and how bathed in this culture, or these tools of this medium, they are, and they are. But the talk about accessibility. Curiously, on the other hand, those who are into it see it as a great democratization of access. Well, there's access to information we're talking about, not access to the tools of creation. But if it's access to information and if everybody is wired, everybody is fibre optics, and the computer is cheap enough that you can have it on your desk or you have a friend that you can go down the hall, then all the tools and all the applications and various other things you need to start up can be downloaded, and [you] would be able to get all the things that you need and would be able to produce. The hardware keeps dropping in price.

NH: The thing that also impressed me -- and this was really graphically presented at Siggraph is. You have all this amazing and very expensive hardware and software and a lot is being used to create arcade games, and stuff like that and so in a way computer graphics and that end of stuff really is in its adolescence. And the interesting thing about Siggraph was you had these huge, you know, silicone graphics equipment, you could ride the pterodactyl or something like that. And what I was mainly there for was they had a big artist display. So you have all these artists doing their low-tech examinations of, or in many cases parodies of, what the big corporations are doing. So there's a kind of difference at Siggraph, 'cause what they had both -- at the same huge convention -- that they were able to sort of present these different sides. 'Cause I mean a lot of the artists, even the ones who are interested in this, [find] it really hard to get access to the technology. Some corporations however, are getting pretty enlightened and they have artists in residence. Their artists get access to the equipment there and just brain-storm. So they figure the scientists and programmers will learn something from the artists, and the artists will learn. There'll be a kind of interchange. And that's pretty enlightened and that's good. But otherwise, there's some programs that The McLuhan Centre has VRAAP, giving artists access to virtual reality kind of technology so they can start learning about it and using it in their art, and there's things like Interaccess. But there's still like a real gap. A lot of artists and musicians don't know about this stuff, they don't realize how important it is. And even if they do, they don't have the access or feel don't perceive themselves as having the access to it.

SL: I think it's the perception more than the actuality. I think they actually could if they pushed more. The interesting point you just made is who controls the first generation and I think it has to do with the fact that this is an artistic medium which has a wide distribution pattern with a broadcasting [capabities]. The thing that drives it will always be [what is] the widest possible audience - then it will be the commercial entertainment or games aspect. If you look at film, it started off with cowboys shooting each other in train stations. And although you call that the adolescence of cyberspace media, the original adolescent view of entertainment that film started off as has never left. But along the way, there is still a lot of room for artistic expression, and I think if you use that as the model, I think we can get to that point as well, as long as we can have people accessing it in great numbers from all over.

NH: It's kind of interesting. People compare the digital revolution to as important as the invention of the printing press. What was the first thing Gutenberg printed? It wasn't Marvel Comics for 50 years, it was the Bible.

SL: He still printed the most popular entertaining thing of the day.

NH: I guess so, maybe. Maybe I'm just romanticizing it, but it sort seemed like there was a book that was important to a lot of people's lives. It had a spiritual content. Whereas it 's sort of like if the printing press was invented and all they used it for for the first 50 years was to print classified ads or pornography or something and you'd sort of say "Well what's the future of this new media?" So that's the equivalent now. And you sort of think, "Well, it is being developed mainly by people with commercial interests, and they tend to be in low end entertainment industry", and what we spent a lot of time looking at is that that's going to have a real effect on the way the technology is developed and so it's really important I think, that there's artists getting access to this who are able to critique it and make fun of it and use and take it in directions that the game manufacturers will never think of. That's really crucial. That's probably the most important thing that we looked at. And still want to look at because it's really an ongoing thing.

SL: The most important difference it seems to me is that it's a multi-point distribution system which can be changed by any other points. And add to it. And that is very scary to those who produces television. I can send something out, it gets manipulated, changed and sent on. I've lost all control. The current definition of creation and art and artistic expression has changed drastically. So there's no guarantee that people will have seen what I produced. You know, we send out a piece and they just change it! I mean, there are real dangers to it. You look at any BBS and people start talking about stuff and exchange information. They don't guarantee that this information is true. They'll say "well, so-and-so said so-and-so", and they go WOW! And immediately, there's a flame war going on, and people really caring about their wives --

NH: That happens anyhow -- look at the press. Now this woman in Pakistan, she says she was misquoted in the paper, and everyone want to kill her because of what she saif about the Koran.

SL: Because it's immediate and it's added to, it just creates this avalanche effect. You can see how it can be misused and misunderstood. I do have some significant reservations as to what happens to any linear art form, which has to be linear, which you have to lead people through or else it doesn't make sense. These kind of hyper-books which everybody creates and everybody throws in, and much of the artwork, and many of the art people say, "Well, I've created the parameters and the viewer acts as a participant and they create a new work, and it's different every single time." Well, that has a certain attraction, novelty, but when I read a book or when I see a painting or when I see dance or opera or anything else, I want to follow through the mindset or ideas of the person who created it. That's the prime concern. It's not totally passive, I wanted to be engaged, but I still want to be lead through this.

NH: This is the other big thing -- it's the dreaded "I" word -- interactive. It's the most hyped word and the most overrated. I did a piece on hypertext fiction and some were very critical of it, saying people don't read a book so they can be the author because most people have no talent and maybe they'll fool around for awhile, but soon or later they'll realize that the reason you buy a book is that you want to be privy to someone's artistic vision. And not everyone is an artist. And they might not play it that way. They might play it for awhile but they'd rather read or experience it some way somebody's creative world rather than pretend that they can do it. So a lot of the so-called interactivities is overrated.

SL: I think you're right

NH: I mean you could say, like the book could be held as this great interactive art form, "The Book" because you can pick it up --

SL: -- and go from any page to any page!

NH: Interactivity is an interesting concept but it's really overrated.

SL: Well maybe that's my old fuddy-duddy worry about it.