Intermedia from Higgins' Perspective

Dick Higgins’ essay titled, “Intermedia” (1966), explores the areas between the artistic mediums of the day. Higgins himself was an intermedia artist, and according to his essay, the only new work during his time that was worthwhile was that which crossed boundaries set by classical tradition.

He attacks painting and sculpture and the like. He claims pop art is “bland,” and “dead.” However, he lauds praise on artists like Marcel Duchamp for works such as “Fountain” (which is a urinal signed “R. Mutt, 1917”). Higgins also attacks theatre, which in itself is a sort of mixed-media, as it encompasses music, performance, and visual arts. However, it is stale and lacking in interactivity, Higgins states.

The Intermedia Higgins discusses bridges more than just the gap between different art mediums, it also bridges the gap between the artist and the viewers. Viewers are encouraged to become participants. Yoko Ono’s “Cut Piece,” (image on the left) for example, called for audience members to come up on stage and cut pieces of Ono’s clothing off. This is performance art, but it is also something else. The participants themselves become integral parts in the performance, as without them, Ono’s clothing would remain unchanged. Because of this, the performance reveals insight not only into Ono’s view on the world (in that she passively allows strangers to remove bits and pieces of her clothing), but also into the mind of society itself. The participants, for the most part, only remove small pieces of her clothing, and only one man goes in and tries to reveal all of her body. Does this mean American society is closed and prudish? Perhaps.

This kind of work is what Higgins sees as truly revolutionary. Picasso, while a good painter, was little more, in Higgins’ eyes. The people who mixed mediums and involved their audience were those who truly deserved praise. And perhaps Higgins is right. While I disagree with the fact that single-medium works are worthless, I do agree that mixed-medium pieces are far more interesting and revolutionary. Yoko Ono’s “Cut Piece,” seems far more insightful to me than a painting of a subdued woman in cut clothing. This blurring of lines is a striking way to express an opinion and is the “future” of art; or at least it was the future for Higgins, for us it is the present.

An Intelligent Maze

North Pitney’s experimental maze piece (shown in the video above), utilizes Max/MSP/Jitter to render an ever-changing maze controlled by the computer in the real world. This is an interesting concept as it draws on ideas and that are being used in the game design field as well as problems that have plagued the game design field for years.

The ability to randomly generate a playing field in a game has been a hot issue for a long time. Once a player has finished a game, or a level, or a stage, or whatever, there is no reason why the player should want to go back and play it again (unless he/she just fell in love with the game). However, with a randomly generated level, the game is a little bit different each and every round. However, many game designers and companies have found it difficult to do so. In early games, there simply wasn’t the technology. Once there was, games with randomly generated dungeons (such as in the “Diablo” series) were put to use. However, soon after games moved to 3D, which posed a problem. It’s easy for a computer to lop a bunch of 2D elements together to make a level. It’s not quite as simple to do that with 3D, as there are so many more things to take into account. How can they create dynamic lighting if the level changes every time it loads? How do they make subtle transfers in texture? How can they place random junk/crates/whatever where they’ll look natural?

While game designers are just now figuring out how to do this (such as in “Hellgate: London” [which is being designed by the people who did “Diablo”]) , Pitney has already passed them in a way. His maze, which changes to reflect a user’s actions, acts much like these games and it is clearly three-dimensional. So, is Pitney’s work a form of entertainment? Is it a game? Or are games themselves pieces of art? Is Pitney’s “game,” also art?

I believe the answer lies not in whether or not the maze or the game itself is art, but, as Pitney touches on, somewhere in between. The unification of the virtual world and the real world, which one rarely sees in this form, is what is artistic about this piece. Games now a days boast extremely intelligent AI that can watch what you’re doing, predict where you’ll move, and take action against you (especially in first person shooter games). Pitney’s piece brings this sort of AI to the real world. The maze itself, which is controlled by a computer, is “thinking” in its own way, and working against you, much like an AI controlled character in a game might. But the difference is that it is acting against you in the real world.

In a game, I can simply pause or quit or walk away from the computer, which renders the AI helpless. With Pitney’s maze, however, this is impossible. You are confined in the maze and you can’t just walk away from it… you must literally out smart the computer to get out. This transfer of intelligence from the virtual world to the real world poses many interesting questions. Is the computer thinking? Is it possible for the computer to keep you in the maze if it chooses? Or is it Pitney who is keeping you in the maze? After all, he wrote the code that controls the maze.

Regardless, this piece provides an interesting insight into the realm that lies between the virtual world and the real world. One can only think that in the near future more complex virtual/real world environments such as this will be made, further blurring the line between that which is artificial and that which is real.