John Cage - Computers and Art

In his essay, John Cage states that “we need a computer that isn’t labor-saving but which increases the work for us to do.” Does creating art on and with computers require less talent and effort than the creation of art with traditional mediums? Is it worth less?

I’d have to say no, and not only because I use computers to create art. While it’s true that certain things are easier to do on computers than “in real life,” (for example, when coloring a drawing, I can use the paintbucket tool to fill a shape, as opposed to using a brush and ink, which takes longer), I do not believe that it requires less talent and effort.

Advancements have been made in different artistic mediums over and over throughout the years. When people started using oil based paints as opposed to egg based paints (oil allowing for the use of transparent layers for better control over colors and more realistic effects), there wasn’t a massive backlash against the new medium (to the best of my knowledge). Computers are, of course, somewhat different. Someone who lacks the physical skills required to paint a perfect circle can make one on a computer in a matter of seconds.

However, the fact remains that computers cannot make art on their own. There’s no sort of magic button on a computer labeled, “MAKE ME SOME ARTS.” The computer is still a tool, and as long as “art” is based on an artists intention, the medium and tools used matter very little.

Situational Tour: The White House

The White House. Access to this building is usually controlled by a large metal fence, vicious and unrelenting security, possibly land mines beneath the grass, and definitely snipers on the roof. However, today, it is guarded by much, much more. A few police, and a feeble temporary crowd control fence. Why?


Because outside of its walls the masses have gathered with signs, flags, face paint and other nefarious tools of the so-called trade.


But why have these people come? What is their so-caled trade? The White House seems quite unconcerned.


They are protesters, the untouchable sludge of the political world. Their signs and dead eyes give them away.


These signs, which vary from person to person, serve to explain their owners intentions and feelings to those around them. The owner of this sign, for example, is clearly protesting the actions taken by certain underworld crime bosses named after aquatic spheniscidae.


This protester is attempting to convince his cohorts to use Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional.


This protester draws peoples attentions to the biblical significance of their actions. Indeed, who would Jesus bomb? Are not all people equal and loved in the eyes of Jesus? Should we not, therefore, bomb everyone?


Some, however, do not carry signs. They wander through the crowd aimlessly, merely content to be part of the gathering.


Others seem uninterested in the protest. In fact, this one seemed to be far more interested in her flavored ice. What is her purpose? She is dissuading other protesters from their mission with her delicious, refreshing flavored ice. Let us ignore her, lest we fall prey to her scheme as well.


Others go even further, and transform their entire appearance. This protester, clearly, is an Old West bandit. He is likely to rob your trains and stagecoaches, if you have such thing.


"The Man" grows restless with this menagerie hovering so close to the White House. Backup is called, and men with dogs appear. Clearly these protesters are having a large effect. Their voices are being heard! They are ready and willing to fight off "The Man's" rabid dogs of oppression. The White House must answer their pleas! It must!


Or must it? The White House appears, as ever, quite unimpressed. It sits back, gazes at its lazily gurgling fountain, and contemplates other issues. The crowd, discouraged, moves off to another building that might be more inclined to listen, and finding that it is, in fact, more likely to listen, hasten to allow themselves to be arrested.

Intermedial Art

Is non-intermedial work truly as worthless or unimportant as Higgins seems to claim it is? Is intermedial art truly more insightful than “normal” art?

It seems like this is a question that’s difficult to answer without stepping on certain people’s toes. While it’s clear what Higgins’ answer is to this question, is he necessarily correct?

I do believe that it is true that multimedia (or “intermedial” ) art can sometimes be more thought provoking and insightful than work produced in a traditional manner, I feel as though it is somewhat closed minded to claim that traditional mediums have no place in the future of art. Look at, for example, Chris Ofili’s “The Holy Virgin Mary.” This painting, which incorporated pornographic pictures and was painted, in part, with elephant dung, created considerable uproar when it was first shown. It made people question the artist’s intent (was he, perhaps, trying to attack Christianity?), or was he commenting on art itself? Regardless of the answers to these questions, the fact that it did provoke such questions and sparked much debate.

On the other hand, a good example of an intermedial piece that also created somewhat of an uproar was Yoko Ono’s “Cut Piece,” in which she sat, passively on a stage and allowed audience members to cut off pieces of her clothing. This made people ask themselves, what is it about our culture (or perhaps was it Asian culture?) that made women so passive? Or were women just naturally passive? Was Ono attempting to make another statement? Again, many deep questions were raised.

It’s clear, in my mind, that “normal” art is not extinct or less valuable than intermedial art. Any and all art can have large impacts… the medium matters very little.

Situational Tour - La Casa Blanca

View Larger Map

For my Situational Tour project, I’d like to examine the human element in the immediate area surrounding the White House. In this area, there are generally many types of people. Security guards, tourists, protesters, newscasters… each has come to the White Hosue with different intentions. I intend to examine the motivations for each of these, and possibly other, groups. Have they come to this location to register complaints? To protect others? To revel in the grandness of democracy? What, if anything, do they have in common?

Birth of a New Medium

Did the efforts of ARPA and the Xerox PARC directly lead to multimedia art? Were they the first footsteps in the field, or were they simply a necessary step before multimedia art could begin to take place?

While it is clear that there was nothing overtly “artistic” about ARPANET or the work of Xerox PARC, it is important to note the concepts with which they both dealt. ARPA was concerned, mostly, with the creation of networks between computers for the transmission of information. As Engelbart displayed with his “oNLine System,” it was possible for separate computers to communicate with each other. While this had obvious implications for the military and academia, it had similar, less direct implications for art. Multimedia art, it has been noted, is often concerned with interactivity. With ARPANET, or Englebart’s “oNLine System,” it was possible to change information on another computer. To today’s viewer, this would be seen as little more than a primitive form of email, but in reality, the connection between two computers reflects the essence of multimedia art. No longer were these two computers and their users having separate and different experiences, but they were sharing an experience.

Additionally, Xerox PARC, which during this time was dealing with the idea of creating a sort of portable, personal computing device, was dealing with another aspect of multimedia art. Multimedia pieces often strive to deemphasize the importance of authors. Many multimedia pieces invite viewers to change what they see in a piece. Recently in the AU museum, one piece looked at the colors of people’s clothing, hair, etc., in addition to movement, and reflected those colors and movements in itself.

This is precisely what Xerox PARC was attempting to do. While it’s obvious that they were not thinking about “art,” per se when they were theorizing about what would later become laptop computers, they were thinking about giving the power of computers to a wider audience. At the time, computers were really only owned by government agencies and academic institutions, as they were simply too expensive for consumers, and also were really only designed to deal with rough data and calculations. Alan Kay, working at PARC, spoke of how personal computers would encompass “all other media.” They would no longer be restricted to making long calculations, but could be used to view and create media. Is this not the essence of a large portion of multimedia art?

In the end, the efforts of ARPA and Xerox PARC probably did not DIRECTLY lead to multimedia art. While many of their thoughts and intentions mirror those of current multimedia artists, their intent was not artistic. However, ARPA and PARC were vital stepping stones towards future multimedia, interactive and decentralized art.