Soundscape

The Future of Multimedia Art

In their article, “Personal Dynamic Media,” Alan Kay and Adele Goldberg state that “the interactions of humans with their media have been primarily nonconversational and passive in the sense that marks on paper, paint on walls, even “motion” pictures and television, do not change in response to the viewer’s wishes,” and that “once put down on paper [ideas] remain static and require the reader to expand their possibilities.” However, today media does allow for user interaction. Since this goal of creating an interactive form of media has been achieved, what is next in multimedia?

I would say (or perhaps hope) that it lies in user (or, in the case of art, “viewer”) creation as opposed to interaction. Take the internet for example. There are millions of people who can be classified as internet “users.” However, there are very few that can be classified as “creators.” A creator, in my mind, is someone who takes their corner of the internet (their web page) and creates something new and different by themselves. There is a lot of user interaction these days. Look at Myspace for example. It allows for users to change the way their page looks to reflect their own personal style. However the backbone of the system remains the same. People who edit their Myspace pages are not creating anything, they’re simply interacting with it by changing the way it looks.

The same can be said for multimedia art. Lets take JacksonPollock.org for example. This piece allows users to create “art” similar to that of Jackson Pollock by mimicking his gesture and stroke. The end result is that the user has made their own artistic piece. However, have they truly “created” anything? The way the strokes appear and the colors of the paint are predetermined by the original artist. So the user is not actually “creating” anything. They’re simply interacting with the original artists creation.

I’d say that, at some point in the future, multimedia art will move to a point that will allow the viewer of a piece to truly create their own art with that piece. How will this happen? Honestly, I have no idea. I cannot imagine a computer or a program that will allow a viewer to have complete freedom on what they create without requiring tremendous knowledge of coding, modeling, design, etc. But then again, technology is advancing daily. I remember when I first started playing computer games. Games had two dimensional, 8-bit graphics. Not long after, there was talk of people making truly three-dimensional games. How absurd, I thought. How could a normal person like myself possibly be able to afford a computer that could render such things in real time? But look at games now. Designers are able to create nearly realistic environments and characters. So who is to say that, a few years from now, some sort of technology will be created that will allow for the sort of user interaction I’m talking about?

Hektor: Art or Artist?

Hektor’s creators call him “a portable Spray-paint Output Device for laptop computers.” It was designed and created by Jürg Lehni and Uli Franke, of Lausanne, Switzerland. To create its art, it employs a computer, a premade Illustrator file, two small motors, some string, a specially designed spray paint holder, and, of course spray paint. With these tools, it is able to closely reproduce graffiti like images. My question is this: who is creating the art? Hektor or his creators?

This question is similar to those I have been asking all semester. At what point does a piece of multimedia art stop being “art,” or even the artists own creation? If a computer randomly generates sound and images, is it an artist? Or are those who programmed the computer to do so the artists? While I have already decided on my own answer to this question, it is interesting to look at it from different points of view.

Lets say we have a novice painting student. He doesn’t know much of anything about how to paint… all he knows is that it involves brushes. He takes a class. He buys a canvass and paint at a local art store. He goes to class. His professor says, “Here’s a still life. Here’s how to sketch it. Here’s how to show depth. Here’s how to use color. Now paint that still life.” When the student finishes, he has produced a piece of art. However, would everyone agree that this painting is entirely his own? He received much tutoring, after all. He didn’t stretch his own canvass. He didn’t choose his subject… so is it really his own “piece of art”?

Similarly, are the creators of Hektor the creators of the art he produces? The work Hektor produces is not of his own creation. By using Adobe Illustrator and a plugin called Scriptographer, Hektor follows paths that tell him where to move, when to start spraying, and when to stop. However, the Illustrator file that tells him his actions was created long beforehand. So is Hektor creating this piece of art? Or are those who gave him his instructions?

As always, I maintain my argument that Hektor, like any other multimedia tool, is just that – a tool. Hektor is like a paint brush. He is a canvass. He is the paint. He is the professor offering instruction. However, the author of whatever piece he produces are his creators and those who give him his instructions.

Hektor is extremely different from most multimedia art, however. The fact of the matter is that the artists’ hands never touch the final piece. They barely even touch the paint except to shake it before the pass it off to Hektor. Of course they give Hektor his instructions, much as other multimedia artists provide their tools with images or movies or sounds, but Hektor creates art in a much more permanent way. It will be interesting to see what happens in the future with Hektor and programs like it. Will there be a point when his offspring are able to draw from various sources and create their own art? Who knows.





Various other things:
Rita - A drawing and erasing display
Telephone - Two computers talking