Virtual
Reality 1,2
(artificial
pre-cybernetic reality)
Actually, nobody thinks
over the meaning, while talking today about virtual reality. It has come into
common langauge along with home computer and children hanging over it, with
helmets and CD-rom grapes. Advertisement tends to create cybernetics as a
successor of religion, metaphysics, art and drugs - virtual world is going to
be another (maybe last?) opportunity for us to get away from physicality,
bodily limitations, a cure for awareness of mortality. A black gap lurks
between a real role of electronics in life and propaganda, but whoever
remembers of that?
In
1995, when preparing a catalogue of the 10th Cracovian Meetings I received for
publication a text by Zbigniew Warpechowski, which dealt with an
artist-performer workshop (”First in history description of an
artist-performer workshop”, written during hunger strike in Sandomierz,
1994). The text begins with the following confession :
”The major and
most important part of my workshop is under closed eyelids, and another one is
a spatial board that always accompanies me and is within my vision, preferably
some two meters before me and somewhat above my head. What is under eyelids, is
an internal canopy, and before me -
an external canopy. These canopies
are spheric screens on which images of our memory create, of our
imagination, thoughts and anything that no thinker would even dare describe,
and before what any scientist turns coward, which is a source of unconscious
and conscious creativiness of a man...”
The point is not in
that Warpechowski proclaims in
this way supremacy of imagination over technique, but that makes it in the way
close to descriptions of technical inventions that shock our senses. It lively
reminds of Vedic texts, willingly quoted by anthropologists and philosophers of
culture, which sometimes seem to anticipate, possibly thanks to careful
introspection, discoveries of modern science.
Development
of civilization, in general, similarily to concrete technical innovations have
always effected human imagination, artists interests and workshop. However,
never to the degree as today did technique interfere in a sphere of sensory
perception, say in the sphere reserved up to now for art. Thus, interaction
between technique and art is, nowadays, of different nature and brings various
effects. Actually, on one hand art becomes fascinated with technique, takes advantage of any novelty
available, makes experiments with language, subjecting its rules and content to
newly created opportunities, on the other hand persists in defending itself
against technique’s influence and power. After all, powerful technology
is costly, thus it is a tool of power, first and foremost. To begin with, it
finds its way to firing testing grounds, battlefields, secret spy agencies, and
politicians offices. Then, to a big, most most profitable industry that is
supposed to give profits to feed new technical ideas. And this is a level, at
last, at which an artist, possibly, may meet this technology, and it is usually
at the cost of his personal independence, being under economic pressure,
restricted by productiveness duty. Even quite well equipped and donated from
special funds the centres of ”technological art”, in spite of being
relatively common within the area of their influence, can be maintained due to
mechanisms, in which effects of the centres’ work are considered only in
view of commercial or political usefullness. In consequence, art is much more
delayed, in terms of using modern technique for its purposes, towards army, for
instance. At least art is far away by the same distance from ”dream
factories”. In practice, an artist has slightly better access to modern
technologies than anyone else, so, he merely has theoretically unlimited access
to technological achievements in the phase of mass production.
It
is my intention to actually focus on a space, in which mutual interactions of
contemporary technology and art lead to phenomena and processes that,
irrespective of unit price, are interesting and important in view of general
modification process and cultural transformation. In 1941 John Cage wrote Imaginery
Landscape No.2 and No.3, where he utilized as musical instruments electric
coils, frequency oscillators and contact microphones, among others. Earlier on,
in autumn 1938, he composed Imaginery Lanscape No.1, where utilized gramophones,
amplifiers and loudspeakers, and this was, as looks like, the first in history
electroacoustic composition. As it is easy to notice, Cage used for his
historic work the things of daily use, which can be bought in the shops with
household or basic electric equipment. Innovatory usage of that equipment was
not a kind of exquisite technical innovation, but a specific function given to
the equipment within the work, not necessarily concordant to its primary
purpose. It is the first piece of evidence that innovation in art, in spite of
possibly being related to technology, is not identical with technological
innovation. Making it simpler, technology does not translate ”at
all” directly
into the notion of ”art work technology”, or value of art
work does not result from quality of technical solutions applied in it. Moreover, technical
efficiency is demanded from an artist usually by those, who anticipate from art
to be in conformity with tradition, and thus, reference to technique in this
case is not relevant to the aspect of its modernness, surely, it is the matter
of craftsman’s correctness only.
Paraphrasing
John Cage (acc. to ”In defence of Erik Satie”, John Cage, 1948),
the work of art is a continuity (of sound, matter, sense...). In order to
declare its existence (to distinguish from non-existence) the work of art must
have a structure, say, distinct parts making one entirety in mutual cooperation.
And, again, to make it have value this wholeness must live, in other words,
must have a form. Meaning a form, Cage thinks of what makes a structure
individual, unit and unique occurence. Besides structure and form the work of
art must also be defined by a method and material, that is to say, the way of
continuity construction (rule of systematic order), and the kind of material.
All these things may become a work, if we manage to make elements cooperate,
i.e. to get suggestive impression of individual continuity. This is a
description of art technology. So, how it happens that Cage and so many other
contemporary artists show inclination to ”technical technology”,
cybernetic machines, or whatever one calls them?
There
are two answers to that question. One answer is really simple, and another one
apparently simple. And, thus, it is a trite truth that human creativeness
consists in modifying surroundings, and that the material for this creativeness
is a substance creating surroundings. A man creates his material world as a
snail preying on that what stands on his way, processing this and making
himself dependent on his own products, he continues the search for necessary
materials. We do similarily in artistic creativity, although perhaps somewhat
more subtle, anyway, it is a clear analogy. Each time we reach out to our own
surroundings, first for what is at hand. We compose our thoughts for processing
simple structures into complex ones. Raising things deprived of values and
putting a meaning to them.Changing meanings of things, making a matter
spiritual. That is why we reach for technical things that surround us,
actually, our world is as it is; it is easier to make electric connection than
stand with a bare foot on the grass. An artist referring in this world to
”Nature” without any restrictions, using ”natural
materials” without any attempt to play with civilization, is doomed to
being alienated, or becoming a luxury attraction of salons. The cause is
simple, as ”this Nature” no longer surrounds us, it ceased to be an
immanent part and a contradiction to human reality.
The
second answer has been suggested at the beginning of this paper. Never has
technology entered so deeply in the area of sensory perception, vision,
hearing, smell, and touch. Never has it played such a role in communication,
had such an effect on the language, image, sound, on the opportunity to analyze
them, record, process, and artificially produce. In so far as the possibility
to mechanically ”store” image and sound constituted technological
revolution in art (by standards of invention of writing), the ability to
artificially produce visual, sound and sensory incentives is tempting for a
beginning of a new world to be declared, an artificial world submissive to our
will. A key to understand temptation is obviously a word
”artificial”, which is common to Art and every ”unnatural
” existence, to everything, what is in contradiction with reality. Thus,
one can say that artists try for exquisite devices to stimulate motives
(creation of image, matter and sound illusion) for the same reasons (different
goals, however) some of them indulge too freely, for instance, in alcohol.
Actually,
art is beyond that, what I reiterated after Cage, namely that sphere of
communication, in which we aspire to trasmitting the contents not passing
through the gates of common communication. The senses that we apprehend, the
emotions, which can hardly be described, the feelings that stuck in one’s
throat, anything perceived that goes beyond the rules of logics. That is why we
build artificial worlds in art, that is why we have a symbol and metaphor, a
game and conventionality. Art is untruth for the sake of truth, artificiality
for the sake of naturalness, humming for the sake of communication, a model
inconsistency. However, paradox of art has two layers, two levels, without
which paradox may remain, but art volatilizes. One level is to create illusion,
fiction, the other one - to give significance to it. The problem of art
becoming volatile or diluted appeared always, where the power of illusion
developed beyond its importance. On the other way, alienation of art took
place, when presentation of crucial meanings appeared to be not convincing
enough, non-suggestive, when an artistic fact ceased to ”protrude”
above mediocrity. Can one still be surprised, why an artist strikes a deal with
the devil, why he is attracted by mysticism, magic and prestidigitation? Is it
necessary to answer again, why he is interested in productive, and reproductive
machines, or the machines creating images, sound, illusion, copies and
phantasmagoria of reality?
Let
us try to consider the issue in another way. What we define today as
”virtual reality” (synonymous with ”cybernetic
reality”) in a ”non-cybernetic” sense has always existed in
human imagination. It existed in clouds and stars, when a man stared at them
expecting more than everyday life could bring, when he was pondering and in
this way tended to know the nature of the world, in philosophical speculation.
Through modelling a matter, through imaging, creating symbols and illusion, art
would give a sensorial substitute of this artificial, conceived, but to
significant degree based upon reality, longing to get out beyond the world, and
- in this way - to mentally get it under control. Pre-cybernetic virtual
reality would serve to art (because it was generated as if
directly-from-imagination). Cybernetic reality, however, can be generated
almost mechanically as it is - at least for the time being - attractive
regardless of ”metaphysical” quality, significance, deepness and
sense. Thus, it has not replaced art (as many, not only under age fanatics of
electronic media say), but begins to force it out clearly from imagination of
many people. Wandering through absurd, aimlessly unsightly mazes, finding and
taking hold of random gifts, anihilation of alleged enemies, simulation of
emotions and creative abilities, and, most of all, delusion of having the power
over this world, is a sufficiently enticing and making one subordinated.
Nobody, who is well aware of this process, cannot ignore it, if he wants to be
engaged in art today.
Actually,
it would not be wise to try to point out a way of handling the problem, These
are right, who try to take control of high technology for art purposes, those,
who ridicule and parody it are also right, as well as those, who eliminate it
from their practice. In my opinion, only those, who fight technology itself
recognizing it as enemy, are wrong. In a way, it looks like destroying sparrows
in China. One should understand that a proverbial computer in art appears as an
alternative to paintbrush, like some time ago oil paint became an alternative
to distemper. One should also understand that real fight goes on for
”pre-cybernetic virtual reality” could take advantage of
”cybernetic” one, and eventually, to preserve continuity of human
thoughts and emotions, that is identity and consciousness.
A
theoretically possible harmony of ”technology of art work” with ”technology
of tools manufacturing”, which an artist use, with technology, which an artist
uses for material processing (each of the procedures is different and they
should not be mistaken, the sense of a notion ”technology” is here
on two totaly different levels, and - quoting Karl Popper : ”... there
are no problems common to different levels”), requires nowadays, from the
perspective of history itself, an additional factor. For this harmony, as an
art claim, to have a sense, an artist as an individual must have a sense, in reference to art.
This is a factor I would add, reporting a description, which is up-to-date, of
technology of John Cage’s art work in 1996/97. As a result it gives a
double model mutually conditioned, which was primarily presented by Cage in a
single version : it has to be fulfilled by an artist as an individual, who
creates a work to the same degree as the work itself, so as to come to another
paradox :
”an artist
creates a work = a work creates an artist”.
John Cage foresaw the
necessity, although expressed the content of this paradox in a different
manner. One only need to refer to Erik Satie’s defence.
And
what is the difference like between ”Art using technology” and ”technology
aspiring to art”? When differentiating art-not art, that is art value -
lack of value, there can be no difference. The point is that whatever the
areas, the quality, reflection level, and sublimation degree are not
guarranted. The differences are found in individual cases, Art and Artist can
be born under any circumstances. The difference (in value) originates, most of
all, from the profoundness of experiencing the world (including Fiction) and
reflection level of an individual.
Kraków, September 1996 -
December 1997