Michael Benjamin Izett: The Unconscious And Electronic Art; Is Automatism Achievable Through Modern Technology?

Pondering on extra-terrestrial beings and the cosmos they may inhabit, thoughts eventually turn to the unknown, and more specifically, ideas around infinity. Maurizio Bolognini’s 1997 installation, Programmed Machines (Fig. 5), pairs the concept of infinity with the sublime. In the installation, several personal computers are displayed on the floor of the space and programmed to generate a flow of random abstract images indefinitely. These images are then displayed through individual monitors or projected onto walls. Writing about Programmed Machines, Bolognini states:
I do not consider myself an artist who creates certain images, and I am not merely a conceptual artist. I am one whose machines have actually traced more lines than anyone else, covering boundless surfaces. I am not interested in the formal quality of the images produced by my installations but rather in their flow, their limitlessness in space and time, and the possibility of creating parallel universes of information made up of kilometers of images and infinite trajectories. My installations serve to generate out-of-control infinities. (Bolognini, 2008, p. 34)

To this day, many of his machines are still running, creating their images. But is the installation representative of Bolognini’s unconscious? In answering this, we must disassociate ourselves from the idea that the machines serve as a real-time expression of his present unconscious state. What they are though is an infinite manifestation of Bolognini’s unconscious at the moment in which he programmed the machines. If we had access to a time machine and visited the piece many hundreds of years from now, the images seen would serve as the digital fossilization of that automatic moment.

Programmed Machines does also pose an interesting question regarding the confines of our unconscious minds. Are we infinite in this respect? Yes, our unconscious is constructed through lived experiences both positive and negative, but it also houses the id (our primitive prompts and instinctual behaviors), so is there a beginning and an end to instinct or is it infinite?
During Programmed Machines, Bolognini also created the sister installation, Sealed, in which he closed some of the monitor buses with silicone. This left the computers to continue the process of imagining images but prohibited their ability to present them. This adaptation now suggests the question: if, prior to a supposedly automatic piece’s creation, the knowledge that it will be exhibited is present, can the piece still be considered automatic? In other words, truly accessing the unconscious invites the possibility of involuntarily conveying one’s darkest, and potentially most embarrassing, subliminal thoughts. So, is the only way to prevent such potential embarrassment to ensure that the work will never be seen, thus removing all mediation? If we take this literally, the whole concept of artistic automatism is rendered useless, leaving it as a merely romanticized fabrication of a psychological technique. Rather than let this happen, I believe we must accept the fact that there is a chance that a degree of mediation may have occurred, especially if the piece is in anyway representational. To put it bluntly, in Masson’s early automatic drawings, if the urge to sketch a Freudian sexual act had presented itself, I’m sure he would have further repressed it. And if by chance, it wasn’t repressed, I doubt he’d have shown it.
Unfortunately while writing this paper, the news broke that David Bowie had passed away, aged 69. In a tribute aired by the BBC, I was surprised to learn that generative automatism had played a substantial part in creative processes throughout his career. Up until the 1980s, Bowie used the technique of gathering clippings from poems, articles, old lyrics, novels, etc. in a bowl, then randomly picking them out and freely arranging them. From this, Bowie discovered that the spontaneity of the process gave his lyrics a creative kick, invigorating their content. By the mid-80s, to remove the arduous practice of spending hours snipping individual sentences out of texts, a friend of Bowie's wrote him a program that allowed him to digitalize the process. And from then on, Bowie’s lyrical content was created by the click of a button.
Before learning this, I assumed that generative automatism was quite a niche form of art, something you’d have to go to an art gallery to see or a small, gritty venue to hear. But now, it’s nice to know that the concept had informed an artist whose impact upon global culture has been undeniably otherworldly.
The next piece I would like to discuss is Mutator2 Triptych by William Latham. Similarly to Hiller’s Belshazzar’s Feast (The Writing on Your Wall), Mutator2 is designed to instigate imagination within the audience rather than merely express Latham’s own.

Fig. 6. Latham. Mutation (Still taken from Mutator2 Triptych. 2013

As we can see from the Figure 6, Latham’s work examines the relationship between the geometry found in the natural world, technology and human aesthetic. Using programs designed to loosely imitate the processes of evolution, Mutator2 combines three large projectors and three computer touchscreens. The initial 3D imagery seen on the projector resembles a small embryonic form, which is then incrementally developed into increasingly complex forms through the interaction of the audience via the touch screens. Figure 6 is a drawing completed earlier in Latham’s career. It illustrates the process of Mutator2’s software.

Fig. 7. Latham. Hand-drawn Form Synth. 1984

The result of the piece is the continuous, randomized mutation of a biomorphic form dependent on the real-time interaction of its audience. But is this a form of automatism?
What Latham has done is gift the opportunity of creation to his audience. He has presented a form of creation where the creator is free from conscious mediation, as he or she most likely has no understanding of the parameters of possibility within the program. Latham has essentially built a hierarchy of imagination, putting himself at its pinnacle as the authoritative figure (the overseer), and his audience as the manipulators. So, yes, this could be considered as a form of automatism in the same way that Belshazzar’s feast is; the biomorphic forms may suggest imagery in a similar fashion to Hiller’s bonfire. But, on a more interesting note, has Latham also created an accurate simulation of the mechanics of Freudian theory? One could say that the audiences’ interaction through the touchscreens is representative of the pleasure principle (the id). Given the opportunity to impulsively influence the form, the audience does so while not knowing how it will eventually manifest itself. Latham, on the other hand, represents the reality principle (the ego). Through conceiving the idea, he satisfies the impulsive needs of the audience. And finally, the perfection principle (the super-ego) is present within the medium. This ensures that the 3D imagery is conveyed within the boundaries of technological representation.
What is left is a clear illustration of how the unconscious functions. Mutator2 Triptych exemplifies neither the audiences’ or Latham’s unconscious, but the relationship between the three elements that determines everyone’s.
The final artist I’d like to discuss is Harold Cohen and his collaborations with his algorithmic ‘other-half’, AARON (Calit2ube, 2011). Born in 1968, AARON is a computer program designed to create original artwork autonomously. Initially programmed to generate abstract work, AARON, through Cohen’s incremental computational developments over the decades, is now capable of imagining and painting representational scenes that might include plants and people. Yet, the pair’s most recent paintings are perhaps their most collaborative work.
Figure 8, and others in the series began as black and white line paintings created by AARON. But, rather than leave all of the creative decision making up to the program as he usually does, Cohen decided to re-introduce himself to the process through hand painting what AARON had left him. The resulting artwork is artwork that embodies the relationship of two minds, the human and the mechanical.

Fig. 8. Cohen. 111129.38. 2011

Is AARON and Cohen’s relationship a form of automatism? Yes, is suppose one could argue that it is. What AARON autonomously creates, personifies forty-eight years of Cohen’s thought processes. The detail of every individual modification that allows AARON to paint each mark, colour, line and motif may have been forgotten by Cohen, but due to the properties of AARON’s mechanical mind continue to manifest themselves to the exact detail in which they were originally inputted into the program. Therefore, resurfacing disregarded information.
Additionally, we can also look at the relationship from AARON’s perspective. One could suggest that each modification inputted by Cohen resembles an individual experience experienced by AARON. Thus, what is being created is a combination of everything AARON has learnt, making the art a depiction of its conscious mind. To relate this to Freudian theory; Cohen represents the parental figure, tailoring the character of AARON. However, this is where the line begins to blur between generatively made art and artificial intelligence, the differentiation of which I will leave to another paper. ^*
Another interesting point we can take from this piece is the difference between the organic and mechanical. With medicinal maintenance and instinctual avoidance of situations that may cause harm, humans can increase the longevity of their existence, but will always remain finite. Whereas, if properly maintained, there is no reason AARON cannot continue creating work long after Cohen ceases to exist. What’s left is the opportunity for Cohen to continue his artistic career in death. Perhaps providing recently finished work in the world’s first posthumous exhibition.
Conclusion
In terms of concluding this paper, rather than re-emphasizing how automatism is achievable through modern technology, I would like to finish with two questions: what is the value of automatic art? And, what does the future hold for automatism?
Regarding the value of automatic art, I do not feel that it is a particularly valuable form of artistic expression. My reasons for this lie in the question: what makes a piece of art more than just art, what makes it remarkable? Art becomes remarkable when it surpasses the conventionality of communication. Art becomes more than just art when it embodies more than just the prospect for expression to be received. Remarkable art is art that induces that rare meditative state and presents something not experienced before, something new. Automatism is just ‘art’ because it serves as a means of investigating parts of the human psyche and experiences that already exist. Yes, information concerning the functionality of thought that we were previously unaware of might be acquired when practicing or viewing automatic art, but this is the acquisition of information that does exist. Remarkable art is the exceptionally rare occurrence where the information communicated didn’t exist before it was communicated.
Although automatism may not be remarkable in this sense, its role in culture and science as means of investigating the human psyche remains important. Furthermore, taking into account the sudden quickening of pace in which we as a species are evolving, and the fashion in which this is happening, automatism’s significance as a means of screening and monitoring the most primitive areas of the human mind is only set to increase.
We, therefore, have a responsibility. Culturally speaking, we must collectively ensure that a harmonious balance is achieved between the human and mechanical mind. Prioritization of the mechanical mind would result in the dehumanization of culture, leaving a culture void of our haphazard associations, our delusions, our tragic optimism concerning the realms possibility; our imperfections. A mechanized culture would be deplorably accurate and rational. It would be a culture governed by our ability to reason. Contrary to this, perhaps imbalance on the mechanical side would later prove productive as the eventual…
On the other hand, prioritization of the human mind would deplete culture’s role within society. If advances in modern technology were to be excluded from culture but included in the rest of human evolution, society’s ability to relate to artistic expression would slowly dissolve into nothingness, rendering culture’s purpose redundant, leaving it as a historical artifact of times gone by.
If by chance, a healthy balance is established between these two minds, the future of culture, and indeed automatism, looks bright. Partnering the unwavering convictions and precision of the mechanical mind with the boundless emotional and innovative properties of the human mind, will allow culture to remain as not only an integral part of human evolution but as our identity as a species. That said, there is no real way of knowing how automatism will manifest itself in the future, but, regardless of harmoniousness of balance of minds, I’ll look forward to finding out.

1^ Breton did describe the medium of photography as the ‘true photography of thought’ (Danto, 1997, p. 137), but seeing as he has also used photomontage, which is consciously composed, we can definitively say that the work is not automatic.

*^* Wouldn’t it be intriguing if Cohen programmed AARON to create work via reversing all it had learnt? This would not represent the machine’s unconsciousness, rather a retrograde version of conscious thought. Perhaps the imagery presented would be similar to that of a negative photograph, but rather than solely reversed colour, we would see an example of the reversed imagination of a machine.

Directory: 2016
2016 -> Senate, No. 627 State of new jersey 217th legislature
2016 -> 2017 afoCo Landmark Scholarship Program
2016 -> Instructions for the Preparation of Camera-Ready Contributions to the Conference Proceedings
2016 -> Strategic Plan South Sudan Country Office Context
2016 -> Original: English
2016 -> Step student Scholarships for Year 10-13
2016 -> Resolution
2016 -> American bar association adopted by the house of delegates