Art Ex Machina

Notes

IEEE Student Journal, September 1970, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 10-14. The reprint's head reads “ART EX MACHINA by A. M. NOLL. Reprinted from IEEE STUDENT JOURNAL, September 1970, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 10-14. Copyright (c) 1970 - The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.” The supplied citation is confirmed.. Self-archived by the author at http://noll.uscannenberg.org/Art%20Papers/Art%20ex%20Machina.pdf — Noll posts his own papers on his site at noll.uscannenberg.org, which is where this copy comes from. Hosting here is with his agreement, given to Bre Pettis directly on 6 October 2026. A sceptical stock-taking after a decade. The standfirst asks whether computer art is any good or just a gimmick. Writing as a research engineer who has dabbled in computer movies and choreography, Noll says little has actually been accomplished, that most computer art done by engineers and scientists, his own included, would benefit from an artist's touch, and that the artist who wants a computer has the opposite problem: no knowledge of the technology and no access to a machine. Computers, he says, have mostly copied effects obtainable by conventional means; in music they have done little more than a few oscillators could. He allows one real use, experimental aesthetics: analysing the properties of trumpets and violins and measuring preferences among visual patterns. But pattern recognition blocks the study of real music or paintings, since a computer could still barely recognise a simple three-dimensional block. He contrasts two animators: John Whitney works at a graphics console manipulating parameters in a program written for him by someone else, getting immediate feedback but unable to change his repertoire alone; Stan VanDerBeek works at the programming level, but his programs are so slow that immediate feedback is impossible. The deeper problem is that artists think visually and intuitively while programming demands logical rigour; the artist needs a machine that can read his mind. The remedy is a new breed of artist-computer scientist, hatched in universities that have both art and computer science departments, though few engineering schools give credit for art courses. He attacks the brokers of collaboration, naming Experiments in Art and Technology, Inc. (E.A.T.), and the 1966 show “9 evenings: theatre and engineering” at New York's Armory of the 69th Infantry, where equipment failed so often that artists later recast their incompetence as a comment on technology. Collaborations, he writes, are doomed to a mediocre combination of poor art with poor technology, the fallacy clearest when a computer is the third party. He closes by noting that scientists and engineers hold a near-monopoly on artistic experimentation with computers. Points of record: Noll judges that little was accomplished in computer art in its first decade, his own work included, and that most of it would benefit from an artist's touch; Argues most computer art has only copied effects obtainable with conventional media, and that computer music has done little more than a few oscillators and tape recorders could; Contrasts John Whitney (console, immediate feedback, cannot program) with Stan VanDerBeek (programs, no immediate feedback); both are handicapped by their computing environment; Attacks Experiments in Art and Technology, Inc. (E.A.T.) and the 1966 “9 evenings: theatre and engineering” at the Armory of the 69th Infantry, saying most collaborations are doomed to poor art with poor technology; Calls for a new breed of artist-computer scientist to be trained in universities, noting that few engineering schools give credit for art courses; The author biography states that in 1968 his work was shown in the first major exhibition of digital computer art in the USA - a date that conflicts with his 1994 memoir, which gives the Howard Wise Gallery show of 6-24 April 1965; Biography notes he would receive his PhD from the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn in June 1971. Illustrated: Ma Jolie (Woman with a Guitar), Pablo Picasso, collection The Museum of Modern Art, New York, printed under the heading “Art, machine and man-made”; Gaussian-Quadratic by Noll (printed “Guassian-Quadratic”), (c) A. Michael Noll 1965, with a caption noting the Gaussian distribution, the quadratically increasing verticals, a standard deviation of 150, and that the proportions were reached by trial and error; A portrait photograph of Noll in the biography box. People named: A. Michael Noll - author; member of the technical staff, Speech and Communications department, Bell Labs; BSEE Newark College of Engineering, MEE New York University, PhD due June 1971 from the Polytechnical Institute of Brooklyn; member of Eta Kappa Nu, Tau Beta Pi, the Acoustical Society of America, ACM and AES; portrait photograph printed, John Whitney - animator working at a graphics console with a program written for him by someone else, Stan VanDerBeek - animator working at the programming level, Pablo Picasso - painter of Ma Jolie (Woman with a Guitar), reproduced opposite Noll's own work, Charles Ives - invoked as the model of the undiscovered, uncorrupted composer, Organisation named: Experiments in Art and Technology, Inc. (E.A.T.). Noted: The caption spells the work “Guassian-Quadratic” and says “the horizontal lines are Guassian, the vertical lines increase quadratically”, which reads oddly against Noll's usual wording that the horizontal positions are Gaussian; recorded here as printed. The biography's claim that “In 1968 his work was shown in the first major exhibition of digital computer art in the USA” conflicts with the 1994 Leonardo memoir, which dates the first major US exhibit to the Howard Wise Gallery, 6-24 April 1965. This was read from the page image and is as printed. No computer, plotter or program is named anywhere in this article. The venue of “9 evenings” is given as “New York's Armory of the 69th Infantry” and dated only “the fall of 1966”. The article gives no date for the Picasso or for the pairing; the comparison with Picasso's cubism is Noll's own, and the caption says the author feels the straight-edged transparent planes of the Picasso resemble his randomly zigzagging lines.