Frances Dyson, And then it was now

Enduring Rhetorics

Three Phases of Rhetoric

1) Beginnings

In the early phases of E.A.T., Klüver emphasized the transformative potential not only of art and science, but of culture as a whole, through collaborations between artists and engineers. He was not alone In this belief — in 1967, John Pierce, the Executive Director of the Bell Telephone Laboratories (who worked closely with Klüver on 9 Evenings), wrote: “Technology is the source of the material well-being of our age. Man cannot live without art. [...] Surely, art cannot safely ignore or reject such a powerful force as technology. And technology should not be without art. Technology is a tool which we should use toward social and creative ends.” (1)

Yet even Klüver’s initial statements about E.A.T. were strewn with both mixed metaphors and mixed feelings: while collaborations were to occur at an “organic” level, E.A.T was described as a “transducer”; moreover, industries had to “open their doors to the artists” but, at the same time, there needed to be some kind of protective barrier between the two. Finally, the idealistic and the pragmatic, the conceptual and the factual, the aesthetic and the technical, the practical and the visionary were to cohere in the overall aim and purpose of E.A.T.; yet, in both Klüver’s texts and E.A.T. projects and practices, it was often unclear how these often antithetical elements were to be combined. (2)

Such volatility is indicative of the cultural climate within which E.A.T. emerged. Art and Technology was, at that time, a very novel undertaking, and E.A.T.’s first event, 9 Evenings, was problematic (to say the least) in terms of both planning and execution. The novelty produced occasions for both panic and elation, and Klüver often tried to steer a course between the two. This led him to make ambiguous pronouncements such as “technology is already beautiful and does not need the artists for this purpose.” (3) While Klüver’s aim was to reframe notions of “art” and “technology,” more often than not he simply confused the two.

2) Technology for Pleasure

The second phase of E.A.T.’s rhetoric foregrounds the ethical, environmental and social aspects of technological change while focusing on the individual: Here, for example, is Klüver: “We can no longer claim innocence for the human and social consequences resulting from technological change.” In being something of a non sequitur this admission does not, however, prompt a call for social justice or for action to stop environmental degradation, the development of new weapons systems or global inequalities stemming from technological developments over the previous decades (the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Rather, Klüver oriented this newfound consciousness towards “the search for a technology directed towards pleasure and enjoyment,” one that ultimately “implies the elimination of the distinction between work and leisure.” (4) Here Klüver repeated technology’s main post-war promise to increase the amount of leisure time, a promise that, in the 90s, would be undermined as wireless communication made it possible to incorporate work into every aspect of life, in accordance with the “work anywhere anytime” ethic. At the same time, Klüver channeled the traumas produced by massive technological change into the pursuit of happiness, which, in the 70s — capitalism’s golden age — got translated into consumer culture.

It is difficult to know whether Klüver’s statements were written only for the eyes of corporations liable to sponsor his projects, or whether they are expressions of deeply held beliefs, or tools for constructing an overarching philosophy that would contain some of his misgivings and contradictions. In 1968, in what was perhaps an attempt to inject some orthodoxy into the chaos of his projects and plans and to allay technophobic reactions, Klüver published a list of axioms on technology. He began as follows: “To convince ourselves that technology is a positive force, we must lay to rest apprehensions that technology is a vehicle for repression, uniformity and control of the individual.” (5) Who needed convincing, we might ask? From a post-globalized, contemporary perspective, Klüver's statements seem both naive and technologically deterministic. Yet, at the same time, they are not so far removed from those currently advocating globalization and the new technology.

3) Ecologies and Environments

As E.A.T grew, creating regional, national and international branches, and becoming involved in humanitarian, environmental, educational, media communications and third world development projects, so too did the complexity of the artist/engineer and “art and technology” relationship. Artists’ involvement with the ideals of technological democracy — through, for instance, “Projects Outside Art” was aimed at “utilizing current technology to improve the esthetic quality of life in urban, developed areas of the world.” (6) This was in many ways both laudable and a double-edged sword, enabling and indeed encouraging a critique of technology and corporate control to develop, but at the same time situating this critique within the very process of art-making itself. The idea of the artist as a worker engaging with the ordinary and mundane brought artists face to face with their very difference from the day to day. (7)

Environmental concerns, together with a desire to associate technology with — and embed it within — the environment, provided some of the more enduring metaphors for conceptualizing technology and the proto-immersive works that artists were creating during the late 60s and early 70s. In 1968, Klüver made an explicit relationship between art, technology and the environment:

"An understanding of the interaction between the individual and technology and of technology as a 'natural' resource can provide a basis for analyzing and solving these problems of human ecology and social development." (8)

In this way, E.A.T. ventured beyond its purely art-world confines and became a prototype for eliminating what has in recent times been dubbed the “digital divide.”

But Klüver was also interested in both local environments and new understandings of the role of “aesthetics.” In October 1970, he put forward a proposal for “Esthetics: A Symposium Sponsored by EAT,” to be held at Automation House:

Through our involvement in [environmental] projects, we have become increasingly aware of the importance of esthetics in these situations [...] Many of the most disruptive and difficult conflicts can be traced to personal or professional esthetic biases. These esthetic commitments are usually hidden, unacknowledged or disguised as something else (economic, political, technical, cultural, psychological, etc.) [...] The purpose of the symposium is to establish the validity of making esthetic decisions within these situations [...]. (9)

Here, the environment expands to include not just new physical locations but new definitions of aesthetics—a term that allows the economic and cultural sphere to be subsumed within an artistic framework. It is difficult to know what Klüver means by esthetics, nor does the list of invited speakers give any indication. (10)

---

(1) “We have established a foundation, Experiments in Art and Technology, with the purpose of bringing the artists and engineers together and to convince industry that they must open their doors to the artists [...] The ultimate purpose of E.A.T. will be to act as a transducer between the artist and industry, to protect the artist from industry, and the industry from the artist, to translate the artist’s dreams into realistic technical projects.” Quoted from: Billy Klüver, “Interface: Artists/Engineers,” E.A.T. Proceedings, No. 1 (Apr. 21, 1967), p. [1-23]. The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science, and Technology, Collection of Documents Published by Experiments in Art and Technology. Another quote from Klüver : “...The 'raison d’être' of Experiments in Art and Technology is the possibility of a work which is not the preconception of either the engineer or the artist but which is the result of the exploration of the human interaction between them.” in “Experiments in Art and Technology Announces a Competition for Engineers and Artists...,” The New York Times (Nov. 12, 1967), p. [?].

(2) “According to one view the artists would be asked to interact with engineers and scientists to “make our environment more attractive.” The purpose of the interaction would then be only of “esthetic” value. My feeling is that technology is already beautiful and does not need the artists for this purpose.” Excerpts from: Billy Klüver, [Letter to Boyd Compton(Rockefeller Foundation)] (March 24, 1966), [2] p. The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science, and Technology, Collection of Documents Published by Experiments in Art and Technology. EAT C1-12 / 2; 12

(3) Sample of Artist’s Technical Proposals / Experiments in Art and Technology (May 1967, projects descriptions), [9] p. The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science, and Technology, Collection of Documents Published by Experiments in Art and Technology. EAT C3-4; 47.

(4) Remarks / Billy Klüver (October 1967, speech given during the press conference for EAT, New York, N. Y., United States, October 10, 1967), [1] p. The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science, and Technology, Collection of Documents Published by Experiments in Art and Technology. EAT C3-12; 55.

(5) Billy Klüver, The Ghetto and the Technical Community : An Opportunity for Challenge (Summer 1968, manuscript), 13 p. The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science, and Technology, Collection of Documents Published by Experiments in Art and Technology. EAT C4-16 / 13; 86.

(6) A Report on E.A.T. Activities / Experiments in Art and Technology (June 1, 1970), [23] p. The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science, and Technology, Collection of Documents Published by Experiments in Art and Technology. EAT C10-1 / 13; 177. Examples include the Indian television project; the “Artists in India” project, which aimed “to broaden the interests of the American art community and to provide an opportunity for young Indian artists to work with American artists. One document listed, as possible sources of support for projects, public relation firms such as “Cosmo PR,” which created the “corporate image” for major industries; industry-related companies (e.g. the “Productivity Center,” which wanted content provision for publications, creativity inside industry); the All- Japan Agricultural Association; and finally, the Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers, Inc. See: Structure and Support for E.A.T. Japan : Report on a Meeting between T. Asada and F. Nakaya / Experiments in Art and Technology (August 29, 1970), [4] p. The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science, and Technology, Collection of Documents Published by Experiments in Art and Technology. EAT C10-15 / 5; 191. Other projects and proposals included sustainable agriculture (for instance “City Agriculture,” to “create closed-environments systems that would make it feasible to undertake city agriculture on a wide scale.”) Meanwhile, the L.A. chapter of E.A.T.—responsible for constructing the mirror dome at the Pepsi Pavilion—held meetings with industry and planned for the “Art, Science and Industry” project at Caltech. Other industries involved included IBM, Videotronics, Scientific Data Systems, Computer Image Corporation and Glendale Federal Savings. See: E.A.T. Report 1970 : Los Angeles / Experiments in Art and Technology (September 18, 1970), [5] p. The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science, and Technology, Collection of Documents Published by Experiments in Art and Technology. EAT C10-17 / 6; 193.

(7) Calvin Tomkins, “Outside Art” in Pavilion, edited by Billy Klüver, Julie Martin and Barbara Rose (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1972), p. 8, p. 127. With regard to artists as workers, Calvin Tomkins notes, for instance, the fury of local vendors near the Pepsi Pavilion at Expo ’70, as they battled the marvellous but totally obscuring fog of Fujiko Nakaya's environment. Thus, amid the turbulence of the Pepsi Pavilion’s first few days, Klüver was envisioning projects that would address the needs of developing countries. One such project, known as the “buffalo project,” involved developing educational television programming that would help the members of a large diary cooperative in India to improve the processing and distribution of milk from their buffaloes.

(8) Technology And the Individual: A Proposal for A Research Program / Billy Klüver (July 24, 1968), [4] p. The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science, and Technology, Collection of Documents Published by Experiments in Art and Technology. EAT C4-17 / 4; 87.

(9) Esthetics: A Symposium Sponsored by E.A.T. / Experiments in Art and Technology (June 10, 1970), [1] p. The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science, and Technology, Collection of Documents Published by Experiments in Art and Technology. EAT C10-2; 178.

(10) See: Projects Outside Art : Esthetics Symposium / Experiments in Art and Technology (July 15, 1970, grant proposal), [3] p. The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science, and Technology, Collection of Documents Published by Experiments in Art and Technology. EAT C10-11 / 3; 187.