Early Computer Art in the 50’s & 60’s

Computing and creativity have always been linked. In the early 1800’s when Charles Babbage designed the Analytical Engine, his friend Ada Lovelace wrote in a letter that, if music could be expressed to the engine, then it “might compose elaborate and scientific pieces of music of any degree of complexity or extent.” [1]

Plan diagram of the Analytical Engine (1840) [2]

My original vision for this article was to cover the development of computer art from the 50’s to the 90’s, but it turns out there’s an abundance of things without even getting half way through that era. So in this article we’ll look at how Lovelace’s ideas for creativity with a computer first came to life in the 50’s and 60’s, and I’ll cover later decades in future articles.

I stray from computer art into electronic, kinetic and mechanical art because the lines are blurred, it contributes to the historical context, and also because there is some cool stuff to look at.

Early days

The first electronic art

Around 100 years after Babbage and Lovelace discussed the Analytical Engine, a mathematician named Ben Laposky was inspired by an article written in Popular Science which suggested that decorative patterns could be created using oscilloscopes. [3]

Laposky began creating his “electrical compositions” in 1950, using a cathode ray oscilloscope along with electronic circuits like sine wave generators. He captured the moving outputs using long exposure photography. In later pieces, he rotated filters in front of the screen to add colour to the images.

In articles and exhibitions of the work at the time, Laposky also included demonstrative examples of the most simple oscillators - perhaps the earliest instance of an artist working with technology finding a way to give their audience more understanding of the work.

Electronic Abstractions: Mathematics in Design (1961) [6]

Early Interaction

A lot of digital art has an input and an output. For example, the input could be a pseudorandom number and the output could be a geometric drawing, or the input could be music and the output an animation. In some work the output is fed back into the system, creating a feedback loop. This is the “circular causality” of cybernetics.

The process of creating generative art is often cybernetic, as we iterate and develop work based on the outputs we see from our algorithms. An artwork itself can also be cybernetic, as in Gordon Pask’s MusiColor (1953).

MusiColor was a mechanical and electronic system designed to be used by musicians. Sounds from their instruments were input via microphone and analysed for frequency, attack and rhythm. This input determined the output from various lights and pattern or colour wheels controlled by servo motors, with mappings that developed over time. If the input became repetitive, the system would adjust its output to generate more variety in the visual patterns.

As performers would adjust their playing in response to the visual output, Pask wrote, “the machine is designed to entrain the performer and to couple [them] into the system’’. Performers also felt they could train the machine to produce the sorts of patterns they preferred. [7]

It’s pretty nuts how advanced this piece was, in terms of technology and thinking around interaction. However it was perhaps before its time and, despite being exhibited in several different locations, it was plagued by technical issues and often struggled to suit its surroundings. It was “difficult or impossible to make genuine use of the system’’ and MusiColor was shelved in 1957. [7]

Cutting Edge Technology

Computer artists of the sixties often worked laboriously, feeding instructions into machines on punch cards and then waiting hours or days for the results to be drawn by mechanical plotters, or using complex techniques involving things like magnetic tape, cathode ray tubes and microfilm. The speed of iteration is one of the things I love about contemporary digital creation and I can hardly imagine how waiting so long for each output would change the creative process.

The IBM 7090 computer, which cost $2.9million (yes, at the time) and was used at Bell Labs. [8]

Bell Telephone Laboratories (Bell Labs) is prominent in the landscape of early computer art. Ken Knowlton described his time there as the “golden days.” They had free reign to create and no scrutiny from superiors, which he says was fortunate because he “wasn’t sure that any of us really knew what we were doing, or why.” This type of giddy experimentation permeates the era. [9]

In 1963 Ken Knowlton invented BEFLIX, a programming language which could output raster animated films. The word pixel wasn’t yet in common use and a silent film about the process describes drawing a picture with a “mosaic of squares”. [10 - watch film]

Also developed at Bell Labs was the ‘Graphic 1’ computer, which used a light pen as an input device. The film ‘The Incredible Machine’ (complete with beepy boopy soundtrack) demonstrates the Graphic 1’s software for music composition, electronic circuit design, voice synthesisation and more. [11 - film]

A similar technology was developed at IBM - the IBM System/360 computer in tandem with the IBM 2250 display. The 1967 film, Frontiers in Computer Graphics demonstrates mostly the scientific applications of this display technology while also featuring some jazzy visuals in the intro. [12 - film]

These technologies, highlighted here partly because they are super cool, were at the cutting edge, and not widely in use. We’ll look at some art made with BEFLIX and the IBM 2250 later on but lots of artists in the 60’s created linear art drawn by mechanical plotter or output in instructions onto microfilm.

Many did not have any kind of display or graphical user interface on their machines and were essentially working blind until the plotter produced the piece. Despite this, all the work is imbued with excitement. Writing by artists at the time are full of speculations for the future, enthusiasm to discuss what they have discovered, and an awareness that they are right at the beginning of something huge.

The Pseudorandom sixties

Artists like Vera Molnar, Manfred Mohr, Georg Nees, Frieder Nake and A Michael Noll heralded the advent of generative computer art. These artists - who were mostly actually scientists or engineers - used code to create algorithms and began to think about the place of the computer in the art world, as well as exploring randomness and chaos.

Vera Molnar: algorithms and Exploration

Vera Molnar was unusual in this group as she had worked towards art her whole life and did not have a background in science. She gained access to a computer by going to the Paris University computing centre and explaining to the head of the department that she wanted to use a one to make art. After giving her a look which implied to Molnar that “he was considering whether he should call for a nurse to sedate me”, he yes anyway. [15]

Using algorithms to create work came naturally to Molnar, who said “I think I just had the mindset”. She had implemented algorithmic rules in her pre-computer landscape paintings, like using the next colour along from the ‘correct’ one in her paint set. [15]

Molnar remembers her peers were “scandalized” and felt she had “dehumanized art” but she describes using automation to augment her process as feeling very organic. Making room for randomness allowed her to open up the space of possibilities she was exploring, before narrowing it down to the results she was interested in. [16] [17]

Manfred Mohr: Evolving traditional art

Manfred Mohr was a saxophonist and painter and then in 1970 he had the opportunity to work with a Control Data 6400 computer and Benson plotter at the Météorologie Nationale.

It’s clear to see how his artistic and musical career shaped his algorithmic work. His early computer art was “influenced by atonal music, modern Jazz and abstract expressionism.” [18]. Abstraction, geometry and semiotics are common themes in his work both before and after the introduction of computers.

Mohr initially sought to capture his painting style in an algorithm, as above, but later said:

One “should assume that old techniques of drawing and imagination are not to be imposed on the machine (although this would be possible), but should develop a priori a vocabulary which integrates the computer into the aesthetic system, that means: to use this powerful instrument not only as an interpreter.” [19]

I believe he’s saying that, while we can use the computer to simulate traditional artistic methods, it is more interesting to use the computer in entirely new ways, developing its own aesthetic language instead of using it to simulate physical media.

Mohr’s later work focused on rule based systems and geometry, taking advantage of the power of the algorithm.

This idea is still discussed today, as much generative and digital art does seek to replicate or play off analogue methods - often very successfully, while some work is more focused on exploring the possibilities of the machine itself.

Frieder Nake: Art Advances

In 1971, computer artist Frieder Nake wrote a piece titled, perhaps surprisingly, “There should be no computer art”, in which he considers the debate about bringing computers into art from more angles. [20]

He argues that computer art has not contributed “to the advancement of art, if we judge ‘advancement’ by comparing computer products to all existing works for art.” [20] However, on the other hand, he had no doubt that computer art has found “interesting new methods” and that there will be “an entirely new relationship between the creator and the creation.” Nake focuses on the place for computers in the process, rather than the outcome.

Nake went on to discuss his scepticism of the commercial side of computer art as a superficial fad, popular with art dealers at the time. My understanding of his point is that he did not want “computer art” to be a thing in and of itself. The attention should not be on the fact the output was created by a computer, as if that automatically gives it a value but rather that we should seek to make work with value and we can use a computer as a tool to aid us in that.

Georg Nees: Drawing on Maths and Science

In these early days, the duality of artist and scientist was inevitable due to the limited access to computers outside of scientific settings, but it’s something that has persisted to the present day. The algorithms, geometry, precision and techniques of computer art are appealing to artists who are interested in maths and science. At the same time, the randomness and rule systems of generative art have a rich conceptual interest, drawing the mathematical enthusiast into conceptual and artistic thought.

Georg Nees first studied mathematics and physics and worked as a mathematician for Siemens, before studying philosophy under Max Bense and publishing his thesis, ‘Generative Computergraphik’ in 1969.

Randomness and the relationship between order and chaos are themes in Nees’ work, which often shows geometric structures featuring both order and disorder in parts. He sometimes allowed coding errors to dictate outcomes, as in Kreisbogengewirre (Arc confusion), also known as Locken, of which he said, “The picture in it present form is due to a fairly serious programming error … It was designed to be less complex and it had to be ended manually because of the error.” [21]

A Michael noll: Computerising Traditional Art

Another Bell Labs alum, A. Michael Noll, worked alongside Georg Nees and Frieder Nake and together they were known as the "3N” computer pioneers. Noll first started experimenting with creative outputs from computers after seeing an interesting plotter error produced by a colleague. In a 1962 paper about his work, Noll said he wanted to avoid “unintentional debate (…) on whether the computer-produced designs are truly art or not” and instead referred to the “machine’s endeavours” as “Patterns”. [22]

Despite this hesitancy to classify his work as art, he created several pieces that directly referenced well known traditional artworks.

Alternative Processes

Some artists found ways to use computers in their practice outside of plotting algorithms on paper. Here we’ll look at some video art, mechanical art, dance and more.

Lillian Schwartz

In 1968 Lillian Schwartz created her kinetic sculpture Proxima Centauri, which was exhibited at MoMA in their exhibition “The Machine as Seen at the End of the Mechanical Age” [23].

The sculpture consisted of a translucent white dome sitting atop a base which contained coloured lights, a projector, a tank of water which tilted to create ripples, a motor from a Singer sewing machine and rotating painted slides. These mechanisms projected images onto the white dome when visitors stepped onto a pressure sensitive pad. Proxima Centauri was brought back to life in recent years and can be view in detail in a film by The Henry Ford. [24- film].

After this piece was exhibited, Schwartz began working at Bell Labs where she stayed for over 3 decades. Since the bulk of her work there was outside of the 60’s, I’ll cover it in a future article.

Bela Julesz: Psychology and Art

On another axis of the famed intersection of art and science, is psychology. Psychologist and computer scientist, Béla Julesz worked at Bell Labs from the late 50s, where his research into human visual perception was accelerated by the use of computers to generate images and animations.

He is probably most known for his work with stereoscopic vision, particularly his invention of the “random-dot stereogram”, which later led to the autostereogram (more commonly known as a Magic Eye picture). In a random-dot stereogram, two similar images are laid side by side, with one area displaced. By crossing their eyes, the viewer can see a 3D form appear, even when the image is random dots - demonstrating that depth perception in humans is mechanical and not dependent on contextual clues. [25]

Random dot stereogram I generated, code here
Side note: if you enjoy this, you’ll probably also enjoy this subreddit I just stumbled on.

A. Michael Noll worked alongside Julesz at Bell Labs to produce some animated stereoscopic work [26 - film]. The delightful Computer Generated Ballet is particularly worth seeing in motion.

John Whitney

A pioneer of computer animation, John Whitney’s work was highly experimental. In the mid 40’s, John Whitney and his brother James produced Five Film Exercises in which they used oscillating pendulums to draw light patterns directly onto film to create a soundtrack. This soundtrack was set to visuals created using light, stencils, multiple exposures, filters, magnification and more. [27] [28 - film]

In 1950 John Whitney repurposed WWII machinery to build a 12 foot tall analog computer which he called his Cam Machine. The Cam Machine featured multiple rotating tables and cameras and colour was added afterwards. Speaking in 1970, his son said “I don't know how many simultaneous motions can be happening at once. There must be at least five ways just to operate the shutter.” [29]

In the mid 60’s, John Whitney’s work turned to digital computers with a fellowship at IBM where he worked alongside physicist and researcher Jack Citron. The cutting edge machines at IBM had a screen to control and display their work. In the 1968 film Experiments in Motion Graphics, Whitney demonstrates the process, showing various examples and some excerpts from his film Permutations (also 1968). [29 - film]

[This film contains flashing imagery in the first couple of minutes]

In the fascinating voiceover on this film, Whitney says, “All this that you see here should impinge upon the emotions and feelings directly. It does not do that very well but I think it can and will.”

Stan VanderBeek: Poemfields

Working in collaboration with Ken Knowlton and using his programming language Beflix, Stan VanDerBeek created a series of animated films called Poemfields from 1964 to 1967. These films featured typography layered over blocky graphical elements. Some of the films can be found on Youtube. [30 - film]

The animations were produced by a multi step process whereby every frame was programmed and transferred onto punch cards, which produced instructions on magnetic tape, which controlled a cathode ray tube to display each horizontal line of “pixels” while they were filmed by a movie camera one frame at a time. The black and white results were then colourised by Robert Brown and Frank Olvey.

This innovative process resulted in a highly original aesthetic that VanDerBeek hoped would “delight the eye and rearrange the senses”. [31]

Frederick Hammersley: Computer Drawings

Using a program called ART1, developed at the University of Mexico, Frederick Hammersley created a series of works made up of text characters and printed on a line printer. Different characters appear darker or lighter when viewed at a distance, and Hammersley made use of this to create pictures.

This printing process was a little faster than waiting for a mechanical plotter and Hammersley describes how he would hand his punch cards over and get a drawing back a few minutes later. He’d then make a change and hand over a new set of cards. The process “was like eating peanuts. I mean, one thing would lead to another, and you just kept on chewing.” [32]

Jeanne Beaman: Random dances

In collaboration with Paul Le Vasseur, Jeanne Beaman created a generative dance performance. She created three lists of instructions for tempo, movement and direction and a computer would choose from these lists to direct dancers.

*Random Dances* (1964 - 1968), Jeanne Beaman at Cybernetic Serendipity. A screen shows instructions for the dancers.

Dancers also had their own influence over the final effect, collaborating with the machine. Jeanne Beaman said, “two dancers working from the same computer directions may end up with dances which differ quite radically not only in skill but in the whole emotional import” and she compares this balance of control between the human and the machine to Jackson Pollock’s process, as he allowed for some randomness in the dripping of paint but was able to change “the swing of his arm” and create different results. [33]

Desmond Paul henry: Drawing Machines

Desmond Paul Henry constructed his mechanical drawing machines after purchasing a WW2 bombsight computer from an army surplus store in Manchester in 1952. He was fascinated by the balletic oscillation of the components and around 1961 he reconfigured the machine to capture the movements on paper. [34]

Computer Art On Show

In 1965 computer-generated art was displayed in a gallery for the first time, opening it up to a wider audience. In challenging traditional notions of art, these early shows faced scepticism and were not widely embraced by the art world (indeed this scepticism exists to some degree today). However, they also drew much interest. As the visibility of computer art grew, it began to find its audience and build a community.

Computer-Generated Pictures at The Howard Wise Gallery

In 1965, A. Michael Noll and Béla Julesz were invited to show their “Computer-Generated Pictures” at The Howard Wise Gallery in an exhibition featuring enlarged prints of their works, including some stereograms.

The announcement for the show was made on a small deck of punch cards and a press release explained the convoluted process for producing the images in some detail. [35]

Julesz and Noll acknowledged that this process was limiting but they thought there would be a day “when a computer can draw - or paint - almost any kind of picture in any one or combination of colors.”

They immediately addressed any fear of artists being “automated out of existence”, saying instead they would be “unburdened by the tedium of the mechanics” - a somewhat ironic claim in light of the convoluted process they’d just described, but they were speaking of their imaginations of a frictionless future. [35]

At the time, the show received mixed reviews and no works were sold. However, with the benefit of hindsight, it’s evident that this exhibition was influential.

Computergrafik (1965)

Featuring work from Georg Nees and Frieder Nake, this exhibition took place in Stuttgart and had an introductory text by philosopher Max Bense.

Cybernetic Serendipity (1968)

This exhibition, curated by Jasia Reichardt and held at ICA in London, was more ambitious and more successful than its predecessors. It featured works across different categories including music, computers, dance, machines, text, films and graphics. There were around 44,000 visitors and the show led to the formation of the British Computer Arts Society [36]

Speaking in 2014, Jasia Reichardt emphasised the role of randomness in the artworks and said “the exhibition was about happy chance discoveries - with a computer” [37 - video]

One notable work was Colloquy of Mobiles by Gordon Pask, which featured a number of suspended robots, each with their own operating computer.

Colloquy of mobiles - Gordon Pask — *Colloquy of Mobiles (1968)*, Gordon Pask

The robots were assigned “male” or “female” and would compete amongst their own gender, but could collaborate in male/female pairs. They could communicate using flashing lights and sounds - the male robots had onboard lights while the females had mirrors, and the males would seek out females out to have their light reflected back at themselves.

The mobiles were hung in an open space, meaning audience members could also interact with them, leading to an interplay of the goals of the audience vs the goals of the machines.

Another key piece was Sound Activated Mobile (SAM) by Edward Ihnatowicz, a kinetic sculpture which looked like a flower. The bloom of the flower contained four microphones and the sculpture reacted to sound, turning to face the source of a sound. SAM was particularly popular with children visiting the exhibition and can be seen in motion at around 4:05 in a film from the show [38 - film].

Reading through the catalogue for the show (which is well worth a look) I’m struck by how many of the artists explain that the piece they are showing is “in its infancy”, or that they are “currently working on” a more advanced version. Some even excuse their works as prototypes, saying that they are “not so precise as a properly engineered machine could be.” There is an atmosphere of experimentation and exploration, that feels as if it was developing as they spoke. [39]

Reichardt’s show also included a collection of computer graphics. Many of these were found via Computers and Automation magazine, which held an annual contest for the best computer graphics. There is an archive of the magazine here and it’s an absolute trove of retro tech aesthetics. Let’s not get distracted though. Here are a few pieces featured in Cybernetic Serendipity. [40]

Nuremburg Biennale & Venice Biennales, 1966-1970

By the end of the 60’s, computer art was making its way into major biennale exhibitions by way of artists like George Nees, Frieder Nake, Auro Lecci at Nuremburg in 1969 and Venice in 1970.

The emergence of kinetic and new media art posed a problem. At the 1966 Venice Biennale, Julio Le Parc exhibited his experiential works including “unstable mobiles, rotating mirrored discs, rudimentary machines with precarious little motors running at variable speeds that reflected and projected light into the space.” [41] The work was successful with the jury and Le Parc was awarded the Biennale’s painting prize, since there was not a more suitable category.

In 1968 the Venice Biennale included a section called “Manual, Mechanical, Electronic and Conceptual Production” and by 1970 in Venice and 1971 in Nuremberg, the Biennale contained a section of computer art including work by Nees, Nake, A. Michael Noll, Francisco Infante, Zdenek Sykora and Richard Winiarski. [43]

the zeitgeist & the Future

Computer art does not exist in a vacuum. While computer artists were often inspired by traditional art (sometimes their own), traditional artists began to become inspired by computer art.

Experimental artist Nam June Paik visited Computer Generated Pictures at the Howard Wise Gallery in 1965 and expressed "great interest” and later visited Bell Labs, where he learned the basics of FORTRAN from A. Michael Noll. [44]

While Salvador Dali’s own work stayed in traditional mediums, he had an interest in computer art and invited artists such as Bela Julesz and Lillian Schwartz to his studio. [45] [46]

By the mid to late 60’s, the community surrounded computer art was strengthening.

The Computer Arts Society was founded in 1968, “to promote the understanding of the role of digital and electronic media in the arts” and still exists today with the goal of archiving the history of computer arts. [46]

Experiments in Art and Technology (E.A.T.) was launched in 1967 and sought to facilitate and encourage collaborations between artists and engineers. [47]

Towards the end of the 60’s there’s a sense that things are beginning to explode and develop in different directions. In future articles as we head into the 70’s and 80’s we’ll look at more complex programs like Harold Cohen’s AARON, new conceptual and mathematical ideas like Conway’s Game of Life and the early days of paint programs like SuperPaint which started to evolve computers towards widespread use.

The atmosphere throughout this period is one of experimentation and innovation. Artists are constantly casting an eye to the future, evaluating where their work is currently and imagining what will be possible soon. This persists today - notably in AI art recently but it’s true of all art involving technology. I think it’s inevitable, as the ground changes under our feet, our imaginations are consistently just ahead of our technology. As the technology catches up, we can then imagine something further.

Enjoyed this article? Want to support me? You can tip me!
I’d also love if you could give the article a boost on Twitter.
Thanks!