8/13/2019 Kac Robotic Art

1/9

Foundation and Development of Robotic ArtAuthor(s): Eduardo KacSource: Art Journal, Vol. 56, No. 3, Digital Reflections: The Dialogue of Art and Technology(Autumn, 1997), pp. 60-67Published by: College Art Association

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/777838Accessed: 16/01/2010 21:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caa.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

College Art Associationis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toArt Journal.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/777838?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caahttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/777838?origin=JSTOR-pdf

8/13/2019 Kac Robotic Art

2/9

Foundationn developmentobotic r tEduardo Kac

A electronic media become morepervasivein today'sculture, the role of robotics in contemporaryart,along with video, multimedia, performance,telecommunications,and interactiveinstallations,needs tobe considered. In this article I propose to define a frame-6 work or the understanding ndanalysisof roboticart. I will

discuss threepivotalartworksrom the 1960s thatoutlinedthe genesis ofrobotics n art andthat formed he basis of thethree main directions in which robotic art has developed.This article will also elucidate the new issues raisedby cur-rent roboticartworksand clarify their relationshipto themainpathsdefinedby those threeearlyworks.One of the most problematic ssues of robotics in artis the very definition of what a robot is. Complicatingmat-ters, on the one hand, we have mythologicaltraditions ofvarious cultures. These traditionshavegiven rise to fantas-tic synthetic creatures,such as the ancient Greek storyofGalatea-a statue brought to life by the goddessAphrodite-or the Jewish legend of the Golem, a speech-less anthropoid made of clay by humans. On the otherhand, we find more recent literarytraditionsofferingfic-tional profilesof automata,robots,cyborgs,androids,tele-robots,and replicants. Intriguing iteraryartificialbeingshave excited the imaginationof readers worldwide:MaryShelley's Frankenstein, Gustav Meyrink'sGolem, KarelCapek'srobots in the play R. U.R. (which introduced theworldto the Czech word robot ),RobertHeinlein'sWaldo,Isaac Asimov's Cutie-to name a few. The literaryroboticcanon is further expanded by the presence of robots infilm: Fritz Lang's Metropolis, Fred Wilcox's ForbiddenPlanet, George Lucas's Star Wars,Ridley Scott's BladeRunner. Television furtherpopularized the image of thecomputing companion (IrwinAllen's Lost in Space), thecyborg(HarveBennett's The Six Million Dollar Man), andthe sophisticatedandroid and the evil mixture of flesh andelectronics (GeneRodenberry'sStar Trek).Anotheraspect of the problem s the operationaldefi-nition of robotsas foundin scientific researchand industri-al applications.The firstcommercialrobotsappeared n the

early 1960s in the UnitedStates and in abouttwentyyearshad developed a stronghold n industrialfacilities aroundthe world.Industrialrobots,programmedo performa spe-cific task or set of tasks, were able to performrepetitivemotionstirelessly.Theyincreasedproductivityandprompt-ed furtherresearchaimedat improving heirefficiency.It isclearthat from hisperspectiverobotsareadvancedcomput-er-controlled lectromechanicalappliances.If artistsworkingwith or interested n roboticscannotignore mythological, literary,or industrial definitions ofrobotsandartificial ife forms, t is also true thatthese defi-nitions do not directly apply to any given roboticartwork.Each artistexploresrobotics n particularways, developingstrategiesthatoftenhybridizerobotswithothermedia,sys-tems, contexts, and life forms. As artistscontinue to pushthe very limits of art, traditionallydefinedby discrete andinert handmadeobjects, they introducerobotics as a newmedium at the same time that they challenge our under-standingof robots-questioning thereforeour premises inconceiving,building,and employingthese electroniccrea-tures. The fascination robots exert on the population atlarge has unexploredsocial, political, and emotional mpli-cations.These implicationsmust be coupled, if they are tobe properlyunderstoodin the contemporaryart context,with the new aestheticdimension of modelingbehavioranddeveloping unprecedentedinteractivecommunicativesce-narios in physicalortelematicspaces.The workshighlightedin this article often evade anynarrowdefinition of robotics-except, perhaps, for theprinciple of giving precedence to behavior over form.Sticking to a narrowdefinition seems less important hanthe opportunityto trace parallels between strategies thatforegroundat times electronic creatures ( robotic art ),and at othertimes a combinationof organicand electronic( cybernetic art ), or the remote projection of a humansubject onto a telerobot ( telepresence art ).Not only dothese art forms seem directlyrelatedconceptually,but theyalso appear hybridized n severalworks.Whereas prototypesof noncommercialrobots were

FALL 1997

8/13/2019 Kac Robotic Art

3/9

developedin the 1950s, notablyforentertainmentand sci-entific research, it was not until the 1960s that the firstrobotic artworks were created. As developed in thesedecades, kinetic art helped to free sculpture from staticformand reintroduced he machine at the heart of the artis-tic debate. Influencedby this context, but already openingup new directions that privileged interactivityand behav-ioralconcerns, three artworkscreatedin the mid- and late1960s stand as landmarksin the development of roboticart: Nam June Paik and ShuyaAbe's RobotK-456 (1964),TomShannon'sSquat(1966), and EdwardIhnatowicz'sTheSenster(1969-70). Althoughthese works are significantintheir own right, they acquire a particular meaning whenreconsideredtoday,since seen togetherthey also configurea triangle of new aesthetic issues that has continuallyinformedthe main directions in robotic art. With Paik andAbe's Robot K-456 (fig. 1), a humorous and politicallychargedpiece, the problemof remotecontrol,free mobili-ty, and interaction with the public is introduced. WithShannon'sSquatwe see the first interactive artwork hat isan organic and inorganic hybrid, raising the question ofcyberneticentities so relevantto currentdebates. In Ihna-towicz'sSenster,also an interactivepiece, we find the firstinstance of behavioralautonomyin art, in which a givenpersonality s assignedto the robot,whichthen respondstohumans and changingsituationson its own.Named after one of Mozart'spiano concerti (K6chelnumber456), Paik and Abe's twenty-channelremote-con-trolled anthropomorphic obot first performed n a privatespace (RobotOpera,at JudsonHall, in collaborationwithCharlotteMoorman) nd on the streets, both as partof theSecond Annual New YorkAvant-GardeFestival, in 1964.As Paik guided it through the streets, K-456 played arecording of John F. Kennedy's inaugural address andexcreted beans. K-456, which is now in the Hauser andWirthprivate collection, in Zurich, was reactivated onceagainin 1982, when the WhitneyMuseumof American Arthosted Paik's retrospective exhibition. On that occasion,the artiststaged an accident in which RobotK-456 was hit FIG. 1 Nam June Paikand Shuya Abe, Robot K-456, 1964. CourtesyGeorge Hirose.

ART JOURNAL

8/13/2019 Kac Robotic Art

4/9

FIG. 2 TomShannon, quat,1966. Courtesyhe artist.

by a car. For this performance, itled The First Catastrophe6 of the Twenty-firstCentury,K-456 was removed from itsmuseumpedestal and guided by the artistdown the streetto the intersection of 75th Street and Madison Avenue.When crossing the avenue, the robot was accidentallyhit by an automobiledrivenby the artistWilliam Anastasi.With this performancePaik suggested the potential prob-lems that arise when technologies collide out of humancontrol. After the collision, K-456 was returned to itspedestal in the museum.Less traumatic s the kind of contactenabled by TomShannon'swork. Created only two years later, Shannon'sSquat (fig. 2) was a cyberneticsystemwiringa live planttoa roboticsculpture.In this earlyform of cyberneticinterac-tive art,Shannonallowed the electricpotentialof the humanbodytotriggeran organicswitch. Whenviewerstouched theplant,the electricitywas amplifiedand turnedon the motorsof the roboticsculpture,whichthenmoved.Onhuman-plantcontact,Squatretractedand extended its three legs as wellas its two arms, creatingundulatingmotion and hummingand chirpingsounds. If the viewertouched the plant again,the piece returned o its restingstate.Whereas tactile participation s crucial to Squat, thevoice and proximityof viewers promptresponsivebehaviorin Ihnatowicz'swork.Working n relative isolation in Eng-land, afteremigrating rom his native Poland and studyingat the Ruskin School of Drawingand Fine Art at Oxford,EdwardIhnatowicz 1926-1988), perhapsthe least knownof the three pioneers, created The Senster(fig. 3), a bio-morphic computer-controlled robotic creature with shybehavior that was shownat Evoluon,the permanentshow-place of the manufacturingfirm Philips, in Eindhoven,Holland, from 1970 to 1974, when it was dismantled.Based on the articulationof a lobster's claw, The Sensterwas about fifteen feet long and eight feet high, occupying

one thousand cubic feet. Its head had sensitive micro-phones and motion detectors, providing sensorial inputthat was processed by a digital Philips minicomputerinreal time. The Senster'supper body consisted of six inde-pendent electrohydraulic servo-mechanisms with sixdegrees of freedom. Responding to motions and soundswithin one or two seconds, The Senstergently moved itshead towardquieter and more subtle viewers. Loud andagitated viewers saw the creature shy away and protectitself frompotential harm. In its sensual, and apparentlyintelligent,behavior, he piece was veryengagingto a wideaudience. While the debate on the use of computersin artat the time revolvedaroundthe creationof still or sequen-tial images, and the use of static or mobile plottersto pro-duce such images, Ihnatowicz merged software-basedparametricbehaviorwithphysicalpresence in a real spaceas he introducedthe firstcomputer-controlled rtwork.Furthercontributing to this nascent field in 1974,NormanWhite created Menage, an installation with fivelight-scanning robots. This installation was composed offour robots moving back and forth along separate ceilingtracksand a fifthrobotpositionedon the floor.Each crea-ture had a scanner (which caused each robot to point tostronglight sources)and a spotlightmounted at its center.Because of the central position of their own light source,the ceiling robots tended to stare at one another.However,despite the apparentsimplicityof this arrangement, moredynamicbehavioremergedonce their motorspulled themapart and the gaze-locking interplay resumed. If in thethree pioneering works discussed, Paik, Shannon, andIhnatowiczworkedwith individualrobots,and if their con-tribution to robotic art can be said to be circumscribed tothese pieces, White'sposition is different. He tried to cre-ate a small community hatwouldexhibitcollective behav-ior and is the first artist to have consistently championed

FALL1997

8/13/2019 Kac Robotic Art

5/9

FIG.3 Edwardhnatowicz, heSenster,1969-70. CourtesyOlgaIhnatowicz.

robotics as an art formthroughout he years. He has pro-duced a number of different and intriguing pieces, mostnotablyTheHelplessRobot(fig. 4), a robotoriginallymadein 1985 that converses with viewers and requests theirassistance to spin it, changingits behaviorin time if it getsmore or less help. White considers The Helpless Robotunfinished(possibly unfinishable),and since 1985 he hasmodified t manytimes. TheHelplessRobotwas shownpub-licly forthe first time in 1988. In its currentstate (1997), itis controlled by two cooperating computers, both pro-grammedby White. Onecomputer s responsiblefortrack-ing the angular position of the rotating section anddetecting humanpresencewith an arrayof infraredmotiondetectors.The othercomputeranalyzesthis information nrelation to pastevents andgeneratesan appropriate peechresponse. This work humorouslyreverses the polarity ofrobot-humanrelationships, askinghumans to help an elec-tronic creatureconventionally designed to be a human aid.Also workingwith sensors and microcontrollers ininteractive situations, James Seawright-known forresponsive kinetic sculptures such as Watcher 1965-66)and Searcher(1966) and for early interactive installations(which he termed reactiveenvironments )such as Elec-tronicPeristyle (1968) and Network II (1971)-developedcomputer-controlledrobotic works in which the software-based comportmentof the piece seems to achieve a sophis-ticated level of behavior as it interacts with theenvironment and the public. His Electronic Garden #2(1983) is composed of five computer-controlled roboticflowers. Responding to climate parameters,such as tem-peratureand humidity, hese electronic flowerswere origi-nally installed in a public space as an indoor garden.Viewers could also alter the flowers'behaviorby pushingbuttonsthat modifiedthe programnstalled in the custom-built microprocessor.These electronic flowerssuggest the

possibility of a harmoniousintegrationbetween humans,nature,andtechnology,at the sametimethatthey poeticizeresponsive electronics in analogywith ornamentalplants.Taking this concept further, in 1984 Seawright createdHouse Plants (fig. 5), two computer-controlled roboticflowers. House Plants used a computer (a custom-builtmicroprocessor)o give the electronicplants their environ-mentally responsive behavior. While the taller plantopened its four petals at night reacting to changing lightlevels, the shorter,domedplant produceda peculiarsoundpatternas small disks opened and closed. Bothplants dis-played dynamic blinking light patterns:on the inside of thepetals of the taller one (madevisible whenopened),and onthe surfaceof the spherical top of the shorterone. If placedin a gallery setting, bothplantswereprogrammedo exhib-it their behavior simultaneously. Cybernetic botany is atheme that has been explored by the artist in multiplepieces andin different versions of single pieces.With its emphasison behavior, t was only a matteroftime for robotic art to expandits realm of possibilities intotheatricaland performativeevents. Two of the most promi-nent artists of the generation that emerged in the 1970swho work with robotics are Mark Pauline and Stelarc. In1980 Pauline cofounded,with MatthewHeckert and EricWerner,he SurvivalResearchLaboratories, rSRL,a col-laborative team that since then has created multiple-machine performances combining music, explosives,radio-controlled mechanisms, violent and destructiveaction,fire,liquids, animalparts,andorganicmaterials.Inthe seventeen years that stand between its foundationandthe present, SRL has developed machines and robotsandhas staged performances n Europeand the United States,all toonumerousand varied to be fully coveredhere. Theseworksare markedby visceral violence and entropicchore-ography,often culminating in a cathartic self-destructive

ARTJOURNAL

6

FIG.4 NormanWhite,TheHelplessRobot,1985. Courtesyhe artist.

8/13/2019 Kac Robotic Art

6/9

FIG. 5 JamesSeawright,HousePlants,1984. Courtesyhe artist.

FIG. 6 Survival esearchLaboratories,cene fromCrimeWave,realizednSan Francisco n November 8, 1995. This mageshowsthe RunningMachine ttacking victimprop.CourtesyMarkPauline.

8/13/2019 Kac Robotic Art

7/9

FIG. 7 Stelarc,TheThirdHand,1981. Courtesyhe artist.extravaganza.These roboticspectacles of discomfort,fear,and actual destruction are meant as commentaries onsocial issues, particularly n regardto ideological control,abuse of force, and technologicaldomination.In 1981, forexample, Pauline mechanically animated dead animals,evoking Frankensteinian fears and suggesting the larger-than-humanpowersof technology.Rabot,forexample,wasproduced by grafting a mechanical exoskeleton to theentire body of a dead rabbit,causing it to walk backward.These and many other large machines, animal-machinehybrids, and robotic or computer-controlleddevices haveanimated SRLs loud and often controversialpyrotechnicevents, such as Crime Wave fig. 6), realized in November1995 in San Francisco, or more recently, The UnexpectedDestructionof ElaboratelyEngineeredArtifacts,realizedinMarch1997 in Austin, Texas.

By contrast,Stelarchas focused his work on his ownbody,to which he first attached a third (robotic)arm,onlyto expand his suspension events into complex perfor-mances that have evolved cyborg and post-humanmetaphors,raisingthe issue of evolution and adaptation nour highly technological environment. The Third Hand(fig. 7), a five-fingerrobotic hand activated by abdominaland leg muscles, was built in 1981 with the assistance ofImasenDenki, based on a prototypeby Ichiro Kato.Among

Stelarc's irst roboticperformancesn 1981 were TheThirdHand (TamuraGallery, Tokyo)and Deca-Dance (KomaiGallery,Tokyo).In The ThirdHand performance, he artistexploredthe possibility of writingTHE THIRDHANDsimulta-neously with his right hand and his third hand. In Deca-Dance, he experimented with human and roboticchoreographicgestures. Since 1981 Stelarc has been cre-ating amplified body performancesin which he expandsthe powerand reach of the humanbody by wiringit to elec-tronic devices and telecommunicationssystems. In theseperformanceshe has combined the third hand with manyothertechnologicalcomponents, ncluding sensing devicesconventionallyused in medicine. On occasion Stelarc hasalso performed n the companyof industrial robotic arms.Morerecentlyhe has also used prosthetictechnologiesthatphysically wire his body and enable remote and directmuscle stimulation, which result in involuntary gesturesand bodymotions uncontrollableby the artist.Stelarcclearlyunderstands hatin the absence of theobjectthatis being controlled,remotecontrol and manipu-lation create a new situationforperformance,robotic,andinteractive art.As a consequence of my owndesire to pushtelecommunicationsart into a morephysical domain,since1989 I have been developing,with Ed Bennett,whatI calltelepresence rt, couplingrobotics and telecommunicationsinto new forms of communicativeexperiences that enableparticipants o projecttheir presence into a geographicallydistant place. The word telepresencerefers to the experi-ence of having a sense of one's own presence in a remotespace (and not the sense of somebodyelse's remote pres-ence, as is common on the telephone). Telepresence art ishardlyconceivable withoutthe use of live video, but unlikevideo art,telepresence artemphasizes,not the video imageitself, but the point of view defined by the intermediatedgaze. Other artists have subsequently pursued this basicpremisewithveryengagingresults. In 1995 KenGoldberg,Joseph Santarromana, George Bekey, Steven Gentner,RosemaryMorris,CarlSutter,andJeffWiegleycollaborat-ed to create the TeleGarden fig. 8), a Web telepresence

FIG. 8 KenGoldberg ndothers,TeleGarden,995. Courtesyhe artist.

ART JOURNAL

8/13/2019 Kac Robotic Art

8/9

installation. TeleGardenenabled anyone on the Web toplant and water seeds in a real living garden using anindustrialrobotarm. This garden,six feet in diameter,soonfilled with marigolds,peppers, and petunias. Participants,who became members of this virtual cooperative,couldalso plant seeds, waterthe plants, anddiscuss co-op policyvia an on-line chat system.The projectexploredthe evolu-tion of communityon the Web, in particularthe analogywith the agrarianrevolutionwhich established the condi-tions for cultural communities.

Also in 1995, Nina Sobell and Emily Hartzell,work-ing in collaboration with New YorkUniversity Center forAdvanced Technology engineers and computerscientists,created Alice Sat Here (fig. 9a, b), originally shown atRicco/Maresca Galleryin New York.In this piece a cam-era-equippedwheelchairwas steered by local and remoteparticipants, with sequential uploads to the Web. Whilelocal participants were able to sit on and steer Alice'sthrone, remote visitors could controlcamera direction. Amonitor in the gallery's front window showed real-timevideo from the point of view of the wheelchair-mountedwireless camera, which was then displayed as sequentialstills on the Web.Touchpads n the frontwindowsurround-ed the monitor.Participantspressing the touchpads werecaught in the act of controllingthe throne's camera:theirimages were capturedby the small camera mountedatopthe monitor.The throneitself was controlled not remotely,but by people actually driving t around.The small cameramountedon top of the monitoroverlapped he streetpartic-ipant's image with the image captured from the point ofview of the wheelchair-mounted camerapriorto the Webupload.This piece touched on the multiplelevels of controlas participants oscillated between physical space andcyberspace.As telepresence artdepartsfrom straightrobotics,manyartists still pursue issues of autonomyof the roboticbodyin space beyond biomorphism. n 1996, SimonPenny,for example, created his autonomousrobot Petit Mal (fig.10). The title of this piece is a medical termthatrefers to amomentaryloss of consciousness. Having first designedPetit Mal in 1989, Pennybegan to build it in 1992. As anautonomous oboticartwork,t exploresarchitectural paceand pursues and reacts to people. Its behavior is neitheranthropomorphicor zoomorphicbut is unique to its elec-tronicnature.It has threeultrasonicsensors and threebody-heat sensors that allow it to recognize the presence ofhumansnear it. Petit Mal was designed to be lightweight,durable,andmechanicallyefficient,whichgaveit a labora-toryprototype hysiognomy.By coveringpartsof the robot'sbodywith a printed vinyl tablecloth,the artist intended tochangeits appearance.PetitMal consists of a pairof bicycle

FIG. 9a, b Nina Sobell and EmilyHartzell,Alice Sat Here, 1995. Courtesythe artists.wheels that supporta pairof pendulumssuspendedfrom asingle axis. The top pendulumhouses a processor,sensors,

FALL1997

66

8/13/2019 Kac Robotic Art

9/9

FIG. 10 Simon Penny, Petit Mai,1992-95. Courtesyhe artist.

and logic power supply. The bottom pendulum enclosesmotorsand motorpowersupply.Sensors are kept in a verti-cal position despite the swingthat results fromacceleration.Petit Mal functionsautonomouslyn a public environmentformanyhours before ts batteriesneed to be replaced.The works outlined here suggest that at the sametime that robotics has matured into an art form since itsintroduction n the 1960s, it has been quickly appropriatedand incorporatedinto other forms, such as performance,installation, dance, earthworks, heater,and telepresencepieces. Todayartists such as Marcel.liAntiinezRoca, Mar-got Apostolos, Louis-Philippe Demers and Bill Vorn,Ulrike Gabriel, Ted Krueger, Chico MacMurtrie, KenRinaldo, and MartinSpanjaard, among many others, aredeveloping a complex and fascinating body of work inroboticart,pushing it into new directions. Remote control,

cyberneticentities, and autonomousbehavior,as firstout-lined by Paik, Shannon, and Ihnatowicz,define the threekey directions that have informed the development ofrobotics in art.Today,as artistic freedompromotesroboticdiversity,the understandingof this triangular ramework sessential to enable us to continue to explorethe history, hetheory,and the creation of robotic art. -,NoteFor their invaluable help I would like to thankAnnick Bureaud,JohannaDrucker,Anita Duquette, GeorgeHirose, Olga Ihnatowicz,BarbaraMoore,Jasia Reichardt,and CarlSolway.EDUARDO KAC is an artist and writer who works withelectronic and photonic media. He is a memberof theeditorial board of thejournal Leonardo and has exhibited hisworkwidely. He is assistant professorof art and technology atthe School of the Art Institute of Chicago.