About us
Stay in touch
Peter Bauman: Hello everybody and welcome to this Le Random discussion celebrating Chapter 5 of our generative art timeline, and that covers the decade of the 1970s. So I'm your host, Peter Bauman or Monk Antony. I'm the content person at Le Random, and I have two special guest hosts with me today. One is Anika Meier from Expanded.Art and Conrad House from Le Random. And today is all about the 1970s, the decade, and generative art history. At Le Random, I've been writing this generative art timeline. We've been going through the history of generative art going back to 70,000 years ago. And Conrad has been working with me on it, helping me out, especially adding photos. We started with Chapter One, the pre-modern era of generative art history, going back to 70,000 years ago. We've had a talk for each chapter. Today we're at Chapter Five, and that is the decade of the 1970s.
We are absolutely thrilled and lucky to have two artists and pioneers who began their work, their long careers, in the 1970s. We're absolutely thrilled to also have two very different perspectives today. We have the perspective of an American woman and a European man, again, who both began their work in the 1970s. I'm so excited to talk to both of them today. Our two very extremely special guests today are Joan Truckenbrod and Hans Dehlinger.
Joan is an artist, author and educator whose work creates a conduit between technology and nature. She was making coded algorithmic work in the 1970s and is one of computer-generated art's foremost artists, boundary pushers and educators. Her work has been exhibited at the Whitney Museum of American Art, the Smithsonian Institution and all across the world. It's an incredible honor to have her today. Joan, thank you so much for joining us. Would you like to add anything to your introduction, Joan?
Joan Truckenbrod: Well, thank you very much for including me in this really interesting and provocative discussion. Just a couple of things. My work was also in the LACMA show, titled Coded, recently. And RCM Gallery in Paris has some of my work, current as well as past. And an upcoming exhibition you're probably familiar with, Radical Software: Women, Art and Computing, 1960 to '91, at the Contemporary Art Museum in Luxembourg. It will be next September, and then it will travel to Kunsthalle Wien in February till May of '25. So thank you.
Peter Bauman: Amazing to look forward to those upcoming in the EU. And Hans is also a pioneer and an artist. He also pioneered computer-generated art, beginning work in the 1960s and 1970s. He started programming languages with computers in the early '60s during his studies in Stuttgart, and we're very keen to talk about that. Then he also studied and got his PhD at Berkeley in the States. He's been practicing making art with computers for over 40 years. Hans, thank you so much for joining us. Is there anything you'd like to add about yourself?
Hans Dehlinger: I was lucky to study architecture in Stuttgart at a time when lots of these things began there. And today I'm called a pioneer, but I think I'm a pioneer of the second generation because I was looking up to these real pioneers a lot. And I started actually as an architecture student with learning ALGOL in '68, which was pretty unusual for an architecture student at the time. And I did it not because I was interested in art but because I wanted to improve architecture, the topic I was really interested in. And this was the beginning.
But there was a Studium Generale led by Max Bense at that time. And Frieder Nake made his dissertation with him. And there was not even a computing center at this university. It was called the Institute for Numerical Mathematics. And at that institute, Frieder Nake was operating a Zuse Graphomat, and I happened to walk by and saw these things. And I fled because I thought, if I stay too long, then it sucks me in and my architecture is not as I can. And I could not afford to live in university as an artist because it's a different thing to live off art or to live off architecture, really. And my living was in architecture.
Peter Bauman: Thank you for highlighting. I mean, you're highlighting your special career but also both of your connections to Max Bense and Stuttgart and Frieder. Then, Joan, you also have these connections to Sonia in Chicago and many others. We cannot wait to get into all of these details.
Then let me also introduce our last non-Le Random guest, who's also a host. She's a special guest host. That's Anika Meier, curator, writer and lecturer who's building Expanded.Art, the physical space in Berlin that I was very lucky to be able to see in person a few weeks ago and meet her very cute dog that hopefully we hear in this talk today. Anika, thank you so much for joining us. Is there anything you'd like to say about yourself?
Anika Meier: Thank you for your kind words and inviting me. Maybe, Joan, I read the LACMA catalog yesterday, and there's a very beautiful essay about your work in there and very beautiful images. To everyone who would also like to read a bit and learn more about the LACMA show, I can highly recommend getting the catalog.
Maybe how Hans and I met: I think that was exactly a year ago, maybe, Hans, right? One day he stood in front of me and was looking at a plotter drawing from Marcel Schwittlick, and he just didn't leave that plotter drawing. Then I went up to him, and then he was like, "Look, there was an issue with the pen." Then I asked him who he was. Three months later, we've done his first solo show with the gallery, and upcoming is his first solo show with a big gallery in Shanghai in March, and another one with us. I'm very happy that he came to the gallery and couldn't stop looking at the plotter drawing of Marcel Schwittlick.
Peter Bauman: Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Anika. Yeah, please.
Hans Dehlinger: I'm actually also a carpenter, a journeyman, a joiner, and I made a lot of drawers to put my drawings in because nobody was interested to look at them. And so I've just built these drawers. And Anika was the first one who really got it, besides some academic things like SIGGRAPH and so on. To meet the people, you had to go there. And then if you got an accepted piece, the university would pay the travel. Otherwise it would be too expensive to go there.
Peter Bauman: That's always the goal. And then our last member of the talk today is Conrad House, Nemo Keck, also from Le Random. He is our collecting and research guru. So Conrad, how are you? Can you please tell us anything more you'd like to say about yourself?
Conrad House: Yeah, I don't think we need many more introductions, just talking about the collection at Le Random. I think most people listening to this maybe know who I am, but super excited for this talk today. Super honored to have Joan, Hans and Anika here today. This is going to be a super exciting talk.
And maybe just to lay a bit of context before we jump into some of these main questions, we can ask Peter and Anika a couple of questions, maybe broadly about the '70s, starting with Peter. I think we see the '70s marked as this very large space of exploration and pioneering efforts for these artists, responding to the rigidity of the '60s. And it was also this very challenging time because there's this waning optimism from this burst of energy that we saw in the '60s, where a lot of people were paying attention to the '60s and what was happening with computers. And then the '70s might have seen a bit of a dip. So it was this constant struggle to continue to push this computer generative art movement and then continuing this practice of making sure that this practice doesn't die. So what can we learn more about this decade today, Peter?
Peter Bauman: Yeah, just a couple of things, and I think that's a really good question. I think in terms of the response to that rigidity, I think that's one of the reasons why we're so pleased to have Joan on today because that's exactly what her work demonstrated. And then in terms of that waning optimism and the pessimism of the '70s, and again, maybe Hans and Joan can speak about this as well, it reminds me a bit of our time today, when we had a bit of a burst of energy earlier in the decade, and now we're experiencing a little bit of a drawback in some of that optimism. So I'm wondering, maybe since there are all of these parallels, what we can learn from this decade that we can apply to today.
Conrad House: Yeah, that's a great point. I think throughout all the decades, there's many parallels that we can draw to this reoccurring history that we come up with. And then I think we can switch it over to Anika. Maybe just starting with a very broad question, Anika, but what sticks out most to you about the decade in the '70s, maybe when you think about computer art and generative art at this time?
Anika Meier: The interesting part is... it's a very good question. No matter, I think, at what decade we are looking when it comes to computer art, it's always the same discussions, no? The computer as a partner, then randomness, and basically how you can apply technology, and then the broader discussion. That's what, I guess, also both artists we have with us here tonight can speak to: that no matter what decade we are in, artists have had to fight for computer art to be accepted as art or, just broadly speaking, art with technology.
I'm reading the book from Herbert W. Franke, which he was writing in the late '50s. I reread the book in 2022, and it read like it could have been written just that year because it's always the same discussion. When we look at the work from the '70s, especially also the aesthetics, I think a lot of these things repeat themselves now in this decade. I guess also Hans and Joan will tell us more about it. She started working with textiles. That's also what a lot of artists do these days. So history is repeating itself. I'm really excited to hear more from Joan and Hans.
Conrad House: I think Joan is having a couple of technical difficulties. She'll be joining us shortly, I'm sure.
Peter Bauman: So because maybe Joan is having a technical challenge, maybe, Anika, do you want to start with your first question for Hans? Then Joan can join us. We can begin with questions for her at that time.
Anika Meier: Hans, I've already mentioned that we've met each other a year ago at the gallery, at our gallery, Expanded.Art in Berlin. Then on that day, I think we started a conversation about how you see yourself. I thought in the introduction that you would say, "Oh, I'm not an artist," but you didn't do that. Cybernetic Serendipity took place in 1968, and there was a big discussion, or it was just the fact that half of the artworks in the exhibition weren't coming from artists because simply the people who had access to computers were scientists and just people who didn't have an artistic background, same as you. I'd be interested to hear from you how you see yourself today. Do you still say, "I'm not an artist"?
Hans Dehlinger: My website is called Generative Art, so I guess I must be a little bit an artist today, or I could name myself that. But you mentioned the Cybernetic Serendipity show. Actually, when I arrived in Berkeley, by a lucky incident I stumbled into the Exploratorium, where the Cybernetic Serendipity show just had arrived, and I spent a whole afternoon, a single person, nobody else but me, in these rooms. It was not even totally unpacked yet. I remembered from my study time pieces like Running Cola is Africa. It was one of these things that was just kicking me out of my shoes. How was it done? What is happening there? And this show was really one important stepping stone in my recognition of this entire field, I have to say. I listened to a lecture by Jasia Reichardt later in London some day, and it reconfirmed what I had felt already at the time, really.
Peter Bauman: Yeah, it's undoubtedly one of those major milestones in the history of this movement. And maybe I can turn to you, Joan, and ask you a question. I'd like to start just about where you began working with computers. So I'd really like to just start at the beginning. You began working with computers and art, I believe, in 1975, and your motivation was, I believe, to describe natural phenomena. And I'd be curious to know what inspired you specifically to work with computers and art at a time when they were so inaccessible.
Joan Truckenbrod: Peter, can you hear me? I think I'm frozen out. Or can you hear me?
Peter Bauman: Right now, yeah, we can hear you now.
Joan Truckenbrod: Okay, so I'll just continue, even though the video doesn't seem to be live. Actually, it was probably '74. I was teaching art, and my teaching assistant had started working with computers with an architectural person and helping with a basic design class. We were studying symmetry operations, and he developed a program in Fortran using the plotter so that each student could design a module, and then we would have the computer process their imagery or their module and then draw out 20 different symmetry operations. So that was, I guess, a lightning bolt for me because through the process of 20 symmetry operations, you could see the visual dynamics shift radically, and that was pretty exciting.
In order for me to work with the computer... I was at a university, so it was a large mainframe, but I had to take two semesters of Fortran programming, which I did, and then also developed algorithms and programs that were then used to create plotter drawings. But what was interesting to me was I felt an incredible freedom that I wasn't locked into processes or final products of existing media. Photography has its rules. Printmaking has its rules. And so this for me was incredibly freeing, that I could do basically whatever I wanted.
And at the same time, I discovered that the programming allowed me to have access to invisible worlds, not like a microscope but through mathematical descriptions that scientists had developed that described phenomena in the natural world that were invisible but a little bit palpable, like wind currents or light waves reflecting off of irregular surfaces. So using those mathematical formulas, I put them into algorithms, which then developed into programs and then went to the plotter for drawings. But I didn't work in a sequential way. For me, variables are like pebbles on the beach that shift and change every time the tide comes in and out. So I would create a series of drawings that were related. And I still have a number, or many rolls, of these plotter drawings where they're related drawings, but they're not sequential. So in a way they were generative but not in a sequential way, where I went from one to two to three to four. So that was really invigorating for me. Do you want me to go on to the textiles?
Peter Bauman: Well, Hans, is there anything that resonates there that you'd like to respond to?
Hans Dehlinger: Yes. The basic class in studying architecture was taught by a Bauhaus master, one of the last ones. And we had to work on big sheets of paper with very small elements, writing an entire tableau just to train our hand to write A, B, Z. And this meticulous, precise working by hand has also some algorithmic smell in my memory. And it was a lot of work and tedious work. And so when I then saw people like Nees and Nake do other things with machines, I got really hot. But I looked up to them. I was far away from getting into this because my interest was architecture, really. And later I detected a very close similarity between this algorithmic thing you're working with and the design process as a general topic. Designing is something that you need when you do these algorithmic things also. The entire difficulties of designing apply there as well. This is the connection where I got hooked to these things.
“For me, variables are like pebbles on the beach that shift and change every time the tide comes in and out.” — Joan Truckenbrod 18:35
Joan Truckenbrod: I was actually working in isolation, creating. It was just like, oh, oh, oh. It was the process of continual discovery, and it really invigorated my studio process. It took a long time with the computer center, and then the plotter drawings were created by the geology department. And so there was this interface across the university, and I could not convince the geography department, I guess, to use different line widths. So most of the pen drawings, the plotter drawings, are the same line width. And I also could not convince them to use color and articulate different aspects of a particular drawing using color.
So what I did to create color was I created a series of two or three or four related drawings, and then I used color xerography. Each of those drawings was printed on a Xerox machine in a specific color on a transparency, and then they were overlaid. So I would have drawings with two colors or three colors or four colors, and they were plotter drawings, but they were created in color using color xerography. So it's the idea that you have something you want to make, and you figure out how to make it. And with the computer, the power and the range of potential is just incredible.
Peter Bauman: I mean, that's very much the spirit of Generative Systems, and Sonia Sheridan as well. That reminds me a lot of that. And yeah, I love that. Since you were working in isolation, Joan, what did those other scientists think of you? What did they think you were doing? What was their reaction to what you were doing, making quote-unquote art with these machines?
Joan Truckenbrod: They probably thought I wasn't making anything meaningful, right? But I wasn't paying attention to them. I just had these things I needed to do and these things I needed to make and these drawings I needed to explore. And so I just pushed ahead. And I did have a supportive art department. They got me a keypunch machine. They paid for the computer time. They paid for the plotting time and the plotter drawings. In that way, I was very lucky. I was lucky that I was at a university and had access to... I never saw the computer, right?
Hans Dehlinger: Exactly, yeah. That's an interesting point. In Berkeley, it was called the three-dimensional IBM punch card, and it was in the fifth basement because it was bomb-secure, and you never saw it. You always delivered your deck, and you got it back through a hole, and that was it.
But the other thing really threw me in Berkeley. There was a teacher... As a graduate student, you had a big liberty of choosing whatever you wanted. And in Berkeley, you walk in 10 minutes across the campus to a different department. And there was a Professor Laura Gould, and she taught the first class, Computers for the Humanities. And she introduced SNOBOL, SNOBOL4, developed by Bell Telephone at that time. And this class was so full with crazy and strange students that it really was fantastic because it was so different from ALGOL, where I was sitting with engineers and calculators and mathematicians, not understanding what they were talking about. But in this class... And years later, I gave a talk in Denver at a conference, and at the end I was asked, "What computing language do you use?" And I said, "Oh, I'm still using SNOBOL." And the entire audience started to laugh. And I was shocked because I thought, why are they laughing? You can do many, many things with this thing. And then I thought, I have to ask them back a question they cannot answer, honestly. And I asked, "Do you have a computer language on your laptop or machine that is running since 30 years without a change?" Silence. So much for computing and strange approaches to this area where you could do things you have never dreamed of before, really.
Joan Truckenbrod: And also I might add just that we didn't see the imagery we were creating. There was no monitor, and so the experimental process was envisioned. Sometimes it corresponded to what the plotter drew out, and sometimes it didn't. I think that was part of the excitement because some of the unexpected drawings moved you in new directions, and mistakes also moved you in new directions.
Hans Dehlinger: Pretty similar to what I experienced. It's reassuring that you talk about this same problem because when I later got a job at an art school as a professor in design, only artists around me, I said, "Where are the computers?" "Art doesn't need computers." I would think we should need them. We should train the students. And then I looked for people around me, and they were not in the art school. Finally, I got a little bit of money and we bought some, but it was a hostile environment against this. It came out of a computer. It was not considered respectful to the topic of art. It changed completely, I think.
And maybe today we are in the same position with the KI coming up. When we started with the computers, nobody, even the experts, I believe, could expect the speed with which they developed and changed. And maybe the same with the new stuff that comes out of the AI, or KI, whatever you call it. We don't know. We underestimated probably, as we did years ago, decades ago.
Anika Meier: Hans, you've just said that when you first saw Frieder Nake working with plotter drawings, you were excited. You actually were so excited that you thought you'd better stay away from it. What in the end made you start working with plotters? When you started working with plotter drawings and computers and code, because you also have a background in architecture, right, what were the topics that interested you? And were you also looking at, I don't know, the history of abstract art and concept art and so on?
Hans Dehlinger: I think it was clear to me that there is a contribution of this field to art in general, no matter if the colleagues around me would accept this or not. I just worked with people who were open to this. And we started with small exercises. We got computers for the art school, and we made a lecture series, open to the public. It was called Computer in der Kunsthochschule, Computers at an Art School. And we invited people that were pretty unknown at that time, Peter Weibel, who later became director of ZKM, people that were open to these things. And it developed, and at a certain point, even the most stupid artists accepted it also. They realized the benefits, simply. You can do different things, and they can be good, and they can be called art. That's the point, I think.
Joan Truckenbrod: Yeah, I think the connection... You mentioned Bauhaus earlier. There was resistance to this as art, but the connection art historically to abstraction, abstract art, and Malevich, Moholy-Nagy, those kinds of abstracted drawings, was clear to me. And the other aspect of it was that I felt intuitively there was so much potential with the computer, as you say, because of the range of things that you could do with it. And that became increasingly clear with the microprocessors, with the Apple computer. I can talk about a class that I designed that actually acknowledged and took advantage of that using the Apple computer.
Peter Bauman: Well, yeah, that brings us to... I'd love to talk about your time, especially in Chicago with Sonia. So Joan, how did your time begin there at the Art Institute? What made you choose that program? And then can you just walk us through your time there and what it was like to study with Sonia? For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, I'm talking about Sonia Sheridan, her Generative Systems, her iconic ten-year program that was at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. So, yeah, can you tell us about that time, Joan?
Joan Truckenbrod: Well, I was teaching in a university about 60 miles west of the city. Actually, a friend introduced me to her, and I had an MA, but I didn't have an MFA, so if I wanted to continue teaching, I needed an MFA. So I had the opportunity to meet her and to show her some of my plotter drawings. And she had already become interested in the computer, even though she was working with a range of copy machines. She saw the potential in extending her ideas from copy machines into the computing realm. She saw that importance, and so she immediately asked me to come and join her, initially as a graduate student, and then I became head of the Art and Technology Department there.
But she had designed a series of classes. Because copy machines use heat, light, pressure, what are natural forces in the world, to engage students in a different way of thinking about making artwork creatively, she created two classes called Process One and Process Two. And what they were was using natural forces like light, pressure, heat, magnetics or magnetism to make images. So it became totally experimental. And we spent the studio days experimenting and exploring different ideas. And so then she asked me to teach those classes. She was a one-person department. So when I was there, I could support her vision and allow her to do other things with undergrads as well as graduate students. So I began teaching those classes, in which case we analyzed the processes and then used different aspects of them to make images. And working alongside of her, you were not always knowing what was coming next. She's very inspiring. She's magical. She's mystical, really. So it was a very lively and dynamic environment working with her.
And then I went on to do the textiles there. I actually had obtained an Apple II computer on a grant when I was at the university. And so they sent me one in a box. And so that allowed me to develop curriculum, the first course that I taught at the university and then I taught at the Art Institute. This idea that there's potential with the computer to make different forms. And the other interesting aspect is the artist makes the form. The media doesn't make the form. It gives the artist the freedom to envision what form. Is it going to be sound? Is it going to be sculptural with 3D printing? Is it going to be a drawing? Is it going to be animation? So I had a class called Creative Computer Imaging where we went through the processes of visual imaging, and this was using the Apple IIe and the video digitizer. I think I forgot the name of it. Microtec, maybe. So they could work photographically but manipulate and transform images. They could make sound. We did animations, and we worked with sound and sound manipulations. I eventually did an installation, I think it was in Montreal, at Images du Futur, where we gathered their visual image and their sound image, and we transformed them both, and then we fed them back to the viewer. So it was an exciting time to begin to engage students, and we had lots of students. We had lots and lots of students in the computer classes.
Conrad House: And maybe to expand on it a bit, you mentioned it a little bit with the digital textiles that you began practicing here. I think this is one of your most significant practices throughout your career, Joan. Can you maybe expand on what was the inspiration for these works? Was it really a lot of influence of the Bauhaus weavers when you were creating a lot of this stuff? And luckily, we talked about the LACMA show also, and I think Electronic Patchwork was shown there. That's a beautiful piece. If you haven't seen it before, you can take a look through Joan's previous work in the '70s and '80s and get a feel for what we're talking about here.
Joan Truckenbrod: Well, for me, the materiality is always important, not only as a presence in the world but as this rich engagement with the viewer. So for me, there was always a struggle to get off the screen. What do I do? Shake the computer and pour it out? So I was trying to figure out how I could engage some material presence in the artwork. And we had a copy machine called the 3M Color-in-Color copier with a backlight setting. I was working on an Apple computer, which, I believe, was eight colors, and the pixels were boxes. So that's the reference in that title, not only to electronic patching but to quilting.
And so I created programs, and these images were more sequential, by changing the values and the variables. I created an animation, but I would display one image at a time on the monitor, and then I would turn the monitor upside down on the copier, rather. It had a backlight setting so it could understand the monitor, the image on the monitor. And then I used heat transfer material, and we printed one image at a time. I clicked the computer, changed the image, made a print on heat transfer material. And there's quite a few on that first one. Electronic Patchwork was the first one. And each image would have to be trimmed down because it was a Xerox paper. And then I would arrange them and then hand iron them onto polyester. And the color was not powder. It was dye sheets. And so the color was microencapsulated and really worked best on a polyester.
So the other interesting thing about digital media is, periodically, the artifacts of the media come into the work, right? So when you turn a monitor upside down on the copy machine, sometimes the color migrated. And so it just became part of the process. And because they were hand ironed back onto fabric, once in a while the iron image would be in the work. But that was interesting to me because the hand was actually in the work. The artist's hand was in the work. And just to jump on that, I did do a series of those. They're all in collections currently.
I loved Anni Albers's weaving because of her interest in mathematical aesthetics, not only in creating regularity in her patterns but in creating irregularity. And for me, that was really important. And I didn't have the opportunity to weave, but I now have a digital loom. So I continue to be inspired by her work. And the potential of this... It's a digital jacquard. It's the TC2, which is basically a thread controller from Norway. I have the loom from Norway because I knew... Hans, you probably know Vibeke as well. And it's just because, well, there's a lot going on. Each point, it's like a pointillist painting. If you're working with four colors, the thread controller can pick up whatever color it should be at that particular point on the image that you've designed. And the stitch patterns play a role in the textural aspect of it. Every time I throw a shuttle, if I'm working with four colors, I throw four shuttles, and then the computer changes the configuration of the heddles between each one. And if you want the design as you originally envisioned, you keep the shuttles in order and you keep the same colors. However, because I'm interested in diverting, disrupting rather, the patterns, I frequently change coloration. And at any point, you can also change imagery. Because I like to juxtapose, I just did a series on the homeless issue here in America, using fences as an inspiration, and the rigidity and the confinement that fences create for homeless people, which I feel is inappropriate, identifying them as different. So I created weavings that had regularity but then juxtaposed with much more organic forms. So inspired by her and jumping off from some of hers.
Peter Bauman: Thank you. Hans, would you like to talk about any of your inspirations?
Hans Dehlinger: The thing that fascinated me right from the beginning was the close analogy between the Hewlett-Packard programming code and the hand drawing. Because what you do by hand, if you draw, you pick up a pen, pen up, and if you draw, you put it down and you move. And exactly these three commands are the most important ones. You can actually do with these three or four things, pen up, pen down, move, anything you want. And this analogy in the early days was very reassuring to me, that it cannot be wrong to do with these things anything you want because you do it with the hand exactly the same way, just driven by other muscles or energy.
And I think still at one of the SIGGRAPHs, I got into a talk with a Microsoft high official, and I had just written my first small program at that time with replacement statements in Microsoft Word. I think you need five replacements and you have HPGL code, which you can submit to a plotter, and it makes a drawing. And he didn't even know that it was possible to do such things. But these are, like Joan mentioned, by experimenting on a very basic level, you encounter problems you can exploit to exactly what you want to achieve. And that's it. So let's grab the tools and use them and see what comes out. Judge the outcome. That's the other thing.
Maybe it's a little bit off topic, but by talking or listening, these memories come back over here. I also remember when I was first learning, we had an old machine at that university, and you had to look errors up in a very thick book. And mostly the error I made as a non-mathematician was division by zero. So nothing will work with this.
“You can actually do with these three or four things, pen up, pen down, move, anything you want.” — Hans Dehlinger 43:19
Joan Truckenbrod: Can I make one more comment about the weaving?
Peter Bauman: Of course.
Joan Truckenbrod: So what I've also done is cut up one of the weavings and made a house form, and then I have access to 3D scanning and 3D printing. So that was with a technician. So that was 3D scanned, along with dried coiled seaweed from the Oregon Coast and dried leaves. And then on the computer, in the virtual space of the computer, you can inject one into the other and wind... I don't want to use the word weave, but wind them together in interesting ways. So I wound this fiber house up with the coiled seaweed, and some of the 3D prints have dried leaves with the houses and the coiled seaweed. So then I've been able to 3D print these in resin. So this is a new thing for me, and I'm really invigorated by this transition from one form to the other and plan to be doing more of that. I've also been able to do a laser embossing of an intermediate pattern of the imagery, the grayscale imagery that gets translated to the computer. So there's this on acrylic. So there's this laser embossing that goes along with the weaving that you'd never imagine the connection. But it's very curious and very interesting to me because the gray values determine the depth at which the laser embosses the surface. So anyway.
Anika Meier: May I ask a question?
Peter Bauman: Yes, please. Thank you.
Anika Meier: So both of you were dealing with the same issues, I mean, broadly speaking. Hans was also in Berkeley, but Hans, you studied in Stuttgart, and you were, for example, you told me, looking up to Herbert W. Franke. So how important was it back then to know what other artists were doing, maybe in America? Were you looking at what artists were doing in Europe and the other way around? Were you in touch and speaking with each other and helping? I mean, today we're all on Twitter. This will be broadcast or shown later on Twitter. It's super easy for all of us to exchange and solve issues. How was it back then without Twitter or email?
Hans Dehlinger: The work of Herbert W. Franke was very familiar to me because what he did was applying a generative system to produce outputs, which I found interesting. And it was not a traditional art process behind this. And this was... I mean, Bense coined this term aesthetic event to avoid the art issue. We don't make art. We don't want to talk about art. We produce singular aesthetic events. And that's exactly what Franke did. And I was fascinated by these things. Actually, very much later, I think I wrote him a Christmas card, which I had designed, and he answered back, and I found this letter recently. He said, "Thank you for your nice drawing. It's interesting. Is there more of it?" And I was very surprised to find this in one of my drawers recently.
Yes, Herbert W. Franke. Although in his major work, not a computer-driven guy but analog, working in a way like Heinrich Heidersberger also. He's another one in that direction, working with a light point on a self-constructed camera in a machine and making these fantastic things. Maybe today people are still around that mix this up and not use only computers but use other different mechanisms. Algorithms can be driven by many things. It doesn't need to be mathematics. Does it answer your question in a way?
Anika Meier: Yeah, thank you. Joan, would you also like to reply?
Joan Truckenbrod: Sure. Once there started to be conferences, of course, we met each other. But my first connection was with Ruth Leavitt. There was a conference, I think it was in Toronto, on Humanities and Computers, and there's a book, and I can't tell you the year, but Ruth Leavitt was there, and we just immediately connected and began to share ideas. And then also in Chicago, there was another group of artists. Eventually, we all began to... Everybody was working so individually. I'm not sure that we influenced each other, but there were resources. In my case, in Chicago, at the Art Institute, there were other programmers eventually. Steve Wilson was there. John Dunn developed the paint program, the painting program. And then at the University of Illinois, Chicago campus, Dan Sandin and Tom DeFanti, and actually Copper Giloth was there. So, yeah, there was a community, I think, sometimes competitive, shall I say, and other times not. And then the ISEA conferences... I remember being in Utrecht and expanding my knowledge of other artists working in those areas.
Hans Dehlinger: I can really only reinforce what you said by adding my experiences. These international conferences, may it be ISEA or SIGGRAPH or Bridges or any of those which I attended, many times as a teacher also. And you met people who were interested in similar topics. And this was utmost inspiring to me. And it was always a challenge to produce a small piece which got accepted so you could apply for the travel money to get there. This was always an issue because Los Angeles is quite a trip from here. And I remember also in Italy, we had this generative art conference, I think Celestino Soddu. It is the 26th issue this year that happened there. In the beginning, I was there many, many times, and I remember vivid discussions among colleagues. What is generative art? What makes a generative kernel? What are generative algorithms? Is there a definition and so on. I think one of the most popular definitions came out of this conference, anyway. I'm grateful that we have educational institutions that allow teachers or people at the university, students as well, to go there, meet colleagues, discuss things and go back home with a bag full of inspiration, really.
Peter Bauman: I'm really happy that you brought up those international organizations, those international events, because they really did start in the 1970s. The first Ars Electronica, which Franke was involved with, that started in the 1970s. Hans, did you ever participate in any of those Ars Electronica events?
Hans Dehlinger: No, I was never in the Ars Electronica because I always regarded it as a very high level. You had to really work hard to get in. And I simply didn't have the time to do... I mean, many of my colleagues at the art school never realized what I was doing and with what I was filling these drawers because they were not interested. But it didn't bother me. I had my pleasure and the colleagues that... And very, very interesting students. Once you gave them the computers, which was my responsibility as a teacher, to get the money to buy the computers for the university, then they started doing things I enjoyed a lot also. So to be in a teaching position is a privilege because you have young people around you. And in this art school where I was teaching, we had 400 applications a year, and we took 20. It has changed because it is obscene, I think. If there are so many people that want to study art, they should give them the opportunity, not only narrow it down.
Peter Bauman: Do you see that same demand, Joan, when you were also in education for so many years?
Joan Truckenbrod: Oh, yeah. Initially, I started with a Saturday class so professionals could come in, and we filled the class immediately, and I think we taught a second section. And then we started a class on the small Macintosh for graphic designers, and that was also on Saturday. And we were sitting... It was a large class, maybe 20 or 22, and we were all sitting around one little Macintosh, and the dean came down on that Saturday, and the students just almost accosted him. It's like, we need more Macintoshes. And so on Monday, he called me and he said, "Order more." So the students had a lot of power. And then we expanded the curriculum. It included animation and programming. And then I had classes more concept-based...
Peter Bauman: I think we sadly lost Joan in the middle of that response. Anika, did you want to jump to that last question while we wait for Joan to come back, potentially?
Anika Meier: Yeah. So my last question would be jumping to today. Hans, you've just mentioned that back in the days you didn't have enough time to work on what you would have loved to be working on. I know that you're quite productive these days, and also we had a lot of conversations about NFTs. Maybe would you like to share with us what you're working on right now? I mean, not precisely, but what you're thinking about these days?
Hans Dehlinger: Yes. I'm on the way of revitalizing some of the plotters I have collected and trying to start them. Actually, I was falling down the ladder when I was getting a part of it, and that's my problem right now a little bit. But I think what I will do more, again, is what I've tried to do all my lifetime besides my jobs: plotting. To get that stuff out on a plotting machine and make a drawing out of it, a programmed drawing. Because I think the universe of machine drawings, or machine-generated drawings, is as big as the universe of hand drawings. And to explore this is by no means completely done. We cannot say that's history or so. I think I'm really also interested to see what the KI business brings out in that direction. It will probably not be printed but just on screen. Anyway, to follow up on these basic ideas: pen up, pen down, move. There's plenty to explore still, although I have plenty of drawers full already, but there's no end in sight, really. Is it a good answer?
Anika Meier: Yeah, thank you. I mean, it was really wonderful to go through all the drawers with you and knowing that you have more in Kassel. I think we spent by now six or seven Sundays together at your studio in Berlin. Also, Anne Svolter came by once. I enjoy going to visit your studio on a Sunday and going through drawers for four or six to eight hours. Yeah, my favorite Sunday activity. Thank you.
Hans Dehlinger: I can build new ones because I am a very good drawer builder also. I can build this furniture, no problem, and I can fill them. But I am 85 now.
Anika Meier: Okay. I think we stay with that, Hans: that we need to go on many walks in many different cities all over the world. I think next to Paris and then Shanghai. We both are big walkers. We enjoy walking everywhere. So we're really looking forward to walking around the world in different cities.
Peter Bauman: Yeah. Hi, welcome back, Joan.
Joan Truckenbrod: I can't see anybody, but I can respond. Can you hear me?
Peter Bauman: Yes, we can.
Joan Truckenbrod: Yes, I can hear you. Sorry.
Peter Bauman: No, you're totally good. No worries at all. That's okay.
Joan Truckenbrod: Go ahead, Peter. You can finish it.
Peter Bauman: Yeah, I think Conrad was just going to say that we're just about to wrap up. Joan, would you like to jump in with any closing thoughts as we're going to finish our talk tonight?
Joan Truckenbrod: Well, I just want to relay one funny event. After I had gone to the Art Institute to become department chair of Art and Technology, which was in the basement... and the school is four stories high. This is the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. And on the fourth floor is the Painting Department. And the cafe was on the third floor. So one day, I was in the elevator with a painter who was a good friend of mine. I won't mention his name, and he's covered in paint. And he says to me, "You know, Joan, you'll never be able to make art with a computer. You don't have paint on your hands." So we, of course, have proven him wrong.
It's still a really exciting field for me. And I guess because the current work I'm engaged in is the 3D printing and the laser embossing and the digital weaving. And of course, it's not limited. And thinking about early on, there was a misunderstanding in terms of the role of the computer. It was not clear to people that the artist had really created the work using the computer. However, today I think there's more of an environment of collaboration between the artist and the computer. And so it's much more understood. But I feel that this collaboration, that we are pushing many other people, of course, with AI, et cetera, that this is a really valuable direction, and it's going to produce some really incredible artworks in the coming future.
Conrad House: So good. And I just want to, before we wrap up, say thank you again to everybody for joining. It's been great to hear so many of these great anecdotes and little information bits that we don't get to hear anywhere else. It's also great to hear that you guys are both still exploring a lot of processes, and especially Joan, with 3D printing and embossing. It matches what Hans says: these procedural and generative systems can be applied anywhere you want them to be. Allowing randomness in your practice and allowing this emergence to really inspire you to explore new avenues is really awesome to hear. So thank you all for joining and giving me so much great information. I'll let Peter take it away.
“And he says to me, "You know, Joan, you'll never be able to make art with a computer. You don't have paint on your hands."” — Joan Truckenbrod 1:01:25
Peter Bauman: No, I think that's the perfect way to end it, Conrad. I'd just like to say thank you to Joan and thank you to Hans and Anika for joining us. And this was such a fun conversation. Joan, I'm such a big fan of your work, and Hans as well. I love talking about history, and who better than you two. So thank you both so much. And I really enjoyed it.
Joan Truckenbrod: Thank you so much for including me. I really enjoyed talking with all of you.
Peter Bauman: Thank you. Keep on going, Joan.
Joan Truckenbrod: Thank you.
Hans Dehlinger: Thanks, guys.
