In attending Siggraph 2000, one is amazed by all of the new technologies
on display for use by the computer graphics and interactive media
industry. 25,000 people converge on this annual Mecca of pixel-pushing
to see the next big thing in graphics that will catapult their company
into the lucrative locales of the business, or even to the realms of the
lucrative, yet ephemeral dot-coms. And, tacked onto the–probably–
100,000 square-foot trade show, there is a respectable technological art
show, exploratory studio, and showcase for emergent creative
technologies. But in taking in the show as a whole, I wonder about the
agendas that are in play in this milieu, and the role of art as such
in a place where commercial interests are so dominant.

Don't misunderstand me; there are times where I am exhilarated by the
sheer thrill of the potentials for expression that the new tools offer
artists of all disciplines. I must have spent an hour before the Elumen
parabolic large format immersive display, and salivated at the
possibility of having an immersive, 3-meter wide monitor! That is, if I
only had a paltry $30,000. However, it was refreshing to know that many
of the competing content production tool companies are quite interested
in having conceptual and fine artists involved in the process of
exploring their tools, often for free.

However, this causes some concern about the issues of technological
determinism that the graphics industry places upon the artist–i.e.
content/context vs. cool. This is nothing new, as Moore's law has
mandated that anyone who wishes to keep up must upgrade his or her
computer and software every 18 months. In many instances, this usually
keeps many artists on material and learning curves. But, it was
refreshing to sit in on presentations like that given by Rejane Spitz
–Rio de Janeiro, Brazil–who is actively addressing how the 93% of the
world that does not have access to technology can express themselves
creatively through the emerging digital media through her research
facility. When taken in contrast in the context of the excesses of
SIGGRAPH, it seems that some of the most interesting work comes from the
merger of craft and concept.

From the industry side, an example of how verisimilitude in the digital
image is being rethought is in the interest in non-photorealistic
rendering, in which generated imagery is no longer relied upon to
represent a simulated reality, but to represent a more painterly or
illustrative feel. Conversely, even though such interest represents a
divergence from the re-representation of the real, NPR could be
conceived as a second-order simulacrum of the real in that computer
graphics is at a point where the real is no longer an issue. And, the
representation of the real, rather than the real itself, such as in
later Renaissance and Baroque painting, is more in keeping with the
desired effect of the sim-image.

For four paragraphs now I have talked about what amounts to the industry
portion of SIGGRAPH. Taking in contrast the size of the trade show
floor and technical panels with the size of the art component, one
cannot ignore the magnitude of the influence that the show has on any
art work being shown in this venue. This was no more evident than in
the art gallery, where there were a range of works that nicely
integrated high levels of craft to pieces that seemed more like highly
advanced beta-test games, like Babyz.

One of the more craft oriented works was Daniel Rozin's Wooden Mirror.
This piece utilized video capture technology to drive an array of
remote-control servos that altered the angle of a field of wooden
squares, simulating the grayscale of a computer screen. Even though the
concept is very straightforward, the element of craft within the piece
made much of the technology utterly transparent, and added to the
compelling nature of the piece.

John Klima's Glasbead is a piece in which up to 20 users simultaneously
interact with a 3D ball-like interface in which they manipulate rotating
spikes in the globe and associated shapes on the spikes to create a
real-time mix of music and sound. Although unlike Rozin's Mirror,
Klima's work was entirely screen-based, but the uniqueness of the forms
of interaction that Glasbead offered the participants leads me to think
of this work as possessing a great degree of craft in its execution.
And this seemed to play itself out in the way that he held up to
thousands of ravening industry attendees at the 3D Roundup.

There were fine works by many of the usual suspects
Starrynight/Rhizome, Crossroads/Annette Weintraub, Daddy Liked His with
Heart/Jennifer Ley, Lifescience/Fakeshop, Merging Identity/Bonnie
Mitchell, M3 Teagarden/FOAM, PHONE:ME/Mark Amerika, SM/N/Intima,
Spook/Conor McGarrigle, Terminal Time/Paul Vanouse ant the Recombinant
History Apparatus, Text for the Navigational Age/Jeff Knowlton, and
VRML-Art 2000/Kathy Rae Huffman. Each of these works were worth
mentioning, but to do so in depth would expand this review to lengths
too onerous for my frequently logorrheal fingers.

Before looking outside the Gallery itself, a trend–one that I happen to
work in–is that of responsive spaces, of note being Art(n)'s Townhouse
Revisited, FOAM's M3/Teagarden, and Richard Brown's Biotica. Many of
these pieces has a generative component, and sought to immerse the
participant in an environmental component beyond the object itself,
merging aspects of performance and installation art as part of the
interaction with the work. When looking at the Emerging Technologies
display area, the idea of augmented reality and interactive spaces seems
to be an expanding trope of interactive art.

The Emerging Technologies area, also located within the same section as
the Art Gallery, showcased creative technologies and current research
projects by some of the world's more innovative institutions, like U of
Texas, ATR–Japan–, The Long Now Foundation, and MIT. Although the
innovation in these works was evident, and the creativity in many of
them quite compelling, the boundaries between potential startup
enterprise and artistic inquiry were strongly blurred, paying testament
to the industrial atmosphere of the venue.

But no more strongly had industry inscribed its presence upon the art
contingent than in the naming of the panel organized to discuss the
issues relating to the artists daily talks entitled No Art Jargon. I
will be honest that I was in transit on the way back from Baton Rouge at
the time for a late dinner at the end of the conference, but a
conversation with one of the organizers concerned me greatly in the need
for setting up such a polemic in the naming of this panel.

Roughly quoted, We need to make the industry feel that we–the fine
artists–have a place here, and that our work is accessible to the
masses. In writing this, I have to wait a moment to come back to any
remotely objective point of view. True, conceptual art of the 80's to
me was like a bad inside joke in which you had to read volumes of
Poststructuralism before you got it, and then the punch line wasn't even
that funny. Admittedly, many theorists have engaged in word-play to the
point where any hope of representation is lost. However, I am curious
as someone who deals with this industry that is heavily laden with
technical jargon and buzzwords, but also does not value simple spelling
and grammar, let alone critical thought, what precedents such an
approach creates. I can't say that as a relatively minor component of
SIGGRAPH, that the artists contingent requires the industry to impose
mandatory guidelines of critical training before entering the room.
However, in my–currently rather polemic–opinion, the issues of jargon
and opacity of thought are frequently dispelled by clear, compelling
work of all sorts. The attitudes that I encountered seem to acquiesce
to technocratic agendas of commodification, control, and
anti-intellectualism. This is not to take one pole or the other, but
culture and industry frequently are in opposition on many cultural
fronts, and it appears that this was one minor case in which a gesture
of compromise could have been closer to that of submission.

HOWEVER, this opinion is based on reading two catalogues and two
conversations with organizers, compounded with my ambivalence to the
frequently anti-intellectual culture of the graphics industry. Take it
with a grain of salt.

Finally, in reviewing the overall layout of the show, one has to take in
consideration that SIGGRAPH is an industry show, and although the art
contingent points up critical issues and innovative strategies to the
industry, they are by no means integral to the event itself. Although
the art gallery and talks add an essential cultural component to what
would otherwise be a near wasteland of culture and criticism–beyond
corporate culture–, SIGGRAPH by, for, and of Industry. Sometimes is
seems more fitting to see C5 or RTMark there than Rhizome. The people
running the art component are doing fine work, and Steve Dietz & Co
curated an excellent selection. In some ways I felt like some of the art
crowd was almost apologetic in light of the sheer weight of the computer
graphics industry and its dominance at SIGGRAPH. However, the art
community has a potent voice in this venue, as they're some of what one
game developers called the smart guys, and constitute some of the
vision that drives the culture of which industry is a part. The artists
are frequently the transparent underbrush from which industry finds much
of its its inspiration–that's a topic for appropriation, but beyond
this discussion for the moment.

In short–as my wife-says–Too late! Although SIGGRAPH is a venue
that is centered around capitalistic pursuit of techne, the art crowd,
by and large, seemed to maintain an intelligent footing amongst the
dazzle of the latest gadgets. Even though the majority of such a
festival will be about video game production and movies, the standards
of much of the art community more than allows it to stand its ground,
much like a mouse with a tactical nuke.