Parker Heyl

Bartlett School of Architecture

Design for Performance and Interaction

Production of Presence in the Digital Arts

 2

Table of Contents

Presence Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
I. Aestheticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
II. Producing Presence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
III. Biological Basis for Aesthetic Enjoyment ​. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Digital vs Material Animation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
I. Methodology for the Production of Kinetic Art . . . . . . . . . . . 7
II. The Object Aura . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Image List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Abstract

Art that is strictly aesthetic, or intended to be without sociological subject matter, has the
quality of timelessness or universality because it is not a direct product of the cultural critique it
generates. In this paper I will discuss the distinction between objective and subjective beauty as
outlined by Emmanuel Kant, and the importance of maintaining a balance in this relationship
within the gallery space. The materiality of pieces that are viewed with the body in addition to
the mind create a sense of presence in the public experience of art as stated by Hans Ulrich
Umbrecht.

The inspiration for art which aims to be universal can be taken from observations of
natural phenomena. ​Vilayanur S. Ramachandran argues there are certain neurological triggers
in human perception of beauty—symmetry, the golden ratio, light from the sun. Artists such as
Arthur Ganson, Reuben Margolin, Random International, and Zoro Feigl construct kinetic
sculptures which mirror this organic beauty.

The production of presence is reliant on the materiality of analog technology. I will apply
Walter Benjamin's concept of object aura and argue that it cannot exist in a disembodied digital
realm. Digital renders are antithetical to the somatic experience and are characterized by their
intangible nature. My practice stresses the role of technology in bodily immersive art and its
ability to reverse this loss of presence.
 3

Presence Effects:

I.: Aestheticism

The 19th century Aestheticism movement popularized the phrase, “l'art pour l'art,"
advocating for an attitude towards art which valued visual beauty over subject matter. In his
writing “The Critique of Judgement”, Emmanuel Kant discusses ideas of aestheticism, stating
that “the satisfaction in an object, on account of which we call it beautiful, cannot rest on the
representation of its utility” (Kant, 1892)​. ​Kant argues the value of a work of art should not rely
upon a foreign subject matter, and proposes aesthetics in art as a deliberate value: “The
beautiful is that which without any concept is cognised as the object of a necessary
satisfaction.” Thus the appreciation of an artwork should be determined by aesthetic experience
rather than its moral significance.

I​ n his 1878 essay ​The Red Rag​, James McNeill Whistler wrote that art should “appeal to
the artistic sense of eye or ear, without confounding this with emotions entirely foreign to it, as
devotion, pity, love, patriotism, and the like.” (Whistler, 1878) ​The type of art described by
Whistler and Kant appeals directly to the human senses, and in doing so, it imposes no political,
moral, or other predetermined message onto the viewer. ​Whistler writes, “Take the picture of
my mother... 'Arrangement in Grey and Black.' Now that is what it is. To me it is interesting as a
picture of my mother; but what can or ought the public to care about the identity of the portrait?”
(Whistler, 1878) Without prior knowledge of an artwork's subject matter, the viewer is forced to
engage with the piece on purely aesthetic terms. In this essay I will explain my methodology for
creating art ​whose subject matter is its physicality.

II.: Producing Presence

My inspiration for creating kinetic sculpture is biomimetic motion and observations of the
evanescent: a fountain of ocean spray, warm flames licking timber, the emergence of wave
patterns in a windy desert, an object approaching vibration at its resonant frequency,
wavelengths of sound and color, laminar and turbulent fluid flow. The beauty of these natural
phenomena is in their physicality and ephemerality, thus their production as sculptures should
be tangible and spatially present. In his book ​Production of Presence: What Meaning Cannot
Convey,​ Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht defines ‘production’ and ‘presence' as follows:

Something that is present is supposed to be tangible for human hands, which implies
that, conversely, it can have an immediate impact on human bodies. ‘Production’ then,
is used according to the meaning of its etymological root (ie Latin producere) that refers
to the act of ‘bringing forth’ an object in space.
(Gumbrecht 2004: p. xiii)
 4

Gumbrecht makes a “pledge against the systemic bracketing of presence, and against
the uncontested centrality of interpretation, in the academic disciplines that we call 'the
humanities and arts.” (Gumbrecht 2004: p. xiv) This suggests that an overreliance on analysis
can distract from our ability to connect with art in our immediate environment with our bodily
senses and mental facilities. My artwork is intended to be experiential—tied to the time and
place which it is viewed—in an effort to bring viewers into a heightened state of presence.

Zoro Feigl’s “A long and winding road to nowhere in particular.” (2012), Taken by Zoro Feigl

Zoro Feigl is the artist behind the piece “A long and winding road to nowhere in
particular.” It features the rhythmic and lifelike coiling of polyethylene plastic as it is pushed
upon itself. Zoro explains: “In trying to make a physical manifestation of movement, both the
mechanical and the forms it produces are what I consider to be my work.” (Feigl, 2011) Feigl’s
machine interacts with the space it inhabits, ceaselessly changing in shape and behavior based
upon the location and orientation of the surrounding walls. This installation has a unique
existence in the time and place which it is viewed. Feigl writes that “documentation will
hopefully never do justice to the work. An honest anecdote of the experience will give more
credit than any registration of it can do.” (Feigl, 2011)

Arthur Ganson’s “Machine with Oil” at the MIT Museum, filmed by Parker Heyl (2017)

Consider the piece “Machine with Oil” by Arthur Ganson, which repeatedly scoops and
bathes itself in a thick lubricating oil. Because I have only shared with you a representation of
this piece (a series of photographs) it is impossible to convey the interaction with its aura that
occurs when the ​physical artifact ​is witnessed in person. My transcription of this bodily
experience illustrates the limitations of a strictly meaning-based relationship to the art world, as
 5

stated by Gumbrecht. While this piece could be interpreted as a critique of industrialization, oil
empires, gluttony, and modernization, Ganson explains his intentions:

It’s just about the lusciousness of oil. It’s very simple, but at the same time very
ambiguous. And I think there's a point between simplicity and ambiguity which can allow
a viewer to perhaps take something from it.
(Ganson, 2002)

The primary elements in this work are the natural beauty of viscous fluid flow, with the
motion of planetary gears. In its simplicity and ambiguity, there is space to find our own
thoughts. The tension between the viewer's interpretation of the piece and the artist's intention
in its conception can be overcome when the artist refuses to force meaning onto the work. The
viewer's exercise in comprehension thus becomes the basis of the artistic experience, which
radically shifts the power dynamic between the art and its witness.

Ganson and Feigl create biomimetic art whose beauty is presented without a didactic
thesis. Since the beauty is not derived from subject matter it must come from an alternative
source—the physicality of the piece, and organic motion. This is an attribute of kinetic art
identified by​ ​Ganson, who says:

We read objects in motion on both the objective and subjective levels. A machine may
be about fabric or grease, but it may also be about thick liquid and sensuous movement.
A bit deeper, it may be about meditation or the sense of release. And taken yet another
step, it may be about pure invention and the joyfulness in the heart of its creator.

(Ganson, 1997)

Art with meditation, joyfulness, or relief as deeper themes can reach the viewer through
presence effects. ​It is art for bodily pleasure, and it is complementary to art for conveying moral
sentiments. ​Such artwork appeals strictly to sensory input and can alleviate the tension that
builds when one experiences art with dense subject matter. We can then readily receive the
next work which will return us to the complexities of culture and politics. This facilitates “a
relation to the things of the world that could oscillate between presence effects and meaning
effects” (Gumbrecht, 2004: p. xv). ​These two approaches can be defined in terms of aesthetics:
how society has conditioned us to see beauty, and the beauty that appeals to a viewer's
instincts and psychology.

III.: Biological Basis for Aesthetic Enjoyment

Ganson states that his art is on both objective and subjective levels, as our judgement of
beauty is not only due to exposure but also a natural predisposition. Vilayanur S.
Ramachandran is a neuroscientist who studies the mechanics of human visual perception, and
investigates the possibility of universal principles for aesthetics. In his latest book, ​The Tell-Tale
 6

Brain: A Neuroscientist's Quest for What Makes Us Human​, Ramachandran attempts to identify
nine universal laws for aesthetic beauty, the biological functions they evolved from, and how
they are cognised by the neural machinery of our brains. One such law is our attraction to
visual symmetry:

In nature, important translates into biological objects such as prey, predator, member of
the same species, or mate, and all such objects have one thing in common: symmetry.
This would explain why symmetry grabs your attention and arouses.

(Ramachandran, 2011)

Some of these ideas of aesthetics cross not just cultures but also between species, as
Ramachandran writes:

Can it be a coincidence that we find flowers to be beautiful even though they evolved to
be beautiful to bees rather than to us? This is not because our brains evolved from bee
brains (they didn’t), but because both groups independently converged on some of the
same universal principles of aesthetics.
(Ramachandran, 2011)

We can subconsciously enjoy experiences of the natural world: ocean waves fanning the
beach, wind in a field of tall grass, low frequency waves in a canal, color spectrums in the sky at
sunset. This affinity of humans to the natural world has been written about by Edward O.
Wilson in his book ​Biophilia​, in which he describes humans’ “innate tendency to focus on life
and lifelike process.” (Wilson, 1986, p. 1) ​A work of art which utilizes this appreciation for nature
is accessible because it does not require the viewer bring anything other than their innate
concept of beauty.

I will use the term ‘natural’ to describe processes more broadly than Wilson, as ‘natural’
can include events such as the flow of viscous paint, the swing of a pendulum, the smoke cloud
of an e-cigarette blown along the sidewalk, hot coals hitting cold water, the folding of a fabric
curtain, soap bubbles blown by a fan, or oil poured into water. Because of the complexity of
these temporal phenomena and the importance of their physicality, the technology used for their
reproduction should be tangible and therefore analog.
 7

Digital vs. Material Animation

I.: Methodology for the Production of Kinetic Art

Analog technology is tied to the physical world and operates using natural processes (for
example the movement of electrons inside circuitry is analogous to the tangible world; springs,
dampers, pumps, pipes, and hydraulics. Digital technology does not operate around natural
processes, it is based upon coded processes which are artificial. The intersection of art and
technology is often rendered in digital images such as websites, projections, LEDs, and
touchscreens, but this influx of contemporary digital art does not indicate that analog technology
has become archaic. Recall that technology has many forms, and that digital is only the most
recent and well-publicised. The canvas, paint, and paintbrush are all inventions that facilitated
new forms of art at the time of their conception. Technological developments in mechanical
actuation, fabrication, tools, music, and crafts did not become obsolete when the computer was
popularized.

If we are to form an authentic or satisfying recreation of natural phenomenon and

organic motion, technology must be used not to render a digital image but to form and animate
an object in space. This act of producing motion, or ‘bringing forth an object in space’,
overcomes its ephemeral nature and preserves what was once transient. Recreating the object
allows the public eye to witness the subliminity the artist witnessed during the moment of
original contact with the object. Let us consider the piece ​Spiral Wave by Reuben Margolin as
an example:

Margolin’s Spiral Wave, filmed by Walrus TV (2009) Spiral Wave Mechanics, taken by Jody Cox (2005)

Margolin preserves the ephemerality of a spiral vortex, a flow which he first observed as
water washed around his paddle on a rafting trip (Margolin, 2012). Through an array of offset
wheels, pulley, and carefully measured lengths of string, a combination of waveforms in polar
coordinates comes to life. Something would have been irrevocably lost if this motion was
constructed from pixels rather than wood. A digital reproduction relies on indirect effects, and
does not address the fact that motion is perceived not only by its appearance but also its
 8

progress through space. When the elements are wooden, each viewer experiences a material
construction of a fleeting moment. A brief sensory input (the spiraling of a river) is translated to a
wooden replica which explicitly stimulates the brain’s system of spatial and visual processing.

Random International (2016). Left: digital model used for system control. Right: physical system.

Another work of kinetic art, ​Fifteen Points / I from Random International (2016), mimics
the motion of a human walk. It is designed using computer simulation and controlled digitally,
however it is presented to the viewer in physical form; using robotic motors and inverting the
apparatus of a haptic feedback device. Random is exploring the mechanics of human visual
perception; only fifteen animated data points are needed to represent the framework of the
human body. Motion in this form is very simple to render ​digitally, yet difficult to produce in
material form. ​I encourage the production of digital art that is based in the tangible
world—displayed through materials rather than an illusory surface—regardless of the
complexities or intricacies of such a construction.

II.: The Object Aura

In ​The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction​, ​Walter Benjamin (1936)
writes ​“​Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its
presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be.” Art
installations which are not material in some way, i.e. those which are exclusively a display of
digital images, are lacking in this 'one element' which Benjamin speaks of. In his essay ​History
of Art in the Digital Age: Problems and Possibilities, William Vaughan (2002) writes that the
digital image “is nothing but reproduction. There is, literally, no original of a digital image, since
every version has equal status by virtue of being absolutely identical.” The aura is inseparable
from the object's unique existence, and the irrevocability of this existence is precisely the
limitation for the digital image.

Some artists utilize touchscreen interfaces or motion-tracking devices, forms of

interactivity which force a sense of uniqueness on the digital image. Such images are always
changing and therefore not ‘absolutely identical', but the object aura is not fully restored
because a level of obscuration still exists; these interactive digital images are not physically
accessible. Research in human-computer interaction address this divide with tangible and
 9

haptic devices, kinesthetic feedback, mixed-reality, and other immersive techniques. Their goal
is to reduce the discongruence between real-world actions and actions in the digital
environment.

Paul Dourish writes about the limits of our current digital world in his book ​Where the
Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction​. He states that the keyboard and mouse
are limited, as ​“in the everyday world we can manipulate many objects at once, using both
hands and three dimensions to arrange the environment for our purposes and the activities at
hand.” (Dourish, 2004, p. 16) The act of correlating physical objects (beyond the mouse and
keyboard) with their digital representations has been engaged with substantially by
human-computer interaction researchers. Less common is the inverse—using virtual information
to produce an object.

message received play message delete message

Durrell Bishop’s “Marble Answering Machine” (1992) illustrated by Durrell Bishop

One example is Durrell Bishop​’s Marble Answering Machine, which uses the real world
to model what is happening inside the virtual world by dispensing a marble whenever a
message is received. Dourish explains the benefits:

“The problem of interacting with the virtual has been translated into interacting
with the physical, and so we can rely on the natural structure of the everyday world and
our casual familiarity with it….operations such as playing messages out of order,
deleting messages selectively, or storing them in a different sequence, all of which would
require any number of buttons, dials, and controls on a normal digital answering
machine, all become simple and straightforward because we can rely on the affordances
of the everyday world.”

(Dourish, 2004, p. 41)

Unfortunately, our interactions with the digital world are usually less tactile and intuitive
than Bishop’s answering machine. The keyboard and mouse are tactile input devices which
control computer function, but the resulting computer output is intangible. Only when the
computation can feed back into reality (for example when Durrell Bishop’s answering machine
 10

produces a marble) does the user have a direct interaction with the computer world. Each
marble is unique, exists in space, and corresponds to a digital audio file. The computer's
production of tactile output becomes a reincarnation of the object aura.

Conclusion

In this paper I do not suggest we should eliminate art which is a digital representation, or
that all art must be free from subject matter and designed for sensory pleasure. There is
obvious value in art with a prescribed meaning—art which seeks to enlighten, art which is
cathartic for the creator or therapeutic to those who have had a shared traumatic experience, art
to share the stories of those without a voice, and art to expose. This could be called art for
truth's sake, and it is balanced by art for art’s sake. Thus an oscillation between presence
effects and meaning effects is achieved.

Benjamin describes “the desire of contemporary masses to bring things ‘closer’ spatially
and humanly, which is just as ardent as their bent toward overcoming the uniqueness of every
reality by accepting its reproduction.” (Benjamin , 1936) To accept bringing an object closer with
reproduction by a digital image is to accept the disposal of its aura. This paper is a criticism of
the screen as the default medium for digital and interactive art. By constructing digital art that
animates materials—physically, tangibly—the artist can overcome concerns of reproduction.

Tangible biomimetic art has the ability to connect directly with the senses, playing with
visual perception and the brain's response to color, light, and space. Bringing fleeting sensory
experiences into the gallery in a permanent way is my direction of inquiry. It is to capture an
experience of natural visual or audible beauty that would otherwise pass by—a permanent
depiction of the ephemeral.
 11

Bibliography

Benjamin, W.,1936. ​The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction​. UCLA School of
Theater, Film, and Television. Available at:
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/o/obriene/art206/readings/walter%20benjamin%20art%20in%20the%
20age%20of%20mechanical%20reproduction.pdf​ [Accessed November 2017].

Ganson, A., 2002. ​Moving Sculpture ​[Online]. Available from:

https://www.ted.com/talks/arthur_ganson_makes_moving_sculpture​ ​[Accessed November
2017].

Gumbrecht, H., 2004. ​Production of Presence: What Meaning Cannot Convey. ​1st ed​. S​tanford,
California: Stanford University Press.

Margolin, R., 2012​. Sculpting Waves in Wood and Time ​[Online].​ ​Available from:
https://www.ted.com/talks/reuben_margolin_sculpting_waves_in_wood_and_time​ [Accessed
November 2017].

Kant, I., ​Kant’s Critique of Judgement​, translated with Introduction and Notes by J.H. Bernard
(2nd ed. revised) (London: Macmillan, 1914). Available from: ​http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1217

Whistler, J.M., 1970. ​The Red Rag​. 1st ed. Castalia Press.

Thurston-Lighty, K., MIT Museum (1997) ​Ganson's machines will be working at Museum.
Available from: ​http://news.mit.edu/1997/ganson-0108​ [Accessed December 2017].

Feigl, Z., (2011) ​On How I Work.​ Available from: ​http://www.zorofeigl.nl/about/​ [Accessed
December 2017].

Ramachandran, V. S. (2011) ​The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist's Quest for What Makes Us
Human​. New York, W. W. NORTON & COMPANY. Available from:
http://home.iitj.ac.in/~gk/Psyche/listed/10.%20The%20Tell-Tale%20Brain%20-%20V%20S%20
Ramachandran.pdf​ [Accessed December 2015].

Vaughan, M., (2002) History of Art in the Digital Age: Problems and Possibilities. In:
Bentkowska-Kafel, A., Cashen, T., Gardiner, H., (2005) Digital Art History: A Subject in
Transition. Intellect Books, 2005, pp. 3–12.

Dourish, P (2004) Where the Action is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. MIT Press.

Margolin, R (2009). ​Walrus TV Artist Feature: Reuben Margolin.​ Video Interview. Available from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0D3QSJJsCo​ [Accessed November 2017].
 12

Image List:

Heyl, P., 2017. ​Video of Machine with Oil​. Video. Viewed November 2017.

Judy Cox, 2005. ​Spiral Wave Mechanics. ​Photograph. Available from:

https://www.reubenmargolin.com/waves/spiral-wave/​ ​[Accessed November 2017].

Random International, 2016.​ Fifteen Points / I. ​Photograph. Available from:

http://random-international.com/work/fifteen-points-i/​ ​[Accessed November 2017].

Durrell Bishop, 1992, ​Marble Answering Machine. ​Stills from Video. Available from:
https://vimeo.com/19930744​ [Accessed December 2017].

Tarrant, A., Roberts, S. (2009). ​Walrus TV Artist Feature: Reuben Margolin.​ Still from Video.
Available from: ​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0D3QSJJsCo​ [Accessed November 2017].

Feigl, Z. (2012) ​A long and winding road to nowhere in particular. ​ Photograph. Available from:
http://www.zorofeigl.nl/detour-a-long-and-winding-road-to-nowhere-in-particular/​ [Accessed
December 2017].