Lillian Schwartz
1974
Focal Press
Artist and scientist collaborated to produce Pixillation after many meetings to toss around ideas that might be realized by computer animation. Both were familiar with the films made by Charles E. Miller of Bell Laboratories of Murray Hill, New Jersey, on crystal growth, which stimulated the idea of producing crystal-like computer-generated patterns that could be combined with real crystal growth. The result of these discussions was A Language for Computer Movies of Simulated Crystal Growth, etc. written by Kenneth C. Knowlton of Bell Laboratories.
Ken Knowlton taught me to program the computer using these instructions, and in many instances helped write the program when the visual images I wanted were too sophisticated for me to program alone. A general description of the language follows:
A frame of output consists of a rectangular array of spots (white) and blanks (black); at any moment during computation the entire array is represented within the computer by a two-dimensional array, the present contents of each spot being a digit or letter.
The system has many modes of operation, each designating a particular combination of size of array, the type of grid and whether the surface is considered to be a part of a large plane or a torus. Dimensions and limiting co-ordinates for the various modes are obviously indicated. All modes produce approximately a 3:4 aspect ratio output. Some modes are intended to be used for the initial checkout, which produces a page of printout corresponding to each frame of film. At this point the artist can decide whether the image should be used in the film. If so, another mode is used and instructions are submitted to the computer to produce the image on film. In the instructions there is a list of abbreviated descriptions for picture output, changing array, flow of control, instruction modification and for patterns. For example, a given pattern may be defined, then, through programming, this pattern may grow, be distorted, repeat itself, etc. Many instructions may be described in terms of probabilistic and periodic values. There are instructions which allow for part, or all of a pattern to be saved and changed, or added to a new pattern.
VISUAL RANGE
To give more variety and interest to a given set of instructions, there is flexibility in programming allowing for surprises and unexpected images. It is this element of excitement, of new, amazing images, shapes and textures that I find so rewarding. These visual surprises coming out of the computer with speed are awesome experiences. One must be selective, of course, and use valid images only. Sometimes an image may not turn out as expected, but can be salvaged by changing the values and parameters which result in a new and magnificent design. At this point one must decide how many frames of output to produce, and, during editing, the number of frames used from a given run may be changed, or repeated, or through optical means, held. The output from the computer is black and white film and can be either 16 mm or 35 mm. If colour is desired it is achieved optically.
There is great flexibility in working with computers, with seemingly endless possibilities. Besides the pattern itself one has the freedom to manipulate the background, and/or produce other patterns in the negative areas.
There are also decisions to make in the programming, such as what changes may affect existing conditions, or if conditions are such that certain combinations and extensions of specified instructions are eligible for transliteration. (Trans-literation in this instance means that certain conditions must already exist within the frame to produce new conditions.)
One can be very free in arranging the array of spots on a frame or one can specify and control with exactness: e.g. position, width, height, horizontal or vertical periods of the structure, movement. On the other hand, one may perform instructions in only part of the frame. I emphasize again that the artist has tremendous creative freedom.
THE COMPUTER AND SOCIETY
It may be pertinent at this time to quote from a conversation that I had recently with Ken Knowlton, in which he said we are obliged to try to use at least a part of the new machinery deliberately to make our environment more beautiful and inspiring, through new forms of design, the possibilities of which are greatly augmented by the computer-blending of detail, symmetries, regularities, randomness, textures and richness heretofore impossible to achieve.
Other remarks made by Ken Knowlton on the significance of computers used as tools to produce art emphasise the projection of computers into the area of more profound art - ... that which helps us to appreciate, understand and enhance our humanity. If we are successful in this pursuit, then the computer will have been helpful not only directly, but it will have helped us psychologically to perceive it as a friend - as an instrument not necessarily of regimentation, but one which can significantly help us to experience and assert our humanity. This hopefully, could set in motion mechanisms of self-fulfilling prophecy whereby, expecting the best, we may indeed reap many of the hoped-for benefits, whereas in expecting the worst we would surely ultimately succumb, through default and resignation, to devastating tools of oppression which we already have in embryonic form. Those last remarks made particular reference to humanity and the powers of super machineries. One cannot use a computer without being aware of this relationship.
To an alienated society, threatened by the spectre of the megamachine, extending the use of the computer into the area of one of the humanities - art - allows society to perceive it as a servant that enhances life. Unlike other end results of the computer, art serves no utilitarian purpose; it is directed solely to man's spirit. To the artist the computer is another modality through which he can express his creativity. As a new medium it stimulates new ideas. By challenging the scientist with these new ideas the limits of art by computer are extended, thereby allowing the artist increasing flexibility and freedom.
The inexorable progress of our technological society threatens to negate the values of our humanist tradition. The substitution of maximal efficiency and output as our guiding principle is replacing the tradition for doing something just because it is beautiful, good or true.
Dehumanisation then becomes justified in the name of efficiency. To consider how to humanise the industrial society one must work with those inventions which are here to stay. Among them is the computer, the most important element in automation.
The inter-relationship between movies, the most sophisticated art form of our time, and the computer, our most sophisticated machine, lends itself to extending the language of vision. Maurice Constant, in the magazine dotzero 1 says, In effect, one of the most powerful tools ever offered to the creative imagination is asking for direction from the user, (artist-programmer). What would you like me to do for you? What form would you like me to take?
ARTISTIC POTENTIAL
Experiments have been done, but the surface of what the artist wishes to achieve has barely been scratched. For instance, the extension of the film-maker's powers to manipulate shapes and colours in space; the possibilities of constructing images which are now beyond the potential of the film-maker working in the more restricted parameters of the ordinary techniques. The output from computer-animated films can also be directed into dimensional sculpture.
The non-computer images in our film consist of microphotography and frame-by-frame animation. For the microphotography, crystals were grown in a temperature-gradient miscroscope stage. The material was enclosed in a small glass cell and moved through the gradient under the microscope objective. A motion-picture camera mounted on the microscope recorded the shapes of crystals as they grew. Their unique colours are a result of their being placed between crossed polaroids, a scientific method of coloration. All the micro-photography was accomplished uber the direction of Charles Miller. The images, shot frame by frame, were improvised by pouring and spreading oil colours and plastic paints on glass and manipulating them by means of oil brushes, fingers, palette knives, and compressed air. Sometimes oils were mixed with dry colours, then other glass levels added and the whole photographed through the glass. The music, by Frank Lewin, is a combination of separate instruments blended to produce a new colour which is really a basic practice of orchestration. The harpsichord, celesta, and mandolin were blended into a homogeneous sound by the precise balancing of sound levels coupled to complete unanimity of attack. Mr Lewin, by means of modern recording techniques, was able to edit the sound so that it fitted the film perfectly. If one instrument dominates, a setting of a dial can bring it into balance; if an instrument enters before the others, the inaccuracy can be edited out of the tape. Further, in order to merge the three instruments completely it may be necessary to add reverberation (echo) to the harpsichord, to suppress certain frequencies (equalisation) of the celesta, and reduce the clicking sound of the hammers striking. In this film, an electronic instrument was combined with conventional ones.
Mr Lewin uses the recording medium as a sophisticated instrument. When composing the score for Pixillation, he considered the effect of the recording process itself in the transfer of his composition into the final end product and he directed the realization of his score control from the room, at the side of a responsive engineer.