Theme: History

  • Fabrizio Poltronieri
  • Linda CandyEmail author
  • Ernest Edmonds
Part of the Springer Series on Cultural Computing book series (SSCC)


The technologies that have been most important to artists in recent times have mostly been digital. Art using digital technology was first shown in exhibitions of computer art in 1965, both in Germany and in the USA. One of the artists who showed in that year was Frieder Nake. In 1966, Billy Kluver founded Experiments in Art and Technology, E.A.T., in New York. By 1968 a small number of artists were using computers, in various ways, to produce their work. One of those was Manfred Mohr. This chapter includes reflections by Nake and Mohr as well as an interview with Kluver. Together, these provide valuable insights into the early explorations of art and modern technology. The later developments are briefly reviewed and the history of interactive art described, illustrated by a range of example works. The core chapter is followed by eight contributions on art and technology exploration since the 1960s from artists and historians.


  1. Ascott R (1966) Behaviourist art and the cybernetic vision. Cybernetica 9:247–264Google Scholar
  2. Ascott R (1998) The technoetic dimension of art. In: Sommerer C, Mignonneau L (eds) Art@Science. Springer-Wien, New York, pp 279–290Google Scholar
  3. ATR (Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International) (2017) Available at: Accessed 24 May 2017
  4. Bann S (1972) Introduction. Systems. Arts Council, London, pp 5–14Google Scholar
  5. Bense M (1971) Projects of generative aesthetics. In: Reichardt J (ed) Cybernetics, art and ideas. Studio Vista, London, pp 57–60Google Scholar
  6. Boden MA, Edmonds EA (2009) What is generative art? Digital Creativity 20(1–2):21–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burnham, J. (1969). Real time systems. Artforum, 7, September. 49–55Google Scholar
  8. Cabanne P (1971) Dialogues with Marcel Duchamp. Thames and Hudson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Cage J (1961) Silence. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. Candy L, Edmonds EA (2011) Interacting: art, research and the creative practitioner. Libri Publishing Ltd., Faringdon, U.KGoogle Scholar
  11. Cornock S, Edmonds EA (1970) The creative process where the artist is amplified or superseded by the computer. In: Proceedings of the computer graphics’ 70 conference, Brunel University, UK. (Later published in revised form in Leonardo, 16, 1973) pp 11–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eco U (1989) The open work. Harvard University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Eno B (1996) Generative music: evolving metaphors, in my opinion, is what artists do. Available at:
  14. Fels S, Mase K (1999) Iamascope: a graphical musical instrument. Comput Graph 23(2):277–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Galimberti J (2015) The early years of GRAV: better Marx than Malraux. OwnReality, 13. Accessed 4 July 2017
  16. Hewett TT, Baecker R, Card S, Carey T, Gasen J, Mantei M, Perlman G, Strong G, Verplank W (1992) ACM SIGCHI curricula for human-computer interactionGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson A (2011) Almost tangible musical interfaces. Candy & Edmonds, pp 211–224Google Scholar
  18. Jones S (2011) Synthetics: aspects of art and technology in Australia, 1956–1975. MIT Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  19. Kachurin P (2013) Making Modernism Soviet: the Russian avant-garde in the early soviet era, 1918-19-28. Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IllinoisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keiner M, Kurtz T, Nadin M (1994) Manfred Mohr. Waser Verlag, ZürichGoogle Scholar
  21. Kirby M (1965) Alan Kaprow’s eat. Tulane Drama Rev 10(2):44–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lab for the Unstable Media (2017) Lab for the Unstable Media (Online) Available at: Accessed 24 May 2017
  23. Lego (2017) Lego. (Online) Available at: Accessed 24 May 2017
  24. Lieser W (2009) The world of digital art. Ullmann Publishing, KönigswinterGoogle Scholar
  25. Malevich KS (1968) On new systems in art. In: Anderson T (ed) Essays on art 1915–1933. Rapp and Whiting, London, pp 83–117Google Scholar
  26. Metken G (1977) Yaacov Agam. Thames and Hudson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Mohr M (2001) Space color. Museum für Konkrete Kunst, IngolstadtGoogle Scholar
  28. Naumann FM, Obalk H (2000) Affectt Marcel. The selected correspondence of Marcel Duchamp. Thames and Hudson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. NTT (1998) NTT-Inter communication centre concept book. NTT Publishing Company, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  30. Page (1968–1981) Bulletin on the Computer Arts Society. British Computer Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Pask G (1968) The colloquy of mobiles. In: Reichardt J (ed) Cybernetic serendipity: the computer and the arts. Studio International, London, pp 34–35Google Scholar
  32. Penny S (2011) Twenty years of artificial life art. Digital Creativity 21(3):197–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pontus Hultén KG (1968) The machine, as seen at the end of the mechanical age. The Museum of Modern Art, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Popper F (1983) Electra. Musée d’Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, ParisGoogle Scholar
  35. Prix Ars Electronica (2017) Accessed 10 June 2017
  36. Railing P (1989) From science to systems of art. Artists’ Bookworks, Forest Row, East Sussex, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  37. Reichardt J (ed) (1968) Cybernetic serendipity: the computer and the arts. Studio International, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Reichardt J (1971) The computer in art. Studio Vista, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Rickey G (1967) Constructivism: origins and evolution. G. Braziller, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosen A (2011) A little-known story about a movement, a magazine, and the computer arrival in art: new tendencies and bit International, 1961–1973. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. Schöffer N (1963) Three stages of dynamic sculpture. In: Habasque G, Ménétrier J (eds) Nicolas Schöffer [space, light, time]. Griffon, Neuchatel, Switzerland, pp 132–142Google Scholar
  42. Schwarz H-P (1997) Media art history. Prestel-Verlag, Munich, New York and ZKM, KarlsruheGoogle Scholar
  43. Sims K (1992) Interactive evolution of dynamical systems. In: Towards a practice of autonomous systems: proceedings of the first European conference on artificial life, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp 171–178Google Scholar
  44. Sims K (1998) ‘Artist’s Statement’, in ICC concept book, 2nd edn. NTT Publishing Company, Tokyo, p 61Google Scholar
  45. Sommerer C, Mignonneau L (2009) Interactive art research. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Whitelaw M (2004) Metacreation: art and artificial life. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  47. Willats S (1965) Man lives in a constantly. Control Magazine 1, p 9Google Scholar
  48. Willats S (2011) Accessed 17 Mar 2011
  49. Wilson S (2002) Information arts: intersections of art, science and technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilson S (2010) Art + science now. Thames and Hudson, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  51. YLEM (2017) Artists using science and technology. Accessed 24 May 2017
  52. Zhadova LA (1982) Malevich: supremitism and revolution in Russian Art 1910–1930. Thames and Hudson, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  53. ZKM (1997) Zentrum für Kunst und Medientechnologie: Hardware, Software, Artware. Cantz Verlag, OstfildernGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabrizio Poltronieri
    • 3
  • Linda Candy
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ernest Edmonds
    • 2
  1. 1.Creativity and Cognition Studios (CCS)University of Technology SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Institute for Creative TechnologiesDe Montfort UniversityLeicesterUK
  3. 3.Institute for Creative TechnologiesDe Montfort UniversityLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations