[January 22th 2006]


IntroSpection at Carnegie Mellon


Keeping Watch on the Cultural Frontier
Interview with Steve Wilson

Stephen Wilson is a San Francisco author, artist and professor who explores the cultural implications of new technologies. His interactive installations have been on display around the world at places like SIGGRAPH, CHI, NCGA, Ars Electronica, and V2 art shows. He won the Prize of Distinction in Ars Electronica's international competitions for interactive art. His latest book, Information Arts – intersections of art, science and technology, was published in 2001 and his latest art piece, IntroSpection, was part of Animal Nature exhibition at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, this fall. Artificial's Torben Olander met with Steve Wilson to talk about his use of game elements and the relationship between art and science.

There was a time when a ticket was all you needed to experience art in a museum, but to fully explore Steve Wilson's latest installation, IntroSpection, you would want to add a little bit of spit and an answer to a question along the lines of: 'what are you trying to hide inside you?'

When you have swiped the cotton stick against the inside of your cheek and transferred the sample to the microscope slide, an image of your cell sample will be projected on the walls around you. A game controller in your hand and the motion detection system in the room then allow you to choose between four games. For example Blow Up, where you can zoom in on different areas of your cell sample or Mystery where you have 120 seconds to locate the origin of a blown up image from somewhere within your cell sample.

Why do you use elements from computer games as part of the interface?
'First of all, games are a major feature of digital life, and the game draws people in, which is also the purpose of interactive art. In IntroSpection it also points towards an interesting contradiction. The game is frivolous, you normally kill a monster or something, whereas this is your cells, other people cells, and about how we start storing information about people. So by bringing microscopy and biological research into a game environment I hope to engage the public in it and make them realize that this thing that at first looks like a game is actually working on a level that is pretty serious.'

Another game is called Match. Here six portraits of people, who have previously interacted with their own cell samples in the room pop up next to an FBI poster. Instead of fingerprints the poster has images of a cell sample and a mystery silhouette. It is up to the viewer to figure out which of the six the cell sample belongs to.

'Which of course is ridiculous. You can't do it, so it kind of plays with how the society is beginning to tie the identity of people to these microscopic events. Again it is a game thing. You have a certain amount of time, and if you get the right person you'll hear the persons answer to the question, you were asked in the beginning.'




IntroSpection at Carnegie Mellon

What kind of research preceded this game?
'I had already done something in that direction with my Protozoa Games and was interested in doing more. But then when this idea got accepted, I realized that I couldn't do it, and for a moment I was afraid that I would have to back out. So I took a microscope course and became friendly with a couple of biology professors and started looking for literature on microscopy on the internet. The internet is great for that. At the same time Nikon developed this Coolscope (a digital microscope, editor's comment) that automatically loads the cell sample and focuses, so I just had to reverse engineer it so I could control it from my computer.'

Are you an artist, researcher or scientist?
'Artist and researcher, but it is messier than that. I use the tools of science and the conceptual framework of science, but this piece is not designed to discover a lot. It is designed to familiarize the public with microscopy and get the public engaged in its related issues. It is maybe the first time that most people have looked at a microscopic picture of their own body. To me that is an important media event. To kind of claim that technology a part of public media instead of just leaving it in the science lab and medical situations.
On the other hand, someone said to me that I might end up with a database of the publics cell samples, which might be interesting for someone who wanted to approach that scientifically, since you usually don't get the general public to give cell samples.
I also think it would be possible to make a series of games based on microscopes for teenagers, so if you move very far in that direction, you become a game designer, though my agenda would not be to make money but rather again to spread cultural literacy in the microscopy world. So in that sense you are back to art even though you are entering the game world.'

Why is it important for artists to do scientific or technological research?
'I think scientific and technological research is the major driving force in culture right now. My definition of art is, keeping watch on the cultural frontier. Not everybody accepts that as a major agenda for art, but as we move towards a more technological and scientific influenced world, I find it essential that the culture have people looking at this stuff and questioning it, instead of just leaving it to the scientist.
I mean, here you have this activity that is radically shaping ethics, philosophy and everyday life, and a lot of artist are acting as if it has nothing to do with art. Some begin to use the gadgets that come up, computers and stuff, but a more profound place for artists is to look at the research agendas, how things get defined, and what is seen as important. Today a lot of research gets dropped if it is not commercial. Man! Artists ought to be right in there, because that is part of what artists can do. They can say: ‘I'm going to do this just because I am interested'.'

Why do you think this new kind of scientific or technology based art that you are representing has such a hard time being recognized?
'The world of collectors is still very important. I went to the Venice Biennale, and that is all about selling art and defining what is important. It is very hard to sell this kind of art, and it can be very difficult to understand and appreciate the craft and effort behind a piece of technological art, when we are used to buying a technology that works. And then there is a whole different definition of art that is more about affirming and conserving cultural values and beauty even. A lot of people are still into beauty and if that is your definition, the people I mention in my book (Information Arts, MIT Press) are out in space somewhere.'

Can't it be a dilemma for an artist to engage in research and development, when their traditional ambition often is social commentating?
'The dominant mode in art now is to be critical, to question the hype and be suspicious towards technology and the internet. When I was artist-in-residence at Xerox PARC, I got along great with the researchers, but one of the great differences in point of view, was that the researchers believed they were working on important things that would add value to the culture and make the world better some way. The artists kind of looked at the stuff with skepticism. So if you are an artist working within both these worlds it is a little bit of a mindset. When I have my classes I can talk about something as if it was the neatest development one minute and the next moment I can be more, ‘well okay, how does it fit into a broader cultural perspective. It is an interesting conflict of point of view'.'

How do you deal with that?
'I am schizophrenic. I am very enthusiastic and then I can be very critical. I guess it depends on my mood. Like if we take this microscope thing. Mostly, I have been talking about how wonderful I think it is and about spreading literacy, but if I put on my other hat, I can see it is going to make bio-identification much easier for everybody. We could make a very intrusive society, where any policeman could do a microscope readout of something. I don't know, but that might have not so great consequences.'

So should artists stop painting for a moment and start reading?
'Artists can still do interesting stuff, but I think the most interesting art will come from the people who are willing to engage in the technological development, learn how to do it and think about new possibilities. I read all these tech magazines, and it makes me sad sometimes, because I see all these things going on in the research world, and I wish there were thousands of artists paying attention and doing something within that. The military is making unmanned flying vehicles and ground vehicles for instance. Essentially making mobile robots that can act in the world. That is really interesting. We could have these things walking around on campus. We will in 30 years I think. So where are the artists? I know of only one or two who is paying attention to this and this is just one example. Then there is the biological stuff. The medical world is developing psychoactive drugs that can target particular moods. Now that is going to have a pretty profound impact on society. Where are the artists working with psychoactive drugs? Right now the research is driven by medical science and commerce. What does it mean that we can begin to impact people's mood or mental capabilities? A lot of people ought to be thinking about that besides the drug companies. Let's say there is a drug that made people generous, you can be sure that a drug company is not going to develop that. So as a culture we desperately need artists who engage themselves in technological research.'

How does that relate to your piece?
'I don't think Nikon had thought about putting these things in the kitchen, the living room or in a game, but I really see a possibility there. So in that sense I am doing something Nikon and their team of developers within a commercial context are not worried about or paying attention to.
And then there is the darker side too. Everybody has to give cell samples. Is that a good idea for a culture? Again that's a place where artist can give a new angle on what everyone is doing. But artists can't do that if they just sit back and wait for the final product. They should be involved with it as soon as possible, before the possibilities of new technology get boxed in.'


Steve Wilson

Latest books by Steve Wilson:
Information Arts: Intersections of Art, Science, and Technology (Published November, 2001, MIT Press)

Steves Wilson's homepage:
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~swilson/

Animal Nature exhibition at Carnegie Mellon University