Cybernetics and Art: Cultural Convergence in the ... - Edward Shanken

system that regulated their artistic behavior as an integrated whole.For example, as Ascott himself explained, forming groups of six, eachstudent would be “set the task of acquiring and acting out . . . a totallynew personality, which is to be narrowly limited and largely theconverse of what is considered to be their normal ‘selves.’” 32 Astudent’s preconceptions about his or her personality, strengths andweaknesses as an artist, and about the nature of art itself, were notonly thrown into question, but were actively transcended through theforced adoption of different behavioral characteristics and a rethinkingof art-making and art as process and system. Because their individualbehaviors had to be integrated into a coherent group process, eachmember would be “of necessity interdependent and highly consciousof each other’s capabilities and limitations” in order to accomplishtogether the “set goal of producing . . . an ordered entity.” 33 In thisway, students learned about the principles of cybernetics as applied toart through their own behavioral interactions as part of a cyberneticart system in which the controlled exchange of information organizedthe overall structure.British composer Brian Eno, who was a student of Ascott’s atIpswich in 1964-66, offered a first-hand account of his teacher’spedagogical methods, and their impact on him:One procedure employed by Ascott and his staff was the“mindmap.” In this project each student had to invent a gamethat would test and evaluate the responses of the people whoplayed it. All the students then played all of the games, andthe results for each student were compiled in the form of achart—or mindmap. The mindmap showed how a studenttended to behave in the company of other students and howhe reacted to novel situations. In the next project eachstudent produced another mindmap for himself that was theexact opposite of the original. For the remainder of the termhe had to behave according to this alternative vision ofhimself. 34Eno further noted: “For everybody concerned this . . . extraordinaryexperience . . . was instrumental in modifying and expanding the rangeof interaction each student was capable of.” 35Moreover, in Ascott’s Groundcourse, students wereintroduced to other experimental artists and intellectuals in a varietyof disciplines. One powerful example of the influence of this guestlecture program is the impact on the young British musician PeterTownshend of artist and holocaust survivor Gustav Metzger’spresentation on destruction in art. Townshend, who would laterform the rock band, The Who, has credited Metzger’s theory withgiving him the idea to destroy musical instruments onstage at Whoconcert performances—a performative gesture that visuallysymbolized the anger and rebellion of a generation. 36 Stiles hastheorized this transference of ideas from Metzger to Townshend asan example of the process by which the most advanced conceptualdevelopments in experimental visual art are transmitted in insidiousways to become incorporated into popular culture. 37 Such a theoryof the operations of art in culture offers a model for understandinghow Ascott’s cybernetic conception of art entered into the popularimagination.12