ART AND COMPUTING

A testimony by Prof. Giorgio Moscati about his experience and collaborationwith Waldemar Cordeiro, pioneer of computer art in Brazil.

First published as "Arte e Computação: Um Depoimento",in Cadernos MAC-2, São Paulo, July 1986, pp. 3-17.

Giorgio Moscati, Professor at the Institute of Physics, Universityof São Paulo, Brazil.

Ana Maria Belluzzo, Professor at the Department for History ofArchitecture and Aesthetics of Architectural Design, Faculty of Architectureand City Planning, University of São Paulo, Brazil. Mrs. Belluzowas the curator of the exhibition "Waldemar Cordeiro � an Adventureof Reason", which took place at the Museum of Contemporary Art - MAC,University of São Paulo, in August, 1996.

Aracy A. Amaral, Ph.D. Professor at the Department for Historyof Architecture and Aesthetics of Architectural Design of the Faculty ofArchitecture and City Planning University of São Paulo, Brazil.Mrs. Amaral is the author of several books on the history of Brazilianart, including Tarsila: Sua Obra e Seu Tempo (São Paulo: Perspectiva,1975).

Coordination: Rejane L. Cintrão, Section for Cultural Promotion,MAC, University of São Paulo.

Transcription: Aloisio van Acker.

A.A. - São Paulo, July the 7th 1986, Museum of Contemporary Artin São Paulo, Brazil, present Ana Maria Belluzzo, Giorgio Moscati,Rejane Cintrão and Aracy Amaral. The purpose of this meeting isto record Professor Giorgio Moscati's testimony about the period in whichhe collaborated with Waldemar Cordeiro in the area of computer art.

At first, we will try to give an overview of Professor G. Moscati'sbackground and, to this purpose, I would appreciate if he could say somewords about his academic background and the kind of work he had been doinguntil he met Waldemar Cordeiro.

G.M. - I graduated in Engineering from the School of Engineering ofthe University of São Paulo in l957; and in Physics, in 1959. Mymain interest was to conduct research in Physics. In 1962, I defended myPhD at the Faculty of Philosophy of the U.S.P. This was the first thesisin Physics ever defended at the U.S.P. which made use of a computer, theIBM 1620, which had recently been bought by the University. I lived inthe United States from 1963 to 1966, when I returned to Brazil. By thattime, I had already acquired a reasonable experience in computing. Althoughmy formal training was essentially technical, I retained a certain interestin the arts, yet, in a very intuitive, informal way, with no formal trainingin the field. Around 1968, Professor Mário Schemberg contacted meto tell me about a certain visual artist who was very interested in thepossibilities of using computers in his work, and he introduced me to WaldemarCordeiro. We soon felt we had many ideas in common and engaged in a discussionabout the possibilities of using computers in art. At that time, calendarswere being made with illustrations produced by computers. But the techniqueconsisted only in the transcription of an image to computers equipped withprinters and plotters. Other forms of graphic output were rare and nobodyhad even heard about PCs; there were only mainframes. In the course ofour first meetings, we agreed that, instead of trying to set out a workingproject right away, we should first get to know each other better and makea general assessment of the possibilities of this technique. So, for months,we had regular meetings, during which he used to speak a great deal abouthis experience in the artistic field. I could only understand part of whathe said: there was a major language gap between us, but I believe our commoninterest made communication possible. I took him to see the computer ofthe Department of Nuclear Physics of the U.S.P.: an IBM 360 which had recentlybeen installed. I also took him to some laboratories used for researchand teaching at the Institute of Physics. Cordeiro was fascinated by theimages on the oscilloscope, which represented information of scientificinterest. I also remember having showed him 'Lissajous patterns' � representationsof some time functions on the oscilloscope screen. Even at that time, perhapsas a hint of the interest we had in the concept of transformation, I showedhim how those patterns could be distorted and their focus altered, resultingin extremely interesting images, if you only took a magnet near the oscilloscope.This is an experience that any person can do by just placing a magnet neara TV set: The image will become totally distorted as the magnet attractsand deviates the electrons, and an interesting image will appear. We usedto talk about the possibility of computers in music, and we discussed theexperiments that were being conducted abroad, and thought about music,and about art.

A.A. - Which experiments you mean?

G.M. - Due to the ability of computers to analyze large amounts of data,there had been, since the very beginning, some talk about, for instance,analyzing Bach's works in order to pinpoint any recurrent patterns in them.Or else, people spoke about analyzing works of literature according to,say, the distribution of the length of paragraphs, of the occurrence ofcertain words, of sentence length, of the use of commas and so on. Everyauthor's personality and style are reflected by certain rhythms. For example,if a written text appears and there is any doubt about who wrote it, youcan make an analysis. Possibly, an experienced person can tell authorsapart only by reading them, but you can do that on a computer as well.It's possible to see in Bach's works or in the works of other composersthat their styles are revealed by the computer. Computers were also startingto use images. What today is called 'computer assisted design' (CAD) wastaking its first steps at that time. As early as 1972, Cordeiro had alreadygot some films from Boeing, which showed the use of computer images fortraining pilots or for drawing the cockpit of airplanes. In this case,the computer would simulate the arm movements of the pilot while operatingthe many controls. That was useful in order to design a cockpit betteradapted to the movements of the human body.

A.A. - It was a design instrument?

G.M. - That's right.

A.A. - It's just like a Canadian film about city planning and the designof roads that was presented at the 'Symposium on Arteonics:' projectionsof the trajectory of a road could be made by computer and so on.

G.M. - The increase in the capabilities and speed of computers madeit possible to calculate the projections of an object, so that we can seehow it looks like in perspective. Perspectives can be automatically madeby computer. Now you can have a very realistic view of a building; youcan even ask how it would look like from a certain angle. So, Cordeiroand I analyzed the many possibilities, both the existing and the futureones. I remember that there was some talk at that time about computer treatmentof images. We considered treating TV images just like you do when you adjusta television set, increasing or decreasing contrast, more red, more blue.Basically this is image treatment, on TV, where the electronic signal,which is the intermediary element of an image can easily be modified, justlike a photograph: controlling contrast, simple amplifying, amplifyingwith distortion, anamorphic enlargements, etc., testing many possibilities.From these experiments with language, we devised the idea of the 'ABC'('Beabá'), the idea of making the computer write.

A.A. - So, was the 'ABC' ('Beabá') the first project to be developedor were there other ones selected?

G.M. - I don't really remember which one was done first, whether theABC (Beabá), or the Derivatives of an image (Derivadas de uma imagem),but, based on our discussion, we decided to begin with something relatedto written language, wordplays and so, and then pick up some kind of transformation.We went through some of the more obvious transformations: enlargement,deformation, changing one axis without changing the other and so forth.We also tried deformations like changing contrast and resolution, and thereyou can see my contribution as a physicist. One of the most important mathematicaltransformation is called 'derivative.' Speed, for instance, is a functionwhich is the derivative of space, and acceleration is the derivative ofspeed. So, you have a function and the derivative function, which is anotherfunction, and which gives information correlated to the information givenby the primitive function, basically the inclination. If you draw the graphof a function, the derivative of this function will provide the inclinationof the curve at each point. When space varies rapidly with time, that meansthat the speed is high; if it varies slowly, the speed is low. So, we hadthis idea of applying the derivative, which probably had never been usedbefore. We discussed a little about it. The problem is that you normallydo it with a linear function. But in the case we were discussing, we hada bidimensional image, and we realized that, if we used the derivativeof it, we would be transforming a shaded image into a contour image. Thisis due to the fact that wherever the intensity on the original image remainsconstant, the derivative will be zero, and therefore, white; and whereverthe intensity changes abruptly from light to dark, we have a very darkoutput; and where the original image varies smoothly in a continuum, wehave an intermediary intensity. Then, we encountered some computationalproblems: we had to find a suitable cross- section of the image, and so,we decided to get down to work. Cordeiro should find an image to serveas an input. He finally chose an image from an illustrated placard forthe promotion of St. Valentine's Day. He was very intent on the fact thatthe initial image was figurative.

A.B. - That's interesting: I could never imagine that Cordeiro, at thevery outset of his work with a new instrument (as the computer surely wasat that time), would go right away for a transposition, an unfolding ofthe photographic image. Instead of this, he could have also used the vastexperience he had gathered during Concretism, which relates to the structuralsense of image, and, departing from this experience, proceed toward hiswork with computers. I have some doubts about that: Why figuration, ifcomputer graphic resources were so limited at the time and demanded sucha long preparation of the material before it could be fed in? It seemsto me that, due to this limitation, it would have been easier to conceivethe whole process by means of a transcription of photographs instead. Washe perhaps stuck with the obstacles posed by computer graphic resourcesat that time? Or else, was he stuck with the requirement of dealing withhuman content on such a medium and with such an arid instrument right atthis early stage? I mean: Was he really intent on working with figurativeimages? There must be something else at the root of this process that couldexplain his choice for those images. Was the creation of other kinds ofimage ever thought of for the purpose of transposition by computer? That'swhat I'm curious about: Why figuration?

G.M. - Among our possibilities, we tested abstract compositions: circles,lines, curves, etc. But that would be too trivial on a computer. Besides,there were some people already working on it. I think what he was reallytrying to do was to associate something very human with something verytechnological.

A.A - I get the same feeling from the whole of his work, even in his'The Kiss' ('O Beijo'), made with an electric mechanism back in 68, rightbefore he started dealing with computers.

G.M - I think what he was really after was to contrast the cold, predictablemachine with the human thing. He was concerned with emotional contents.He did wish to explore new media, but retaining the human aspect. At thattime, Cordeiro went straight to the point: he didn't want to use an imageof his own. Of course, he could have drawn something for that purpose,but what he really wanted � and I think his technique was already clearlyvisible here � was a kind of a transformation mechanism, that is to say:an input, the transformation process, and the output.

A.B. - By the time he started his work with computers, he had alreadybeen working with photographic images, since about 66. That too must haveinfluenced his choice. He had already worked with photographic images anddone 'readings' of the information. He used to discuss the informationalcontent of images and the reduction of this informational content. Thosewere his main concerns.

G.M. - In this respect, I believe we both had a common language: theidea of introducing noise � which he would still use in other works hedid in Campinas � had already been discussed at that time. Once the startingpoint was established, namely the Derivative (Derivada) and the ABC (Beabá),we proceeded to the actual programming. He chose the image from a St. Valentine'splacard and completely digitized it. In other words, he gave me a numericalmatrix , which represented the varying intensity of darkness. We decidedthere should be seven steps of darkness, from white to black. Then, I conductedsome experiments on the computer to check the hues of darkness, superposingan 'g'g'X' to an 'A', and to other characters, so that the image wouldbecome very dark. Once we were through with the programming, we digitizedthe input data, and there we had the output: the first derivative. We hadn'tactually planned to go on to the second and third derivatives, but, beingan automatic process, it was just a question of giving another commandto the computer... And we would then gradually lose the original identityof the image, after the first, and second, and third derivatives.

A.B. - Do you mean this was something which was discovered in the courseof the process?

G.M. - Yes, after the first operation, we decided to apply the derivativeagain and again.

A.B. - You mean your original idea was to present only the zero orderand first order results?

G.M - The idea was 'zero order' and 'first order'. Then, when we alreadyhad everything working fine, we decided to proceed to the second and thirdorder. And then, we thought that was it.

A.B. - At that time there was an interesting question at issue, namelythat of clarifying the limits of image readability. That was markedly presentin his work with computers. It seems to me that the experience he gatheredin that phase, when he used to discuss it with you, was already pointingtowards his next phase.

G.M. - What was really interesting was that, instead of going straightto the actual work, we explored possibilities: we thought that dealingwith TV and treating the images electronically was too complicated, so,we decided that the easiest way would be the one we finally chose. I believewe scanned a wide range of possibilities.

A.A. - 13 years after Cordeiro's passing, how do you see the resultsof that partnership, considering that not every one of your ideas becamereality and also considering the developments of computer art from thattime to the present day?

G.M. - It was a pleasant experience for me. Today there are much morepowerful resources and, looking back at it, I think these results wereextremely interesting. I mean, in an underdeveloped country like Brazil,taking on a problem and gaining international recognition ... Because,you know, Cordeiro naturally knew the whole artistic milieu. I rememberthat he sent our work to an exhibition of computer art in the UK. Aftersome time, he showed me a critique about the exhibition which had beenpublished in a magazine. It turned out that our work had arrived too lateand couldn't be exhibited. But the article praised our work and said thatno other works in the exhibition had any meaning; the only one which showedsomething deeper was ours.

A.B. - Wasn't that Jonathan Benton?

G.M. - Yes, Benton; and that was nice. By the way, at the very beginning,right after our first work, the American Embassy decided to put up an exhibitionof computer art, where they would show the advanced stage of American technology.Once we were through with our work, Cordeiro took it there, proving thatwe weren't lagging that much behind. Realizing our fundamental role aspioneers of this kind of work in Brazil was very gratifying to me. Cordeirowas full of life and enthusiasm. His death was really a big loss. I caneven imagine how much more he would have produced and how he would haveenjoyed dealing with color PCs and the like. After the completion of thiswork, Cordeiro turned his attention to the promotion of it. I took a tripto the UK and introduced him to Rogério Cerqueira Leite. He wasvery enthusiastic about him and got him a very important commission. WhenI came back from the UK, in the times of the Arteonics, we started to talkagain, resuming ideas about new projects. But we both were too busy, andthen he died, so we couldn't carry on.

A.B. - What about Cordeiro's experiments with plotters? He has two works:the Pirambu, which is a little house, and the other one is a transcriptionof Goya's Saturn. How would you assess his contributions concerning thepossibilities offered by plotters? He abandoned the technique he had beenusing, which demanded a huge effort for image preparation before the computercould be programmed. He had a great deal of handicraft work too, that wewould very much like to include in this exhibition. What are the implicationsof this change: working with other possibilities, with computers, whichhave visual devices, and include more plastic values, scribbles, etc.?

G.M. - I realized that Cordeiro had a fascination for colors. He alwaysasked how it was possible to make the input of colors. I said it was possibleby means of the usual methods of color printing: You can produce all thecolors of the rainbow from only three primary colors. You just have toanalyze the intended color into the three primary ones, and then, recomposethem back again. But, at that time, we decided we'd better get somethingconcrete instead of trying to be too ambitious. Yes, colors were in hismind since the very beginning. It seems to me that his handicraft workhad always been a simulation of an automated kind of work. When you startworking with a computational methodology, you end up working in a veryformal way: You set the rules in advance and you don't have the artisticfreedom for changing things as you go. In all those transcriptions, I thinkhe had to have a tremendous discipline in order to follow the rules setin advance, functioning himself like a computer.

A.B. - I don't really agree with you, but I see an interesting pointthere: When he gets to the manual stage of the work, he makes corrections,adjustments, visual adjustments I'd say, which lie at the level of imagesensations, that is, of non- rational, non-mathematical perceptions ofimage. That's just the moment when he would correct and adjust, so thatthe output from the automatic process could be made suitable. He used togo through a series of operations of fine-tuning. From his drawings, youcan see that he was trying to find a better solution. I mean, he wouldn'tonly take an image and find the equation, the transposition and the transformationson the computer, he would also have to work through the initial stagesof the process, because he didn't have the equipment for it. These firststages were actually carried out by an assistant. But this made it possibleto control the resulting image right from this early stage. So you cansay that he used this as a means of control, while aiming at the finalresult. From that point onwards, everything would happen automatically.

A.A. - This is perhaps very trivial for you, but I would like to knowyour reaction to the assumption that images produced as computer transcriptionsvery much resemble some earlier achievements from the beginning of thiscentury, such as, for instance, images produced by typewriters, which werepresented as a novelty in the FON FON magazine, way back in 1915. And evenafter that, in the early fifties, when I was working as a translator atFrance Presse, the teletype in Paris used to send Christmas pictures madewith teletype characters. Cordeiro's images are also based on the transcriptionof characters, which form an image by means of a higher or lower frequencyof certain selected characters. That's the reason for my question: Wasn'the really a step ahead of other artists who had used more elementary machinery?

G.M. - As I see it, if you look at the Derivatives of an Image (Derivadasde Uma Imagem), you can see the zero-order image, the original. I wouldsay -- and I believe Cordeiro would agree with me on that -- that thiszero-order image is nothing, it isn't art, it's just a transcription withoutany meaning. What is meaningful though is the transformation process: thezero-order image and then the derivative, the comparison between both ofthem; but each one is meaningless in isolation; that's how I see it.

A.B. - Would he also see it that way?

G.M. - Sure. The mere typing, the printing by a typewriter has no valueat all. You're right: we could have started by aiming at the zero-orderimage and, only afterwards, during the process, strike on the idea forthe derivative. But that's not how it worked: the only reason for us tomake the zero-order one was to get to the derivative, everything in a singleprogram.

A.A. - You mean the typewriter is comparable to the zero-order image?

G.M. - That's right.

A.B. - But what really interested you was the transformation from thefirst derivative onwards?

G.M. - What really interested us was the possibility of controllingthe whole process, getting the seven levels of darkness so that these sevenlevels could be like neutral elements, to which new units were appliedafterwards by means of a transformation process. I think that the reasonfor producing these elements on typewriters was simply to give a non-handicraftform to the register. Something we both discussed at the time, about whichI haven't reached any conclusion (I don't know whether he did.) was this:if you have a shaded image or if you have an image showing only the contours,these two images are used as a kind of language. That means, you've gota blank picture, then you draw a line building the contours of a figure,say, of a human figure, a face for example, and you immediately recognizethe person. But if you compare a shaded image to a contour image, theyare completely different My question is: What really goes on in our sightand in our brains that makes it possible to recognize a person in reality?Or else, on a photo-style shaded image? Or in a language where only somefew lines are shown, giving the contour? It's the outer contour of thehead against the background, and the eyes, the mouth, and the nose thatmakes it possible to recognize a person. And so, considering the wholevisual process, it must have evolved from the point of view of survival:the need to recognize a person as a relative, a friend, a son; or else,as an enemy, as a person who can cause you harm or good; a person fromwhom he should run away, or get closer. From an evolutionary viewpoint,our sight was formed in order to recognize images from nature. It's animportant survival factor for getting food, for protection and reproduction.Now, all kinds of symbolic language are not, to my view, similar to theimages you find in nature. On the other hand, man is written language.When you learn how to read, and you read all those symbols, and you apparentlyacquire this ability of interpreting this language symbolism, which resortsto the mechanisms of verbal language. I'm not sure about how recently thesethings have come about in the evolutionary scale of mankind, or how thesecontour images bear a meaning for the brain, because they aren't analogousto the ones in nature. So, the Derivatives of an image is actually thetransformation from shading to contour and, for some reason that I don'tquite understand, the contour conveys a message that is strongly relatedto the message in the shaded image. So I think that these two kinds ofimage, which are related to each other through the derivative, still presentus with an open question about biological, anthropological, perceptualevolution.

A.A. - It seems to me that Impressionism has already dealt with thiscontour idea, because, among the precursors of Impressionism, there isManet for example, the last one to use well-defined contours. In Impressionism,form is rendered in its relation to space exactly by way of light. Theemphasis was not so much on representation/identification by means of contours.Contour disappears in Impressionism. Even later on, at the beginning ofthis century, when the Impressionist movement was no longer active, artistslike Bonnard or Vuillard would also insist on the lack of contours, renderingform with brush strokes that gave an idea of the image as a whole, butnot with any intention as regards representation. Because I think thatcontour suggests this kind of representation of an object. Impressionismhas, in a way, foreshadowed this wish to render the various visually perceptibleelements without any resort to the actual delimitation of an area, right?I don't know what you think about it, Ana...

A.B. - It seems to me that the question that most closely correspondsto Moscati's comments is the question of silhouette, of light, either backlightor various angles of incidence of light, which are responsible for singlingout the body from the non-body. I think man has trained a lot, and capturedsilhouettes, retaining only a reduced number of the elements perceivedfrom the actual body. On the plan of representations of perceptual experience,such a reduction exists because man experiences situations, even if ittakes place only sub-consciously, in which information is reduced by theincidence of light. That means, backlight gives rise to a black shape,a sheer contour; Leonardo was well aware of this. I think that the silhouetteis responsible for this peculiar definition. But this is only one aspect.I think that paves the way to the perception of figures, to representation:this sieving of elements that light is able to effect upon a perceivingsubject, that is, these reductions ... In Impressionism, it wasn't so muchthe reductions, but rather the variations of light that mostly interestedthe impressionists. Photography brings such reductions about, capturingcertain moments, which are completely distinctive. That's something whichpeople sometimes lose sight of : the first images ever produced by man� shadows and representations � are projections done by means of shadows.Fire, which was already known to primitive men, produced shadows, sun producedshadows. You should never forget the connections between the origin ofimage and light, and the perception of the silhouette.

A.A. - And then, we have Plato's cave...

A.B. - It surely is Plato's cave: the projection of the external worldon the cave walls, exactly as produced by contrast and shadows.

G.M. - Going back to the biological question of perceptual evolution,you notice that, from an evolutionary viewpoint, the perception of movementsis very important. Now, what is movement of a figure in relation to a background?If the figure is at rest, you can't quite distinguish it from the background,you can't say what you are looking for and what is not what you are lookingfor. When I'm looking at you, and I think of a glass moving in front ofyou, you are the background for the glass; but the couch behind you isthe background for you. Movement is very important if you consider theway it happens. You see: Lizards and birds have sudden movements as a meansof self-defense. Slow and continuous movements can be easily perceived,whereas a sudden, quick movement � if you're not focusing it at the verymoment when it happens �, you can only catch the image some seconds later,an image that is only slightly altered. As you're unable to keep it inyour mind, you don't see the difference. As for other perceptual abilities,such as the ones involved in camouflage, we know that airplanes, ships,and tanks are painted in a way that makes the texture on the inside ofthe figure look similar to the texture on the background. This makes itmore difficult to detect the movement. A clear-cut figure, on the otherhand, stands out from the background. Our perceptual ability is also heavilydependent upon the illumination conditions of the figure. If it is an illlighted figure, we lose the ability to perceive colors. You can only seeblack and white, without any texture, but, in a way or another, our visualperception keeps the outline of the figure, which matches what you've justsaid.

A.A. - In your discussions with Cordeiro, did he use to speculate aboutthe limits of perception? About the possibilities of the technique?

G.M. - Our conversations were based on that. He would say somethingabout the artistic side, and I would contribute with my technical knowledge,or, sometimes, a little bit about the physiology of visual perception.So, we would reach a common language. We had many of those conversationsat the time, and I think that these derivatives were an interesting achievementbecause they touched on a very important question.

A.B. Even today, the Derivatives of an Image is still the most intriguingof his works. In the other images, you can't see anything comparable tothe leap represented by the formulation of the Derivatives. They look likean extension of the same process, which came to be mastered; that is, theDerivative has the taste of discovery. But what still puzzles me, is yourchoice for this couple on St. Valentine's placard. Why was this image especiallyinteresting for your purpose? And another question is: Wasn't really TVthat Cordeiro had in mind since the very beginning?

G.M. Not really. As I mentioned before, we had considered the possibilityof image manipulation on TV: For instance, the derivative, on TV, is anelectrical impulse. We considered applying a phase reverser on the TV image,turning everything that was white into black, and vice versa. That's alsotransformation; in a way, it is just like the echo of a sound. So, by artificiallyproducing phantom-like images on the TV screen, you are in fact creatinga kind of an echo of the image.

A.A. - I think it would be very interesting if we could avail the opportunityof this exhibition of Cordeiro's works in order to promote a discussionabout the connections between problems concerning image and perceptionon one hand, and, on the other, between image and specifically technicalquestions concerning the devices, the equipment, and the different formsof record. Because the central matter is clearly that of 'Art and Science,'that is: How it is possible that Art and Science, making use of moderntechnology, and of modern means of communication and expression, can createa confluence of them both. I think this exhibition of Cordeiro's worksis very important. He was misunderstood in the past, because people weren'tpatient enough to wait for the development of his process; people wereprecipitated in their aesthetic assessment of his work. Even today, ifyou analyze the images he created on the computer, I think their uniquevalue lies in the fact that they constitute a step forward, a conquestof new knowledge, and not so much a finished result. After all, he hadbeen working for three years on a very complicated and totally new process,which hadn't been completely controlled yet. But people insisted on a hastyevaluation of it. Cordeiro's works with computers are important. They showhis ability to go deep, to master new techniques, and they exemplify adozen of other questions that were at issue in those days. But they can't,by any means, be regarded as finished.

G.M. - It seems to me that this is the chief question of our times:the conflict between two societies, the technical and the humanistic. Thereis a great difficulty of communication, for people speak different languagesand make no effort to bridge the gap. They have their own preconceivedideas. Technology can be oppressive at times, but it can also do many things.With the emergence of computer technology, society is getting more andmore complex. That's why I think it's very important to make use of allpossible mechanisms in order to bring both societies together, the technologicaland the humanistic, so that one doesn't have to fear the other. If we take,for instance, a Stradivarius, we always have to wonder whether it is artor technology that we have. A violin like that cannot be made today; ithas an amazing technology.

A.A. - Sure. Leonardo da Vinci made many experiments with differentpainting methods, but the only works of his that resisted to time werethe ones in which he used traditional, well-established, reliable paintsthat had proved durable and that could really last a hundred years. Wehave lost track of all other experiments which used less durable material.So, there must have been a tremendous technology for the production ofpaper, glue, paints, and musical instruments, not to mention cinema andTV. And there is also a very interesting technology in the area of advertising.I think there are two kinds of technique: pure technique and techniqueassociated to art. But the mastering of these techniques can sometimesbe so complicated, that people either don't use them, or just buy thesetechniques as a black box, just like a painter that simply buys the painthe is going to use. I think that, historically, the preparation of paintswas considered part of the painter's métier. But it is quite differenttoday, isn't it?

A.B. - Some artists, I've heard, still devote themselves to making paperand paints, but only as a way to preserve tradition, because their taskreally begins with industrial paint itself. Formerly artists knew exactlywhere the pigments came from, that is, they knew all the intricacies ofthe techniques for paint production.

G.M. - How would you compare a modern painter with a painter of 300years ago? I mean, if someone masters at the same time the technical andthe artistic aspects, he cannot separate one from the other: He would adaptwhat he would like to do to the paints he managed to get, and would tryto get the paints needed for representing what he had in mind. There isno such thing today; both things are totally dissociated today.

A.B. - There is a complete dissociation in the division of labor, whichis characteristic of our technological society: Science and technologyhave a much stronger influence on the shaping of production processes thanart. Artists are concerned rather with the figurative and representativetechniques, and not so much with the material support for the representation.They stick to the conceptual techniques, because there is a division oflabor.

G.M. - What I consider to be of utmost importance in this work is thefact that both the computational and the artistic side evolved together,side by side, so that we were very comfortable about signing this worktogether, which is not usual in the visual arts.

A.B. - But Cordeiro was well aware of the importance of the interconnectionbetween art and technology.

G.M. - So, that's why I think that, even if we were two very differentpersons, we worked very closely together, and I don't feel like an instrumentfor his ideas. It was a teamwork from the start, signed by two artists,because it actually involved a combination of technique and the intendedresults. In movies, for instance, this is already commonplace.

A.B. - Yes, in movies, the director is the big figure, but there isa lot of cooperation; it is a coauthorship work, but still, with a cleardivision of labor.

G.M. - It's exactly the division of labor that can lead sometimes toa labor hierarchy: The work is signed by one person, and this person isnot always the one who had the largest contribution to the work as a whole.

A.B. - It's very important that both names were mentioned. I agree thathe had it very clearly in mind. I think that Cordeiro attached much valueto integration. This wasn't well accepted at that time; he was very muchahead of his time, wasn't he? People tried to make an aesthetic assessmentof the results, without being able to realize that what was really importantwas the program itself, the process as such. I think that a lecture byMoscati would be welcome in order to make these ideas public.

G.M. - I think it would be of great use to talk to other people dealingwith computer art too.