C=Christian Huebler P=Paolo Atzori Y=Yvonne Wilhelm

DISCOVERING CYBERANTARCTIC:
a conversation with Yvonne Wilhelm and Christian Huebler (Knowbotic
Research)
by Paolo Atzori.
© 1995    Living the Present

>The world presents itself to us, effectively< (J. Baudrillard)

>Which worlds?< (KR+cF)

Knowbotic Research (KR+cF) develops hybrid models of knowledge

generation. These
models are complex    dynamic fields    which produce an exchange between
virtual
agents, poetic machines and interactive visitors. They    enable an    observer
the
physical exploration and construction of    networked rules and strategies of the
new public spheres. KR+cF outlines technoid events parallel in real and virtual
spaces to investigate the experience of the multiple layers of reality. These
extensions of the cultural environment provoke new cultural and aesthetical   
parameters in order to prevent an ideological closed circuit in an information
based society.
KR+cF, Yvonne Wilhelm, Alexander Tuchacek, Christian Huebler, is based in
Cologne,    Academy for Media Arts. With the partners of Westbank Industries
and
Tactile Technology    KR+cF has founded Mem_brane, a laboratory for media
strategies.
KR+cF has got major international Media Art    Awards. (Prix Ars Electronica 93,
Golden Nica for Interactive Art; German Media Art Award, ZKM    Karlsruhe 95).

P.: Last November, in Hamburg, during the “Interface3” you have finally installed
your new work “Dialogue with the Knowbotic South”. What is the topic of your
discourse?

C.: Our approach is to focus on the scientific world referring the South Pole, to
study the codes used by the scientists of the Antarctic who make computer
simulations.
We intend to offer a model for a discourse between different fields of the
communication world. From an artistic point of view It is formalizing a problem
of a missing language.

P.: A dialogue beginning from state of missing language...

Is it the starting condition for your new artistic activity or a hyphotetical limit?

C.: One has to give away his own old language. How shall we discuss what we
are doing? We have not only to debate with journalists and critics but also to
exchange ideas between us and the scientists. It really becomes a problem if
we don't have a language.

Y.: It’s a development on our own history as artists, as aesthetic beings; you
have to log-in your own history...

P.: How do you formulate your discourse about Nature between the different
artistic and scientific dimensions?

C.:We work about hypothesis since the nature’s scientists are dealing in our
century with hypothetical issues.
When they simulate the nature on their computers they project systems into the
future, pushing forward the meaning of time. For the first time a scientist doesn't
only prove the laws of nature, he is also formulating conditions of possible
systems.
In our project we treat an actual state of nature correspondent to our information
culture: the scientific definition of the nature by communication systems and
powerful computers. This way to work changes the meaning of nature itself
because nature has always been culturally defined.

Y.: Reality is culturally defined too. We now investigate nature but at the same
time question reality.

P.:A concept that changes with the time. Do you want to point out an idea of
reality more fitting our contemporary time?

C.: Our bigger concern is the topic "Wirklichkeitskonzept.” With the term 'virtual
reality' you can define a dimension that belongs to the computer. It is just a
play , but I think we play with the rules of games dealing with phenomena which
really have an effect on our personal life.
The question is no longer what nature is, rather, what kind of nature do we
want. We are embodied in the process of how nature merges, with the ability to
go into the system and to change and manipulate it.
We have to include in our research the term “real” (das Reale), what comes out
from the reality conception. We don't know if we really can discuss about "Das
Reale". It is a very delicate thing; in our work dealing with nature, means also to
deal with economy and politics.

P.:We can say Knowbotic Research is searching for an artistic definition of

Nature, a possible reality, in the Information Age throughout models and data
coming directly from the world of scientific research.
How is your intellectual experience with the scientists, did you find
correspondences of ideas?

C.:Most of the scientists still think in the mechanistic world’s view - for instance
their chaos theory is deterministic.
They want just to prove their laws confirming the construction of Science. If is
there anything they cannot    put in the body of science they think the question is
wrong. They don't think their methods of working are wrong. I make an
example: if they have a simulation model running on a computer and get actual
data from a satellite which do not fit into the simulation, of course the satellite
has made mistakes. Only few people would argue that maybe the simulation is
wrong. We think the concern of the genuine scientists of our time should be to
risk some steps ahead leaving the academic domain of science behind.
P.:Don’t you think too many scientists are affected by heavy political-economical
demand?

C.:When last summer in Hamburg we have joined some scientists at the

German polar research institute of Bremerhaven (AWI) we have realized how
powerful the connections between science and politics and economics are.
Many scientists does visual simulation only to legitimate their work to the
politicians and get money for more projects, not because they want to find
something new with the visual simulation language.
Most of the scientists see the visualization in this context and this is
disappointing.
As I explained before we started our project with the nature scientists because
we thought they deal with hypothetical questions involving all the new concepts
of science like the theory of the inner observer, complex dynamics and self
organization. We were mostly interested in the research of dynamic processes.
We wanted to find out how they find out how the results of this research
changes the knowledge about Antarctica.

P.:A kind of synthesis of the scientific knowledge applied to a special

environment in an interactive form where one can observe the work of scientists
giving an interpretation and a simulation of natural processes. At the same time
some scientists are developing new ways of representation for the scientific
methodology too. Do you want to provide the scientists with a free platform
where they can exchange and debate their researches?

C.: We look for creating a field of discourse freed from the rules of the
disciplines of the specialists. It is a field not only for nature scientists but also for
scholars and philosophers who are discussing the present ideas of reality. We
start from the scientific material because Knowbotic Research is interested in
hybrid knowledge, in the integration of facts in fiction.

P.: The cybernetic of Robert Wiener, was the first attempt to start a new sense
of science coming out of epistemological meeting where the researches of
different disciplines could break the borders of isolation.
We are living again in a time where everything is always more and more
specialized, and everybody follows his method like a dogma that can hardly be
discussed.
Do you consider cybernetic a good background for your idea?

Y.:Our world’s view is based on that what we see in the next future, a worldwide
data space induced by the communication technologies, filled up with tons of
information coming from all different disciplines of knowledge. I think it is very
important to create models which focus on the needs and possibilities of the
person who tries to receive these information. These are questions of strategies
which support the human perception.
Furthermore the concept of nature in our work does not come from the
scientists, we only use their data.
Our work is also a liberation from Science. We create an environment where we
first fabricate actual phenomena of scientific thinking. But we emancipate these
phenomena from their reference (Science) by a self organization model.

P.: Let’s speak more directly about your work...

C.:Our installation “Dialog with the Knowbotic South” is not like our previous
work “Simulationspace Mosaic of mobile Datasounds” (SMDK) a functional
work.
The new concept is based on knowbots, which generate a vision in a data-
network. They originate a hypothetical nature, Computer Aided Nature (CAN).
The main problem for the knowledge robots is that we are dealing with two
bigger entities, the so called reference nature that is still very powerful in the
Antarctic, one of the few almost intact ecological systems, and the related
scientific institutions.
The knowbots act with completely different kind of inputs, originating a tension
so you can't bring these two worlds really together. This produces an aestethic
field for artists. Virtual reality means that you are inside the computer box
closed to the outside. Knowbotic reality means you are in a zone of different
worlds, totally aware of the dynamic processes in different worlds. We are
interested to find a form for this concept.
Each knowbot carries the information about several Antarctic research projects
that are running at the moment. It is not a scientific knowbot because we
incorporate very different phenomena related to different research programs.
This incorporation of phenomena of actual research in a Computer Aided
Nature shapes the knowbot. We have designed a visual form for every
Knowbot’s algorithm correspondent to the data sets.
The agents (knowbots) work as connectors of processes. This point represents
a new idea for the artwork. We do not have anymore an interface, a mechanic
interface, in the real world, we have interfaces in the network, the dynamic
network.
If the processes associated to the knowbots and/or the research projects
change, the knowbots will change too, following the modification of ideas in the
world of research . This leads to forms of artificial creativity implemented on
these agents. The agent should be open to other way of thinking. like concepts
or ways of thinking. So, for instance, we outline interfaces for philosophers
allowing the possibility to reach them and determinate other outlines for the
knowbot.

P.: Is the shape of the agents strictly related with some kind of processes?
Are there different categories of agents, each with a specific architecture on
both level, algorithmic and visual?

Y.: The shape is only a metaphor for a model. We define borders for our model.
The borders we are investigating and developing imply a kind of representation,
not specialized but interactive.

P.: So there is no symbolism, no allegory?

C.: Maybe there come up some new things. In the work represented here all the
agents are autogenerative. They are connected to processes in the Internet
which change continuosly. These agents always modify themselves.
They offer also points of interest which can be activated by the observer of the
installation. Thus the knowbot will also mutate and react according to the
interest of the visitor.

P.: Which is the logic you follow to develop the agents, where do you find the
first input to design them?

C.: The first outlines of the knowbot relate to visual material that is used in the
research fields mixed with our creativity... For example one agent refers to the
computer simulation of the tide of the Antarctic sea; we develop a model and
write an interface for data coming from the satellite observation.
The interesting thing is that we deal with processes you can't see in reality.
Hidden processes, sometimes extremely small or extremely big, and very
complex. Furthermore you can't live in the Antarctic, it means you can't
experience directly, empirically this kind of reality without the help of technology.
Actually for the scientists it does not make anymore sense to work directly in
contact with the nature. They need data,    intelligent data for their terminals in
the institutes. And intelligent data means that you have installed robots and
automata which live there all the year long sending periodically raw data. Only
few scientists need to go there to maintein the functionality of these robots.
Sometimes they put sensors on the animals living in the Antarctic continent
directly connected to computers. They exterritorialize their nature in the
networks. maybe our artistic work is a kind of re-territorialization.

Y.: The important is not to discuss the meaning of measures, rather how can we
visualize and handle this complexity of information. That's a problem for the
scientists too. There are so many data: how can we turn it into information and
knowledge, how can we handle this with the knowledge we have?

P:You said about this new work that maintains the state of process, not only for
the interactivity but also because keeps itself constantly updated.
Since we cannot follow the whole information processing you make a selection
of the information displayed inside the simulation space otherwise it would be a
completely chaotic system since the information are coming almost in real time.
How do you make this kind of classification?

C: It is necessary to define a strategy about order and the generation of new

things. With computers we analyze fragments of the reality and at the same
time we build and initiate complex processes. This is what the work is dealing
about. You can't deal directly with data fields and with databases to make a
model only by analysis; you get millions of data the human brain is unable to
perceive.
To outline a model that simulate one year of a certain natural process you need
‘giga-tons’ of data to keep the simulation running. You really have to find new
criteria, new formulations or maybe new bodies (we call them “incorporations”)
to construct, visualize and perceive such models.

P.: Your pervious installation ”Simulations Mosaic Raum” was a selforganized

system consisting of elements of communication, data sounds, collected
through Internet. This work induces a new insight dimension where one miss
the usual feeling for orientation: the visitor/actor can navigate a ‘datascape’, the
composition of the information in the darkness reveals new clues of perception,
new sense of space, the space/process of information .
At the same time another level of perception is involved using the data coming
from the visitor’s interaction converted by a motion tracking system in a
algorithm and transferred in real time to the ‘reality’ of the computer.
In another room another program visualize the floating entity of the agents with
3D computer graphic displayed by a video-beamer on a large surface.
I am very interested on your concept of space where you can implement these
information organized by the knowbots...

Y.: To think over space.is the main topic of the new project too. It's not the
question to find one aesthetic or a language everybody can understand but to
define the nature and its information output, between reality and virtual space.
To the define the differences between discussion and discourse.To define the
differences among the various concepts of nature is itself a process.

C.:It is not efficient to use sculptural terminology but we are deeply investigating
new concepts of “bodies”. Is not the body idea in our common, psychological
meaning.    Our concept of bodies comes from these kind of entities which
generate the different layers of our reality and we look for these generators
mostly in data spaces.
For us Knowbots are means for incorporations of ideas, and also of reality
concepts. This is a little similar to our former project where we had a “sound
space”, a space consisting of ideas formulated with sounds, connected by the
interactive visitor. In the simulation room one only could connect two ideas at
once.
We were interested in the tensions originated between two ideas, the gap
between two sounds and not in the idea itself.
In this new project we have ‘bodies’, complex connectors, which link complex
fields of ideas. We touch one of the biggest problem of science: to gain a more
complex simulation it is necessary to simulate several organisms/processes
together in one program, to compare at the same time different kind of data
This leads to our next question: "What can you encode and what you cannot
encode?"

P: Your idea of ‘bodies’ could be interpreted as a model of artificial life, because

the knowbots are able to change themselves according to the changes of the
ideas it's an endless process, that once started can go further independently.

C: Yes, but as a vision, a wish...

Y.:In fact it does not work like artificial life, the artificial life is one to one
translation. We, on the other hand, take the reality and the simulation together,
a kind of new function with its own borders to reality or to cyberspace.
From a scientific point of view the knowledge that you can achieve from artificial
life is a fade connection to reality. For the scientist it is just a value from which is
possible to make some forecast and statements. For the artist there is a value if
it goes out of control.
P: Many ‘media-works’ supposed to be artistic are following the very old
Aristotelian principle of mimesis: the work is just imitating nature with a new
technology. Here you deal with the nature without any ‘naturalistic’ reproduction.
We experience a complex of processes that are going on and define a new
dimension of communication. Could we define it as a model of digital
environment?

C: Yes, we are on environments where the senses of the body are connected
via interfaces to dynamic architectures. Sometimes these knowbots also have
the ‘mimetic’ potential for dynamic processes, they are representing real ‘data
fluids’ which you can contact and transform. Mimetic not in the meaning of
traditional art: mimetic potential means the agent incorporating the process.
We can't use anymore the term representation because you are included now
as an observer of reconstructed representations. I would like more to consider
the word phenomena.

P.:In your installations one feels a massive use of technology. Formally the only
material one can see are computers and communication hi-tech equipment.
As artists using this technology which is your critical position regarding the
economical-political process which is running together with the information
world?

C:    We are inside the technological system whose direction and speed are
defined by the industry and science. Politics.    and arts have to follow and it is
nearly impossible to do anything without being inside. It is a confrontation which
can't work if you play with the traditional ways of art.
You have to be inside so that you can really see the consistency of the new
technology, not only to say: “OK this is their world”. This is our world and
becomes bigger and bigger. We all depend on computers.
I try to keep my vision free to understand what is outside and deal with both of
these worlds. There are still many parts of our life which the technological
system can't incorporate.
Therefore I define myself an artist who can fight inside this self regulative order.
Though I know everything I do could be good for the system because
everything is connected but I fight and give up the respect for the big machines I
am working with.

P:The industrial revolution has delivered one of the biggest concern of our time:
the pollution of the environment. The South Pole is an environment almost
untouched by the man, where it is possible to make important observation about
the environmental problem. Many scientists are able to visualize the effects of
pollution, but it seems they have much more difficulties to reveal the origins. For
an artist should be more important to fight the causes and not to the effects of
the industrial pollution.

Y: Yes, a real solution is not fighting against the effects or against the people
who destroy the ecosystems. It's necessary to struggle against the thinking of
the people who make these strategies, against the scientists and politicians   
who think they can predict reality by computing nature. It's an old artist’s
strategy to make politics and scientists aware about the consequences of their
concepts of reality.

P. What's your feeling about the time you need to produce this kind of work?

C.: It always takes too long to realize a project when you work with
technologies. It is a kind of paradox, not only for the technical complexity, also
for the economical support.
The production’s process of art takes longer than you want. You can't produce
ten pieces a year. This is maybe    not understandable in the traditional way of
art.

P.:As we can speak of cyberspace, virtual space, we could think of a different

notion of time. Past, future and present are existing together in your installation:
the past is the work of the scientist, the present is the interaction in your
installation and the future are the potential information going to be updated by
the knowbots. How would you define the implicit time of this work?

Y: We are familiar with the notion of cyberspace, how can we modify space,
compress space, extend space. I think you can do the same with time and the
way you experience it. We make a concept for the practice of vision. The time
we try to realize it is the present.

C: Maybe if the work succeeds when somebody gets into our installation he
realizes that there is a complex of different new aesthetical and cognitive
structures to deal with. We can’t offer results in our work, everybody could
experiment in his own way, we offer a model which is still in discussion, which
offer different layers of nature concepts simultaneously: a traditional physical
model with light and temperature zones, a scientific simulation with the illusion
of linear references and a networked info-aesthetical model generated by
knowbots.