Beijing Art Lab| 艺术实验室

翻译：姜迪

校对：李振华

特别感谢： 麦克 奈玛 Michael Naimark

真实 美 自由和金钱
以科技为基础的艺术（科技艺术）与可持续发展动力机制

里奥纳多 期刊 [Leonardo Journal] 编著
洛克费勒基金会 [Rockefeller Foundation] 赞助
Truth, Beauty, Freedom, and Money
Technology-Based Art and Dynamics of Sustainability


www.artlab.net

编撰人：麦克 奈玛 [Michael Naimark]
naimark@artlab.net

2003年 5月

2004年2月校订
 
Abstract  摘要                                           

Technology-based art has become increasingly of interest to both the art and the technology communities, as well as to the public at large. It has been adopted by art centers interested in technology and by research labs interested in art, places with different cultures and histories.

New support opportunities exist for tech-based art, such as commercializing invention and tapping a new
generation of collectors, patrons and sponsors. But tech-based art is still art, which suffers from deep cultural inadequacies in the US. Based on travel and discussion both inside and outside the US, observations about the art and technology landscape and opportunities for future support are presented. Details for an “Arts Lab,” a unique hybrid art center and research lab, are specified.


新媒体艺术已经逐渐成为艺术和科技机构乃至社会大众的共同兴趣所在。它既被对技术感兴趣的艺术中心所采用，也为对艺术感兴趣的实验室所采用，尽管两种机构具有不同的文化和历史。

例如商业发明激发了新一代的收藏家、资助人和赞助方，这表明了新的艺术资助已经成形。但是新媒体艺术仍旧是一种艺术，它深深地受到美国文化氛围不浓的影响。根据美国内外的讨论，现提交关于艺术和科技前景以及未来资助机会的报告。这里，将会重点描述关于“艺术实验室”，一个独特的混合艺术中心和实验室的案例。
 
Table of Contents 目录                                          






Abstract | 摘要    2
Table of Contents | 目录    3
Prologue- What Happened？ | 序言-发生了什么？    6
Technology-Based Art | 科技艺术    9
Exemplars of support | 赞助机构案例    19
Toward Sustainability | 为了可持续发展    50
Epilogue- Who champions the Future? | 结语-谁将在未来获胜？    65
List of Participants | 参与研究人员    67
References & Web Sites | 参考资料和网站    70
Author Biography | 作者简介    73
 
Acknowledgement     致谢                              

I am grateful for the opportunity to do some things I haven’t done before. Like quietly working with talented young interns compiling a database from the bottom up and watching structure emerge, with little interference on my part. Like taking advantage of cheap airfares and visiting eight European countries and making four West Coast trips, three East Coast trips, and a trip to Banff, mostly during a two month period, carrying only a pad and pen as tools. Like closing my door for a month and doing little except writing. I am grateful for this opportunity to spend some time “going meta” and think about the big picture.

I wish to thank Joan Shigekawa from the Rockefeller Foundation for the opportunity. During this moment of economic strain, I am particularly grateful for her leap of faith, as well as for her candid comments.

I also thank Roger Malina and the Leonardo/ISAST board and staff for supporting this project and for their highly informed insights.

Red Burns, NYU Interactive Telecommunication Program Chair, entrusted me with an office and access to ITP interns during the early stages of this project. The interns, Mark Argo, Defne Ayas, Elizabeth Goodman, Ann Poochareon, along with ITP alums Yury Gitman and Katherine Moriwaki in Dublin, hit the Web (and the street) looking for anything relevant to our understanding. From this wonderfully eclectic pile of data, patterns emerged which became the basis of a web site they produced, my most valuable resource. I only hope that Red and the ITP helpers received as much as I in return.

I am deeply grateful to the several dozen seasoned experts who gave me their time, attention, and hospitality while addressing my naïve questions and awkward scribbling. Though these visits may have sometimes appeared to be of questionable value, their value was enormous, as pieces of the big picture gradually fit together.

I thank Betsy Seder for her inestimable production help shaping and editing, and with her talented design skills.

And I wish to lovingly thank Marie Sester, my wife and my most challenging provocatrice.

From all your help comes something unpolished but hopefully fresh, something uneven but hopefully representative, something subjective but hopefully provocative. And hopefully, something hopeful.






我非常感谢能有机会从事一些从未做过的事情。像与一些才华横溢的年轻实习生共同静心工作，自上而下地编辑数据库，见证初步框架的问世，尽管我本人对这件事有一点点不适应。例如，购买廉价机票访问八个欧洲国家，四次去往西岸，三次去往东岸还有一趟班夫[Banff]之旅。在几乎两个月的时间里，我只带了一个掌上电脑和钢笔作为工具，还有像是连续一个月闭门埋头写作等。我十分感激这次的机会可以花这么长时间去寻找“真理”，从更高层次思考这些问题。

我想感谢洛克菲勒基金的乔安·什科卡瓦[Joan Shigekawa]为我提供这次机会。在颇具经济压力期间，我特别感谢她坚定的信念以及公正的评价。

我还要感谢罗格·玛丽娜[Roger Malina]和里奥纳多/ISAST 董事会和支持这个项目的所有人员以及他们长远目光。

雷德·伯恩斯，纽约大学交互通讯计划教授，在项目初期给我一间办公室并让我领导ITP实习生。马克·阿果[Mark Argo]，狄芬斯·阿亚斯[Defns Ayas]，伊丽莎白·古德曼[Elizabeth Goodman]， 安·坡切阿隆[Ann Poocharen]，以及在都柏林的ITP校友 约瑞·基德曼[Yury Gitman]和凯瑟琳·莫里瓦基[Katherine Moriwaki]，这些实习生都努力通过网络（或者实地）寻找所有与此项目相关的资料。多角度来源的这组资料创造出了项目模型，并成为他们所建立的网站的基础，以及我本人最有价值的资源。我仅希望雷德和ITP的协助者获得与我同样的回报。

我诚挚地感谢众多经验丰富的专家，他们在选择我幼稚的问题和拙作时曾付出的时间、精力和热情。尽管这些访问偶尔会出现值得商榷之处，但它们的价值仍是巨大的，因为这些零碎的知识将在更高层次上逐渐统一。

我感谢伊丽莎白·赛德尔宝贵的作品，感谢她帮我修整和编辑作品，以及她富有才华的设计。

此外，我想感谢玛丽·赛斯特[Marie Sester]，我的妻子和鼓励者。

正是在你们的帮助下产生了这个作品，它未经雕琢但却充满前景，它不够普遍却充满代表性，它来自主观却富有煽动性。但愿，它充满希望。
 
Prologue- What Happened？序言-发生了什么？                            

We are in an inflection point.
-    John Seely Brown, Former Director, Xerox PARC, Palo Alto

我们正处于转折点
- 约翰 西利 布朗，前总监，施乐帕洛阿尔托研究中心


Not that long ago, it seems, a dream shared by many was on the verge of fulfillment. The dream is about connecting the world, connecting everyone to the world’s information and to each other. The dream would encourage cottage industries to flourish, would level the playing field for the disadvantaged, and would empower everyone with tools for their own expression and exploration. The dream has driven the passions of artists wishing to explore new forms and researchers interested in inventing them. Truth and beauty, and freedom, hallmark provinces of Modernity, would be revised from objective, centrist, and absolute to relative, cultural, and personal.

不久以前，似乎还是众人即将实现的共同梦想。梦想连接整个世界，将每个人与世界上的信息以及其他人相连接。这个梦想将引发家庭手工业的复兴，将使处于劣势的人站在同一平台，赋予每个人表达感情及自我探索的工具。这个梦想驱使艺术家对新模型的探索，也激发了研究者发明的热情。真理和美，乃至自由、现代城市的特点都将发生从目标、中立，绝对到相对、文化和自我的修正。

The dream has been around for several decades, anchored in the development of computer and communication technologies. The digital revolution began in mid-1940s with the mathematical invention of the “binary digit,” the bit, by Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver, and with the conceptual inventions of “feedback” and “cybernetics” by Norbert Wiener. Also during this period, MIT hired its first artist, Gyorgy Kepes, with his vision of “The New Landscape.” In the 1950s it was Arthur C. Clark and the concept of satellites, and Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson applying cybernetic theory to society. In the 1960s it was Buckminster Fuller and his idea of “Spaceship Earth” and Marshall McLuhan and the “Global Village.” In the 1970s, Stewart Brand and the “Whole Earth” movement, and Gene Youngblood and the “Information Utility.” The electronics, computer,and communications revolution that began after World War Two continued to accelerate.

几十年来的梦想有赖于计算机和通信技术的发展。数字革命始于20世纪40年代中期，并伴随着克劳德·沙农和沃伦·威夫发明数学“二进制”、比特以及诺伯特·维纳对“回馈作用”、“控制论”的概念创新。在此期间，MIT也聘请了第一位艺术家，推出视觉“新景观”的乔治·凯布斯。在20世纪50年代，是亚瑟· C·克拉克和人造卫星概念，以及玛格丽特·密德和格雷戈里·贝特森将控制论应用于社会。在20世纪60年代，是巴克明斯行·福勒和他的“太空地球”以及马歇尔·麦克卢汉的“地球村”。在20世纪70年代，是斯图尔特·布兰德的“全球”运动和吉恩·杨布拉德的“信息效用”。自二战以来起始的电子、计算机和通信革命仍还在不断加速当中。

Art paralleled. Movements such as independent filmmaking, kinetic art, Experiments in Art and Technology(EAT), and video art were all shaping the technology as much as the technology was shaping culture.

艺术是并行的。诸如独立电影运动、动态艺术、科技艺术实验以及录像艺术都如同技术塑造艺术般地影响着技术本身。

Then something happened to the arts in the US in the 1980s, two things actually. First, US government social spending dwindled. The US arts community became increasingly politicized and to some extent, angry, in part because of the urgency of unaddressed social issues such as economic inequity, the homeless, and AIDS. Second, the 1980s witnessed a dramatic increase in attention to packaging. Advertising budgets skyrocketed to the point of matching or exceeding actual product costs. Not-for-profit institutions became increasingly dominated by professional marketers convinced that “being more business-like” meant more packaging. The stress was so extreme that at San Francisco’s venerable Exploratorium, known for its collective work environment, the workers unionized. Meanwhile, the electronics, computer, and communications revolution continued, and by the end of the 1980s, the cultural gap between high-tech entrepreneurs and the not-forprofit creative community had widened.

20世纪80年代，艺术领域发生了两件事情。一是美国政府的公共支出收缩。美国艺术团体日益政治化，并且在一定程度上呈现出愤怒情绪，这些现象一定程度上是来自像经济不公平、无家可归、艾滋病等未解决的社会问题的紧迫性。二是20世纪80年代见证了过度关注包装导致广告支出的暴涨，以至于到达甚至超出文化产品自身价值的戏剧性增长。专业商人日益控制非营利性机构，他们深信“更加商业化”意味着更多的包装。过于沉重的压力导致旧金山以群体创作氛围著名的探险博物馆(Exploratorium)的工人也成立工会。同时，电子、计算机和通讯革命的延续。截至20世纪80年代，高科技企业家和非营利机构之间的文化鸿沟进一步加深。

In the 1990s computers became affordable for the home and a global network infrastructure became accessible. A gold rush began. Silicon Valley turned white-hot on the world money map. A new generation that grew up with email, the Worldwide Web, and Wired Magazine simultaneously produced entrepreneurs with startup fever and artists/activists proactively engaged in a global community. The lines between commerce and creativity had blurred, and to many of us, this was good news.

在20世纪90年代，计算机普及每个家庭，全球互联网也广布各地。引发了一轮淘金热。硅谷在世界圈钱地图上变得白热化。电子邮件、互联网以及无线杂志背景下造就的新生代是一批狂热的企业家和积极参与全球性团体的艺术家和行为主义者。商业和创意产业之间的界限被模糊，而对于我们大多数人来说，这是件好事。

The bubble burst in 2000. Nearly everyone today seems to have the same comments. First, what were we thinking? Billions of venture capital flooding into such new, untested concepts. A home-run-or-nothing risk mentality. And such youngsters! By 2001, downtown San Francisco commercial vacancy rate shot from near zero to 40%, and U-Haul had a three-month wait for one-way rentals out of town.

幻想的泡沫爆发于2000年。今天几乎每个人似乎都持有同样的评价。一是，我们一直在思考什么？数十亿的风险资本流入这个新兴且未经实验的概念。成功或完败只能凭借精神上冒险。正是这些年轻人！截止2001年，旧金山市区商业闲置率从几近0激增至40%，用于单向出城租用的U-Haul也已有三个月的空闲（，经济一片萧条）。

But also, the world had become wired. Those lucky to be born in the right family, or on the right continent, now have instant, high-speed access to a global database and to each other. We’ve reached critical mass and there’s no turning back. We can assume that for the rest of the world it’s only a matter of time, albeit critical time. Get ready for some really beautiful, really unnerving, really weird new stuff.

与此同时，世界的联系更加紧密。适当的个人空间和大陆将会出现美好的事情，这些美好的事已经迫不及待地高速蔓延至一个全球数据库并且彼此衔接。我们已经到了最关键的时刻，而且没有回头路。可以假设剩下的只是时间的问题，虽然是十分关键的一段时间。为一些真正美的，真正令人紧张的，真正不可思议的新事物做好准备吧。

So here we are. The technology-based revolution has arrived. It’s affecting all aspects of everyday life and it’s unstoppable. But everything has changed practically overnight. We have a very clear idea what doesn’t work, but not much of a clue for what does.

因此，我们已经面临这个阶段。科技革命已经来临，它持续影响了人们日常生活的方方面面。每件事几乎在一夜之间改变，虽然我们对于不起作用的东西有十分清楚的想法，但对于起作用的东西却没有太多线索。

We are in an inflection point.

我们正处于一个转折点。
 
Technology-Based Art    科技艺术                             
This report is ultimately about whether a hybrid art center and research lab is feasible. The place to begin is to understand some basics about art and technology today, and their relevance to culture and society. A great deal of discourse has been generated about this. Here are some personal comments and observations.

这个报告是关于多元艺术中心和研究实验室的可行性研究。接下来的部分是去理解一些与文化和社会相关的当代艺术和科技的基础知识。目前已有许多对此的探讨。以下是一些个人评论和观点。

Riding a wave

逐浪

“New Art” is always about what’s hot now. It’s like a wave, always moving. Riding the wave means never committing to any movement, medium, or technology. One might call New Art “first word” art, as opposed to “last word” art. [1] It’s about working in uncharted territory, where rules and conventions have yet to be established, and judging is difficult to calibrate. Conventional critics are challenged, since they can’t sink their teeth into anything with which to compare. Curators are caught in a dilemma, since one role of the museum is to build a collection of artifacts worthy of preservation in perpetuity, while another role is to present the fashion of the times.

“新艺术“一直关注于当下的热门。就像是一阵浪潮，不停的移动。逐浪意味着永不拘泥于任何运动，媒介或者技术。我们可以说新艺术就是前卫艺术，与当下的艺术相反。[1]是致力于规则和惯例仍未建立的未知领域，并且很难被确定评鉴标准。他们无法融入类似的事物，因此传统的批评面临挑战。由于博物馆一方面扮演收藏有价值的史前古器物的角色，另一方面扮演呈现时代风尚的角色，策划人就陷入了困境。

Consider, for example, 16mm filmmaking in the 1960s. It was where the action was for anyone exploring moving images. Today, 16mm film is considered as romantic a medium as paint and canvas. The explorers rode the wave to the emerging medium of video in the 1970s. Video art has now become an accepted genre, and like film, artists working in video today are more concerned with using the medium rather than exploring it.

试想一下，像是20世纪60年代16mm电影。正是有了它，任何人都可以研究运动图像。现在，16mm电影被认为是与颜料画布同等浪漫的媒介。研究者追赶潮流的举动激发了20世纪70年代录像媒介的兴起。现在录像艺术十分普遍，像胶片，当今致力于录像艺术的艺术家更关心使用这个介质而不是开发它。

It’s noteworthy that to some, “true art” can only happen in stable media, while to others, it’s the opposite. Some artists have no interest in riding the wave and prefer to work in stable media, where they can concentrate quietly on what they wish to express. For other artists, once anything new and uncharted becomes decoded and codified, it’s time to move on. Stewart Brand once observed: “Creating in new media always has […] deeper possibility. You might be creating a medium itself. You might be creating creating.” [2]

很显然，对于一部分人而言，“真正的艺术”只能发生在固定的媒体，然而对于另一部分人恰恰相反。一些艺术家对于追赶潮流没有兴趣，宁愿致力于用固定的媒体集中精力的表达他们所希望传达的思想。对于另一些艺术家而言，一旦那些新的、未知的东西被人们破译并习惯，也就到了该继续向前推进的时刻。斯图尔特·布兰德曾经评论说：“新媒体的创新具有[…]极大可能性，你或许正在创造一个媒介。你或许正在创造创意。”[2]

“New” is a funny word in the arts. Just as there’s a difference between new, as in spring-loaded Nike heels and new, as in Prada going back to one-button suits, there’s a difference between art that no one has ever made (or seen) before and art that is cyclic in fashion. Things may not be so tidy, yet much of the New Art today, in the first sense, is directly or indirectly technology-based. It has taken several titles, all of which have slightly different connotations and histories. Computer Art or Digital Art stresses the use of processing in the work. Media Art and New Media Art ranges from a McLuhan-esque view that the medium affects the message, to an explicit interest in new media technologies. Art and Technology, Tech Art, or Techno-Art, is about the potential symbiosis between these two fields. Electronic Art may sound more general, but is most associated with Ars Electronica in Linz, Austria, the largest competition and festival of its kind. Cyber-Art became a fashionable term as cyber-anything became fashionable, almost always referring to the term Cyberspace from William Gibson’s 1984 novel Neuromancer (rather than its actual root, Cybernetics, coined by Norbert Wiener). Art and Science, or Science Art, is the oldest and least timely of these terms, harkening back to the world before the western Industrial Revolution, when they were perceived inseparable.

“新”对于艺术而言是个十分有趣的词汇。正如在每一种“新”都存在区别，就像耐克创新弹簧后掌的“新”，与普拉达重新回到单扣衣服的“新”具有不同意义一样，前所未有的艺术和时尚界不断轮回的艺术之间存在着差别。尽管从表面看来，许多现代新媒体艺术是直接或间接应用科技，但事情并非如此简单。它们拥有多个头衔，所有这些头衔的内涵和历史意义存在些许差别。计算机艺术或数字艺术强调了艺术作品处理过程的作用。媒体艺术和新媒体艺术则涵盖了从麦克卢恩关于媒介影响信息的观点到任何一种对新媒体明显的兴趣的方方面面。艺术和科技（Art and Technology），技术艺术（Tech Art），或是科技型艺术（Techno-Art）强调的是这两个领域之间结合的可能性。数字艺术（Electronic Art）似乎听起来更加普遍，但是也与澳大利亚林茨的“奥地利林兹阿斯电子中心”(Ars Electronica)相结合，是同业中最大规模的竞争和盛会。当基于电脑控制的东西流行起来时，电脑艺术艺术（Cyber-Art）便成为时尚术语，并常常谈到威廉·吉布森1984年小说《神经漫游者》（Neuromancer）中的电脑空间（而不是实际上存在的东西，如诺伯特·维纳的控制论）。艺术与科学（Art and Science），或者科学艺术（Science Art）是这些术语中最古老和最不时尚的一个，甚至回到在西方工业革命之前的世界，在那时它们就已是不能分离的。

Splitting hairs on whatever differences may exist between these terms misses the big picture. Regardless of what it’s called, all of the new tech-based art has much in common, differing significantly from traditional and “old” New Art. It is electronic and computer-based, and the Internet is either explicitly or implicitly involved (no tech-based artist doesn’t have email and Web access). Words most often associated with the new tech-based art are fast, cheap, unpredictable, incomplete, and unstable. The old rules and conventions, by definition, don’t apply.

如果在这些术语之间细枝末节的差别上纠缠不清，则会错失问题的重点。忽略其具体名称，所有新的科技艺术有许多共同之处，只是在传统和“旧”的新艺术之间存在显著差别。电子、电脑控制和互联网，明显地或暗含地存在于这些艺术中（没有一个科技艺术家不拥有电子邮箱和互联网路）。拥有新兴科技艺术的世界发展得迅速、低成本、不可预测、永不完善且变化多端。传统定义的规则和惯例都将不再适用。

The last generation of tech-based art required expensive equipment. Being a tech-based artist was often about gaining access to big computers, bright projectors, and specialized hardware. Those days are over. The power of a Silicon Graphics Reality Engine computer, the most powerful graphics computer just ten years ago, lives today in consumer toys like the Sony PlayStation Two. Video projectors once as big as refrigerators are now small enough to fit in briefcases. The cost of computer memory is cheap enough that audio and video tapes (not to mention film) are on the road to extinction.

上一代科技艺术要求昂贵的设备。成为一个电子艺术家必须常常使用庞大的电脑，明亮的投影仪和专业硬件。那样的时代已经过去了。硅谷图形实景引擎（Silicon Graphics Reality Engine）计算机，十年前最强大的图像计算机，如今在常人生活中就像索尼PS2一样普遍。录像放映机一度曾像冰箱那样大，现在却小的可以装进公文包。计算机存储的成本也便宜得让磁带和录像带（更别提电影胶片）开始逐渐消失。


This sudden cheapness, and access, to the tools for tech-based art grounds it in a sense of community and everyday life. “Local” has taken on an entirely new meaning in the context of the Internet, where “local communities” now mean any group with anything in common and email access. There is the sense that these tools are affecting all of us, not just the elite few.

突然出现的廉价且普及的工具在某种意义上为电子艺术在社会和日常生活奠定了基础。“本地”在因特网中已经具有全新的内涵，“当地团体”现在意味着任何一个具有共同之处且具有电子邮件联系的团体。可以认识到，这些工具正在影响我们所有人，而不仅仅是少数精英。

Because of the ubiquitousness of the technology, tech-based art has a particularly strong connection with the activist community. The tools of tech-based art are increasingly used by everyone, not just specialized craft people. The computer, the Internet, and the camcorder connect to everyday life in ways that the paintbrush, the chisel, and clay never did. They are “tools of the people,” with a high potential to be enabling mechanisms for political actions.

因为技术无处不在，科技艺术与行为主义团体联系尤其紧密。科技艺术的工具逐渐被每一个人使用，而不仅仅是专业的工艺制造者。计算机，因特网和便携式摄像机与日常生活密切结合，然而画笔、用于雕刻的凿子和粘土却从未达到如此地步。它们是“人类的工具”，能充分为政治活动创造机制。

Of course, not every artist working with these new tools would agree (thankfully), but anyone scanning the Web for tech-based artwork will find its connection with activism strong. Art and activism are seamlessly copresent in such notable sites as the pioneering web host Thing.net, the Eastern Euro-centric Nettime.org, and Rhizome.org, which receives 10 million hits per month.

当然，并非每一个使用这些新工具的艺术家都（感激地）认同，但是只要搜索网络上关于科技艺术作品都会发现其与行为主义有很多联系。艺术和行为主义紧密地被呈现在诸如先锋网站Thing.net、Eastern Euro-centric Nettime.org、Rhizome.org这样的平均每月有1亿点击量的知名网站上。

Nevertheless, it’s important to point out that from the perspective of the art world, tech-based art is only a minor part. Museum curators, gallery owners, collectors, and critics spend most of their time and resources on conventional art. Given how long it took photography to be accepted by the art world (almost a hundred years), and how long it took video and installation art to be accepted (ten to twenty years, depending on who’s counting), this is no surprise. If anything, today’s tech-based art, such as Net Art or Database Art, is being accepted as viable media for art faster than its precursors.

然而，必须指出的是从艺术的角度看，科技艺术只是其中的一小部分。博物馆的策划人、画廊主持人、收藏家和批评家仍用绝大部分时间和资源在传统艺术上。这并不奇怪，因为艺术领域认可摄影艺术时几乎花费了100年时间，据统计，录像和装置艺术也经过了10到20年时间才被接纳。如果有什么区别的话，现代的科技艺术，像新艺术或数据库艺术将比那些已经被艺术领域认可的媒介先驱更快地接受。

An artist today making Database Art may continue to make Database Art, and after many years, perhaps the artist will become a virtuoso in Database Art. But the wave will move on, and tomorrow’s New Art will be different from today’s New Art. That’s its nature.

一个正在做数据库艺术（Database Art）的艺术家可能继续做数据库艺术，很多年后，或许这个艺术家会变成一个数据库艺术（Database Art）的鉴赏家。但是潮流仍会继续向前推进，未来的新艺术将与现代的新艺术不同。这就是它的天性（规律）。

THE（RICH）GOLD MATRIX

（瑞奇的）黄金矩阵

Rich Gold died in his sleep at the age of 52 this past January. Among his many contributions to the understanding of tech-based art was a simple little two-by-two matrix that he enjoyed drawing. In this matrix Rich would write the words ART and SCIENCE left and right at the top (arbitrarily, we would assume), and DESIGN and ENGINEERING left and right at the bottom. The point he was making is that art and science share something in common, as do science and engineering, and that art and design share something else in common, as do science and engineering.

去年1月52岁的瑞奇·歌德（Rich Gold）在睡梦中去逝。他对理解科技艺术的有诸多贡献，其中就有一个他经常画的简单的2*2矩阵。在这个矩阵中，瑞奇会分别在上方左侧写下“艺术”，右侧写下“科学”（假设的话），在西方的左侧和右侧写下“设计”和“工程”。他想说明的是，正如科学和工程之间的关系一样，艺术和科学之间存在某种共同之处，或是说艺术和设计像科学与工程一样也在其他一些方面存在共同。  

This modest little matrix has proven immensely valuable in a variety of ways. As Rich was fond of pointing out, art and science account to patrons and peers, while design and engineering account to clients and users. He also noted that during the last great heyday of art and technology, the period in the late 1960s/early 1970s, for example the EAT movement, most of the collaborations were between artists and engineers, the “diagonals.”

恰当的小矩阵经多方证实是具有普遍价值的。正如瑞奇乐于指出，艺术和科学有赖于投资人和同行，而设计和工程有赖于顾客和使用者。他也说起之前艺术和技术的那段全盛时期，即20世纪60年代末到20世纪70年代初的这段时间，例如EAT运动，几乎绝大部分合作作品都是由艺术家和工程师联手创作的，即矩阵上的“对角线”。

An amusing exercise was to name the axes of the Gold Matrix. One particularly provocative example was to name the art/science axis “esoteric” and the design/engineering axis “applied,” then name the art/design axis “beauty” and the science/engineering axis “truth.”

关于命名这个黄金矩阵的中轴有一个有趣的测试。一个极具煽动性的模型是将艺术/科学中轴命名为“深奥（理论）”，将设计/工程中轴命名为“实用”，将艺术/设计中轴命名为“美”，将科学/工程中轴命名为“真实”。

The most fundamental contribution of the Gold matrix was simply acknowledging the difference between these fields, or as Rich preferred to call them “hats” (since we can all wear more than one). Simply put: art, science, design, and engineering are different, even though they all may have connections to technology. “Our job is to create language to speak to each other with respect,” Rich said.

黄金矩阵最根本的贡献在于承认了这些领域之间的不同，换言之就像瑞奇所说的“角色（职务）”（因为我们可以从事多项职务）。简单来说：艺术、科学、设计和工程是不同的，尽管他们都可能与技术有关。“我们的工作就是在不妨碍各领域的情况下，创造一个互相交流的语言。”瑞奇说。

The Business Connection

商业关系

Nolan Bushnell, the video game pioneer and founder of Atari Corporation, was credited as claiming that “the difference between Communism and Capitalism is trade shows.” I once asked Nolan what he meant by this. He explained that when a new business is getting ready for a trade show, 90% of the work happens in the final 10% of time. And that the deadline is absolute: one must work hard, keep their wits, be resourceful, and be ready in time, no matter what the financial, social, or personal cost. This is how things get done in tech-based business, he said.

诺兰·布什奈尔（Nolan Bushnell），视频游戏的先锋和雅达利公司（Atari Corporation）的创立者，因其主张“共产主义和资本主义之间的不同是商业展览”而受到赞誉。我曾经问诺兰这是什么意思，他解释到，当一个新的交易为商业展览做准备时，90%的工作发生在后期的10%。最终期限是固定的：必须不惜财务、社会或者劳动力成本，努力工作，保持人才，资源充足并及时做好准备。这就是科技产业事情运作的规律，他说。

This is also how things get done in tech-based art. At tech-based art exhibitions such as Ars Electronica and ISEA, artists often work through the nights before the opening, and their often-untested projects are completed just in time. At Siggraph, with its trade show and art exhibition side-by-side, the scurrying and scrambling of the participants is often identical.

这也是很多基于科技的艺术领域内事务的运作规律。在科技艺术展览上，诸如奥地利林兹阿斯电子中心（Ars Electronica）和国际电子艺术大会（ISEA），艺术家常在开幕式前彻夜工作，而且他们那些经常未经测验的项目也只是按时完工。计算机绘图专业组同时举办的商业展览和艺术展览中，所有参与者都同样地忙碌。

Today’s tech-based art has several connections with business that are unique and different from the old New Art. For one thing, the old New Art was heavily informed by the 1960s and the left-wing political movement, which was largely anti-large-corporation and anti-business. The anti-corporation sentiments may or may not have diminished (e.g., Apple and Ben & Jerry’s compared to Microsoft and MacDonalds), but the anti-business sentiments certainly have.

当代科技艺术和商业之间的关系同过去的新艺术有一致也有区别。首先，过去的新艺术受20世纪70年代和左翼政治运动的影响，很大程度上反对大型企业和反对商业。反企业的观点或许已经消失，也或许还存在（例如，苹果和本&杰瑞相比微软和麦当劳），但是反商业观点依旧存在。

Many young people involved in the new tech-based art want to be more business-like. This can be seen in the newest generation of art collectives such as the Trinity Session in Johannesburg and Torolab in Tijuana. To them, being more business-like is simply common sense. Also, many young people today had business experience in the dot-com era of start-ups.

很多进入科技艺术领域的年轻人希望更加商业化。这可以从新一代艺术收藏家中看出，像南非的三位一体（Trinity Session in Johannesburg）和提纳华的Torolab （Torolab in Tijuana）。对他们而言，更加商业化只是常识。此外，现在很多年轻人都拥有网站从业经历。

In addition and distinctively different from being business-like to earn money, many tech-based artists see the marketplace as an arena for social and cultural change. To them, the fine arts community is simply too elitist. Some see the design community as being just as creative but more effective for change by engaging mass culture through the marketplace. “When it comes to affecting pop culture, art is rarified while design is muscular,” exclaims Brenda Laurel. “Art is exalted and design is just the stuff you buy,” agrees JC Herz. Others, like the anonymous group RTMArk, are less commercial and more radical, engaging in business-like practices as an efficient means for cultural change.

很多科技艺术家将市场视为社会和文化变迁的舞台而不仅仅是商业化的目的——赚钱。对他们来说，好的艺术团体就是特别优秀的。

The Education Connection

教育关系

Traditionally, art and education use different means, even if to achieved the same ends. I once wrote that the difference between teachers and artists is that teachers strove for “impact through clarity” while artists shot for “clarity through impact.” [3]

传统意义上说，即使二者殊途同归，艺术和教育仍具有不同含义。我曾经写道，教师和艺术家之间的区别就是教师通过使人明理的过程而影响他人，而艺术家试图通过影响力而让人们更加清楚。

This difference seemed amplified a decade ago, when much of the first-wave educational technology was based on passive rote-style learning. “Educational Multimedia” meant flowcharts and multiple-choice programs, about memorizing rather than provoking and stimulating the mind.

十年前，被动地死记硬背式学习产生出第一波（第一代）教育方法时，这个区别似乎更加明显。“教育多媒体”意味着程序图和多选项的程序，关于记忆而不是刺激大脑。

Something has changed since then, and more connections exist now between the tech-based arts community and the livelier segments of the education community, particularly with the Constructionist community. Constructionism was coined by Seymour Papert, co-founder (with Marvin Minsky) of MIT’s Artificial Intelligence Laboratory and inventor of the famous LOGO programming language for children. It simply means that true learning takes place when we are actively engaged in constructing rather than passively consuming information. Constructionism emerged from the theories of Swiss developmental psychologist Jean Piaget, active from the 1920s until his death in 1980. (Constructivism, the influential art movement that migrated from Russia to Europe in the 1920s, is different from Constructionism, though not unconnectable, especially since Piaget used both terms.) The Constructionist community has embraced new technologies as they have become cheap and ubiquitous. For example, the Boston Computer Museum and the MIT Media Lab established a “Computer Clubhouse” based on Constructionist principles in 1993. Today there are over 75 Computer Clubhouses around the world.

从那以后很多事情发生了改变，现在科技艺术机构和教育部门之间，尤其是和结构主义者机构之间的联系更加密切了。结构主义是由西蒙·派珀特（Seymour Papert）提出的，他是MIT的人工智能实验室的创办人之一（与马文·明斯克Marvin Minsky共同创办）和著名儿童LOGO语言之父。这说明真正的学习只发生在我们主动地构建而非被动消耗信息的过程中。结构主义来自于瑞士发展心理学家吉恩·皮亚杰（Jean Piaget）的理论，吉恩活跃于20世纪20年代直到20世纪80年代逝世。（构成主义，20世纪20年代源自俄罗斯并蔓延到欧洲的艺术运动，尽管与结构主义有一定关联，但它们仍有差别，尤其是自从皮亚杰同时使用这了两个术语。）由于新技术的普遍以及成本的下降，结构主义机构已经涵盖了一些新技术内容。例如，波士顿计算机博物馆和MIT媒体实验室在1993年基于结构主义原则建立了一个“计算机俱乐部”。现在，全世界已经有75个计算机俱乐部。

For artists working with the new technologies, Constructionism is interesting. It has many of the same properties as the new tech-based art: embracing cheap technology, making things quickly, and being exploratory by nature. And a common interest exists in exploring emergent systems, where rules are established but not the outcomes. Understanding emergence develops insights into such complex systems as ecology, the Internet, and human cognition. Children learning with Logo and artists hacking on the Web share this fascination. It’s unstable, surprising, and fun. Intellectually, it puts Cybernetics back into Cyber-Art.

由于艺术家使用新技术创作，结构主义变得有趣起来。有很多与当代科技艺术相同的特征：包含低成本的技术，加速事情进程，自主的探索。在探索新系统，建立规则却不实现结果的过程中存在一个共同的利益。这个过程出现的理解，可以开发人类对复杂系统的洞察力，如生态学、因特网和人类认知系统等。

Constructionism and emergence also connect science and art emotionally. Says Viewpoints Research Institute founder Alan Kay, “Science is like art. It’s like the thing that wakes you up and shows you a different perspective on important things.” [4]

结构主义和及其出现也与科学和艺术有主观关联。观点研究所（Viewpoints Research Institute）创始人艾伦·凯（Alan Kay）说，“科学像是艺术。它像是那种让你茅塞顿开并为你提供对重要事物的全新观点。”

The Research Connection
研究关系

Several years ago, as a Member of the Research Staff at Interval Research, with a business card which read “arts and media projects,” I noted six reasons why art projects in a research lab have significant value to the research lab [5]:

几年前，作为（Interval Research）研究组的成员之一，进行名为“艺术和媒体作品”的课题，我注意到研究实验室里的艺术作品对研究实验室具有重大意义的六项原因：

1) art projects provide stimulation and provocation to our research community, adding meaning, entertainment, and emotional resonance to our work;
2) these projects often act as magnets to bring together unconventional combinations of skills and talents;
3) they can provide content to test tools (and even tools to test content);
4) some of these projects are means for collecting data about human behavior, both through explicit query as well as through observation;
5) these projects may lead researchers down unforeseen paths and result in new discoveries and intellectual property;
6) external deadlines and public scrutiny serve as forcing functions for decision making, rigor, and completion.
They keep us street-smart. “Putting on a show” is a test bed for new ideas, a simulation of the real world.

1）艺术作品为研究团队提供了灵感，为我们的工作增添意义、娱乐和情感上的共鸣；
2）这些作品常常作为诱因引发技术和才能之间的非传统结合；
3）它们可以为测试工具提供内容（甚至是为内容提供测试工具）；
4）这些作品中部分是收集人类行为数据的方法，通过直接的询问和观察的方式进行；
5）这些作品可能会使研究者陷入无法预料的领域并最终新发明和知识产权；
6）外部的最终期限和公共的详细审查都是激励决策、困境以及最终完成的机制。

他们使我们很聪明。“展览（装病？）”是新想法的一个试验台，是真实世界的模拟。

If one swaps the words “art” and “research,” the same reasons are valid for why tech-based research has value in arts centers.

如果交换“艺术”和“研究”两个词，同样可以明白为什么科技研究在艺术中心的地位十分重要。

Another connection has brought together tech-based art and research: the proof of concept. Traditionally, artists make exhibits and researchers write papers. But much of the new tech-based art today is incomplete, unstable and temporary, while much of research, particularly if it’s media-related, must be experienced as much as described.

科技艺术和研究之间的另一个关系：概念的证明。传统意义上，艺术家做展览而研究者写论文。但是当代很多当代科技艺术是未完结的，不稳定的，而很多研究，尤其是媒体相关的研究也如同论述中那样需要经过反复验证。

The convergence comes from opposite poles. In research labs, proofs of concept make physical something otherwise left to words alone. At places like the MIT Media Lab “the demo” is the currency for success, often in terms of funding as well as coolness among peers. In the arts, proofs of concept represent the end of an investigation that, for many tech-based artists, is enough. Any further work would be considered productization, not as interesting as exploring something else. This convergence helps to blur the line between artist and researcher.

相反属性的事物之间会呈现集中趋势。在实验室，概念的证明就是使物理的东西变成只字片语的结论，像在MIT媒体实验室“初样”就是当下的成功，常是资金和同业人士冷静思考下的结果。在艺术领域，证明概念就是呈现出某个发明的结果，这对于多数科技艺术家而言已经足够。人们会认为任何更深层次的研究是产品化，不再像探究事情那般有趣。这种集中趋势也模糊了艺术家和研究者之间的界限。

 
Exemplars of support      赞助机构案例                                                               


Tech-based art is largely supported by two different kinds of institutions: art centers with an interest in new technology and research labs with an interest in art. Some are university based. Some are corporate based. Some are government funded. And because of the ubiquitousness of the technology, many tech-based artists are happy to exist entirely outside of any institutional environment. Here is a survey of my exemplars, including ones from different but relevant fields. Breadth was the highest priority.

科技艺术常是由两种机构支持赞助的：关注新技术的艺术中心和关注艺术的实验研究室。其中一些是具有大学机构。一些是企业机构，一些是政府建立的。由于技术普及，很多科技艺术家愿意完全脱离任何制度环境下独立存在。这里有一项我的样本调查，包括一些互不相同但却相关的领域。样本幅度是优先标准的。

This survey is despairingly First World. This is, for now, where most of the action is. Things will change as the tools become cheaper and Internet access widens. Stay tuned to the margins: newer, bolder exemplars will emerge from there.

这项调查只限于第一世界。这项活动也是针对当下的调查。一旦工具变得廉价，因特网的普及范围变得更加广阔，事情就会发生变化。请静心等待来自未知领域的消息：新近的、更具胆识的案例将从那里出现。

MIT Media Labs and CAVS-Justifying Art

麻省理工大学媒体实验室和前卫视觉研究中心-关于艺术的论证

To many, the MIT Media Lab has become the archetype by which all research labs with an art presence are compared. This hasn’t always been the case.

对很多人而言，麻省理工媒体实验室已经变成众多包含艺术的科学研究实验室的原型。但事情并非总是如此。

In 1980, plans were underway for the Media Lab under its original name, the Arts and Media Technology Facility, with the goal of putting under one roof all of the relevant MIT programs, including the Center for Advanced Visual Studies (CAVS). The CAVS was MIT’s art program, founded by Gyorgy Kepes in 1972. During the planning process, the CAVS community abruptly pulled out and wished to maintain its own independence. The facility’s name was changed to the Media Lab (and the old name resurfaced in Karlsruhe, not by coincidence).

1980年，正在筹备中的媒体实验室仍使用其最初的名字：艺术和媒体技术空间，试图将所有麻省理工的艺术学习计划都归属于同一类目下，包括前卫视觉研究中心。前卫视觉研究中心是麻省理工的艺术类学习计划，由乔治·凯布斯在1972年创办。在计划过程中，前卫视觉研究中心团体突然脱离其中，并希望继续保持其独立性。空间的名字改为媒体实验室（旧名字在卡尔斯鲁尔重新出现，但并非偶然。）

The result fractured the arts community at MIT and was particularly significant because it was microcosmic of what was occurring everywhere else in the US. On the one side of campus was a sparkling new, corporate funded building full of interesting technological activity. On the other side of campus was a smaller, poorly funded group of students and Fellows determined to make art. The situation persisted well into the 1990s and is still emblematic of differences in values today.

这样的结果导致麻省理工的艺术机构产生了重大分裂，因为它是美国其他地区变化的缩影。学校里一边是拥有趣味科技活动的新立共同机构，另一边是由那些致力于艺术的学生和同事共同筹建的狭小空间。这种形势在20世纪90年代一直维持得很好，仍是当代价值多元化的标志。

Art has increasingly been adopted at the Media Lab for several reasons. For one thing, faculty and students were submitting their work, both art and research, to well-known art venues such as Ars Electronica and the Siggraph Artshow, where they gained visibility. Another reason is simply that the new tech-based art has become itself more visible, and accepted, to both the general public and to the Media Lab’s sponsors. Perhaps most importantly, everyone involved is better at articulating and justifying why art at a place like the Media Lab has value.

媒体实验室之所以逐步融入艺术元素有以下原因。首先，全体教员和学生将他们艺术和研究的工作递交到著名艺术会议，像奥地利林兹阿斯电子中心（Ars Electronica）和计算机绘图艺术展（Siggraph Artshow），在那里他们可以开拓知名度。另一方面是因为，对于公众和媒体实验室的赞助方而言，当代科技艺术自身开始变得更引人注目，也逐渐受到更广泛的关注。或许更重要的原因是，这个领域内的每个人都能很清楚表达和论述为什么当艺术在媒体实验室这种地方是有价值的。

For example, Sociable Media Program Director Judith Donath connects art to problem solving: “If you look at everything as problem solving, then art and design are on a continuum and distinguished by what the problem is. If you don’t, then art and design are completely different.”

例如，社会媒体研究（Sociable Media Program）总监朱迪思·当娜斯（Judith Donath）将艺术与解决问题想结合：“如果你将所有事情视为事情的解决之道，那么艺术和设计就处于某个连续统一体中，并根据问题的不同而有所区分。如果你不这么认为，那么艺术和设计就是完全不同的事务。”

Media Lab co-founder Nicholas Negroponte masterfully connects creative, unfettered research to problemsolving value for corporate sponsors. He often tells a story to potential sponsors about how magicians developing a Las Vegas show act impacted a Japanese corporation in need of help with their baby seats for cars. The magicians were building a giant, instrumented chair with several Media Lab faculty and students - it was creative, open-ended, and fun. One day, several sponsors from a large Japanese corporation were visiting the Lab and saw the chair. “This answers our question,” one of them said. Their corporation was a major manufacturer of baby chairs for automobiles, and they were facing the new problem of airbags being tragically dangerous for babies oriented in a particular direction. By seeing the magicians’ chair, they realized that they could use inexpensive sensors in the baby chairs to determine the orientation of the baby, which could solve their problem. The point, Nicholas continues, is that the Media Lab would never work on an external project such as improving baby chairs, and the Japanese corporation would never fund magicians building a Las Vegas act.

媒体实验室的共同创始人尼古拉斯·尼葛洛庞帝（Nicholas Negroponte）很巧妙地将创造性的研究与赞助者所要解决的问题相关联。他常对潜在赞助商讲述一个魔术师在拉斯维加斯的表演如何影响了一个需要解决汽车婴儿座位的日本公司的故事。魔术师与媒体实验室的教员和学生一起建造了一个庞大的机械椅，这个椅子很有创造性，并且可调整、富有趣味性。某天，一家大型日本企业的一些赞助商参观实验室并看到了那个椅子。“这就是我们问题的答案。”他们其中一人说。他们企业是为企业制造婴儿椅的一家大型厂商，正面临一个新问题：安全气囊固定于一个方向是对婴儿极具危险性。看到魔术师的椅子后，他们意识到可以在婴儿椅内放入廉价的传感器以确定婴儿的方向，这样就能解决问题。问题的关键是，尼古拉斯继续说到，如果媒体实验室从未研究类似改进婴儿椅这种实用的装置，那么日本企业可能永远不会投资魔术师举行拉斯维加斯的活动。

The Media Lab’s new satellite labs in other countries, such as the Media Lab Europe in Dublin, and the Media Lab Asia in various cities in India, are largely government funded. While corporate sponsors may require explicit justification for art making with their support, governments do not, since part of the government’s responsibility is to support culture and the arts.

位于其他国家的媒体实验室的新分支实验室，例如位于都柏林的欧洲媒体实验室，位于印度几个城市里的亚洲媒体实验室拥有强大的政府资金支持。尽管一些联合赞助者可能要求准确测算在他们支持下艺术的产出状况，但政府不会如此，因为政府有责任支持文化和艺术的发展。

Similarly, a new generation of patrons interested in tech-based art is emerging that didn’t exist several years earlier. If more arts patrons fund the Media Lab, more arts activity will result.

同样的，新一代对科技艺术有兴趣的赞助者正逐渐增多，这样的状况在几年前还是一片空白。如果更多艺术赞助者资助媒体实验室，那么将会出现更多的艺术活动。

A new initiative has begun at the Media Lab to build a “Center for Art and Invention,” particularly noteworthy because of its integration of the learning and education community there. As summarized by Mitch Resnick, Director of the Media Lab’s Learning Group: “We are creating and designing for creating and designing.”

媒体实验室已经启动一个新的提案，建立一个“艺术与发明中心”，它作为学习和教育的综合机构而引人注目。媒体实验室学习小组主任米奇·雷斯尼克（Mitch Resnick）总结到，“我们正在创造和设计‘创造’与‘设计’本身。”

Meanwhile, the CAVS is still alive at MIT, but with an ambiguous existence and an unresolved fate.

同时，麻省理工的前卫视觉研究中心仍然存在，但其角色模糊且前途不明。

Xerox PARC, Interval Research, and Intel-Art for knowledge ,art for visibility

施乐复帕洛阿尔托研究中心，英特威尔研究公司，和知识性英特尔——艺术与声誉

In the 1990s, Xerox PARC and Interval Research Corporation, long-term research labs a stone’s throw from each other in Palo Alto, both supported small but lively arts programs. At the time, these were unique experiments rivaled only by the ATR Art and Technology Project in Nara, Japan. Both the PARC and Interval programs ended by the end of the decade as PARC morphed and Interval closed, and the niche for such support is currently filled by Intel Corporation, almost exclusively. In all cases, the justification was based largely on the value of art in research and the value of art for public visibility.

在20世纪90年代，施乐复帕洛阿尔托研究中心，英特威尔研究公司，这两个在帕洛阿图酒店(Palo Alto)相距一石之遥的长期研究实验室，都支持小型、富有获利的艺术项目。在那个时候唯一的实验竞争来自于日本奈良的通信技术研究所（ATR）的艺术与技术项目。当帕洛阿尔托转型，英特威尔关闭后，帕洛阿尔托研究中心和英特威尔公司的项目就结束了，现在是由英特尔公司提供几乎是独家的资助。在所有的案例中，主要是为了实现研究中艺术的价值以及公共可见性的艺术价值。

The PARC-in-the-70s story is now legend: virtually all of the elements for the Macintosh computer and for Microsoft Windows were invented there during the 1970s, but Xerox, the black and white paper copying company, fumbled by not appreciating its value. It was successful in assembling a creative and diverse research community but unsuccessful in protecting or marketing its intellectual property.

70年代的帕洛阿尔托中心仍是当今的传奇：事实上，20世纪70年代麦金托什机和微软视窗的所有元素都诞生于这个中心，但是施乐复，黑白影印机公司因不重视其价值而错失机会。它在集合一个创造性且多变的研究机构上是成功的，但是在保护和营销其知识产权方面是失败的。

Interval was founded, with a $100 million investment from Paul Allen, on principles similar to PARC of the 1970s, such as building a creative and diverse research community, but with a commitment to identify, protect, and market its IP. With an adopted motto by Interval researcher Pierre Saint Hilaire, “We have to do it while it still seems crazy”, a small but significant art presence was considered important from the beginning. David Liddle, Interval’s Founding Director, was fond of referring to Interval artists as “free-range artists,” seamlessly mixing with the rest of the research community. Interval also supported arts-related academic programs such as NYU’s Interactive Telecommunications Program (ITP) and the Royal College of Art’s Computer-Related Design (CRD) Department, which provided periodic workshops and summer interns. Several patents resulted from the arts activity.

保罗·艾伦（Paul Allen）用1亿美元投资建成英特威尔，其运营原则与20世纪70年代的帕洛阿尔托中心相似，例如建立一个创造性的多变的研究机构，但必须承担起鉴定、保护和营销其知识产权的义务。正如英特威尔研究员皮埃尔圣伊莱尔（Pierre Saint Hilaire）的名言，“我们必须趁它还是一件疯狂的事情时着手”，应从一开始就把小规模的重要艺术视为重大事情。大卫·里德（David Liddle），英特威尔的创始总监，喜欢把英特威尔的艺术家称为“自由放养的艺术家”，与其他研究机构之间没有区隔。英特威尔也资助艺术相关的学术项目，如纽约大学互动通信项目（ITP）和英国皇家艺术学院电脑相关设计（CRD），这些项目提供定期研讨会和暑期实习。一些专利品正是出自于这些艺术活动。

During the same period, Rich Gold initiated a PARC Artist-In-Residence (PAIR) program. Outside artists were paired with researchers, under the assumption that both parties would do their work but that a valuable symbiosis would occur. Unlike at Interval, where the artists were employed and usually engaged in other activity, PARC artists remained independent and received stipends. And while PARC artists owned the work they produced, Interval owned everything produced by Interval artists. Both labs published and patented, and Interval developed a legendary reputation for being over-secretive.

在同一时期，瑞奇·歌德发起了一个帕洛阿尔托艺术家进驻（PAIR）项目。外部艺术家将与研究员进行配对，并假设双方各自工作，但彼此之间将会产生某种有价值的互利合作关系。英特威尔的艺术家是雇佣制度，并常常参与其他活动，与他们不同，帕洛阿尔托的艺术家保持独立性并接受固定薪金。帕洛阿尔托中心艺术家拥有自己所创造的作品，而