11th International Symposium on Electronic Art

Nagoya, Japan, 28th -30th October, 2002

Reviewed by Michael Punt
University of Wales College, Newport

mpunt@easynet.co.uk

Situated between the glamour of Tokyo to the north and beauty of Kyoto to the south, Nagoya, a city not without its own fascinations and cultural merit, is not exactly on the Kleenex trail. Consequently the proposal to hold the 11th ISEA there must have seemed hugely attractive. Not only would there be an influx of international opinion formers to the city - putting it more firmly on the cultural map - but many of the 'local' artists and collectives working in the field of electronic art would find themselves with an international audience. The ISEA committee, likewise, must have been delighted that their initiative to shift the weight of the emphasis away from North America and Europe was a possibility. The more so, I imagine since Nagoya was not a high profile capital, and the venue seemed perfect: an attractive port that had been redeveloped as a recreational area with huge disused buildings, and a conference venue which was adjacent to a miniature Coney Island - the perfect context for the electronic arts. What seemed like a match made in the stars, sadly lacked that necessary catalyst to draw from each partner that 'value added' that would have made ISEA 2002 something as memorable as the meetings in Montreal or Chicago.

For all the energy of the organising committee and the generosity of the hosts there were basic structural failures. The conference rooms were adequately equipped but without raked seats and poorly managed to the extent that it was some time before presentational styles could be adapted to the venue so that speakers could be both seen and heard. The exhibitions suffered similarly since, although on paper it must have seemed that the spaces were exciting and offered infinite possibility, as it worked out most works were hugely compromised by leaking noise from other pieces in the show. Some artists, it seems, found on arrival that the space that they had expected had been significantly reduced, others were no doubt dismayed to find that their considered sound poems were overwhelmed by the beat of someone else's vision of Eden. What seemed to be the most adequately served were the performances: huge spaces, lots of sound equipment (hi-jacked from the local disco culture) and well wrapped up audiences happy to come from the cold dockside. Certainly most that I saw did not meet modest expectations, being at best reiterative and often merely unreconstructed stylisation of existing and historic works substituting intellectual rigour with effect and a borrowed Bohemian style.

No doubt some of the papers at the symposium also fell to the same criticism. The number of blank pages in the proceedings (signifying that the presenter was unable to provide 2000 words by a reasonable, and unusually flexible, deadline) is a public testament open to its own interpretation. But this will be small consolation to the many artists and scholars who wanted to attend ISEA because they had something to say or some research to share and whose papers were refused. They will no doubt also be irritated to learn that some presenters seemed to be in three or four sessions and others failed to turn up. As for the art installations, where they were legible without undue interference most were efficient, although there was little sign of invention. Some broke down and were diligently repaired, while others were not, leaving the audience to adjourn to the bookshops and the miniature Coney Island confused about all the works in the show. This must be a huge disappointment to artists and participants (accepted and rejected), as it was to those of us who endured very long flights to see and experience less than we left behind.

While this review deals with a general malaise there were also many exceptions, and no doubt other reviewers for Leonardo Digital Reviews will identify these by name, but here it is enough to say that there were papers of extraordinary intelligence beauty and provocation; there were artworks that in other circumstances, away from the industrial funk and dereliction, would have ranked as major interventions in the state of electronic art; there were performances that in other circumstances would have been richer. The committee for 2004 is, I know, working very hard to ensure that many of the mistakes of the past are not revisited, and are determined that 2004 will be a professional landmark occasion in the practice and criticism of electronic art.

The vital ingredient that seemed to account for much that was unsatisfactory in ISEA 2002 was that the two partners, the backers and the artists, lost sight of the object of the exercise and as a consequence a few artists and presenters were cynically complicit. In an accountancy culture management has been collapsed into measuring: everything has cost but no value. Politically no doubt ISEA 2002 was a success. It was mounted in Japan at costs that probably satisfied the tourist board, and appeared to give value for money elsewhere, but it produced little of lasting value at a time when some are suggesting we are at a moment of crisis in the field of electronic arts. Outside the exhibitions in the fun fair all the machines worked, gave delight and occasionally thrilled. Hollywood and the games industry has absorbed what is left of performance and interactivity, and in the face of such dynamic colonisation I suspect that there are not many more opportunities for ISEA to make mistakes with its high profile meetings. As a consequence those of us who have a commitment to the field of art and science should give it our fullest creative and intellectual energies, not just in supporting the initiatives as they emerge, but by ensuring that artists, artworks and academics make their contribution to politics and accountancy by remaining "above the battle" and keeping our eye on value.