In 1973, the art critic Jacques Lonchampt, whiletraveling in Romania, visited my studio in Bucharest. I waspreparing works for the Sigma 9 Festival in Bordeaux [1] (Fig.1). We spoke at length about modern art. Before leaving, hesaid: You should get in touch with Leonardo magazine; theyspecialize in topics relating to art and science, and went onto give me a contact name: Frank Malina. He was unaware that,in Romania, any contact whatsoever with the West, unless pre-viously authorized and supervised by the Secret Service, wasregarded with great suspicion. The regime was obsessed withcases of foreign espionage and enemies of the people.

By Soviet decree, all art as it had been known to date hadcome to a halt by 1948. It was to be replaced by socialist real-ism, a gross propagandistic/realistic art form uncontaminatedby capitalist degenerate art that could be grasped by the en-tire working class and the political goal of which was to cre-ate a new type of man and reeducate all others. The massesdid the thinking; the individual was to follow. Many books thathad been published before the war were confiscated andbanned. Citizens had personal dossiers that gave high gradesto those with good social origins, that is, those trusted by the

regime, and low grades to everyoneelse. This was the standard for judg-ing every aspect of life.

It happened that my dossier fellinto the bad category.

After high school I studied elec-tronics. While working toward mydegree, however, I was also makingmy first attempts at oil painting. Al-though I ended up in the researchlab of a semiconductor factory, thehighest position I could aspire togiven my unfavorable dossier, it soon became clear to me thatunder such conditions, electronics could not become a ful-filling creative profession. By 1961, art, with its superior pos-sibilities of creative freedom, had taken over my life. Whilecontinuing to make a living in electronics, I began to investmost of my time and energy in painting and the study of arthistory, eventually combining natural aptitudes for both artand science.

Although my great love has always remained plane geome-try, I became fluent in many other disciplines. Within each ofthem is a special kind of beauty; problems can be solved in el-egant ways that leave the practitioner with a sense of wonderrelated to nothing concrete per se, simply wonder itself, or thesense of gratuitousness that can be found only in the arts. More-over, most of the operations occur in the independent, im-material space in which thinking takes place.

2006 ISAST LEONARDO, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 402409, 2006 403

A R T I S T S A R T I C L E

An Artists Journey in Art and Science: From behind the Iron Curtain to Present-Day America

Sherban Epur

Sherban Epur (digital artist, painter), 6011 Broadway, 5L, Woodside, NY 11377, U.S.A. E-mail: . Web: .

A B S T R A C T

The artist traces his work fromits beginnings behind the IronCurtain in 1967, when cybernet-ics became the driving force ofhis creative process, to thepresent day. Given the scarcityof information and the absenceof access to Western experi-mental work in Romania, thisstep was the unlikely result of apurely personal train of thought.He went on to lecture and writeextensively to promote cyber-netics and explain his approachto art, which was highly uncon-ventional in the context of thetimes. Two directions emergedand remain the focus of his worktoday: the S-Band, an interactiveart machine, and the Meta-Phorm, a behavioral geometryarticulated by cyberneticmechanisms.

Article Frontispiece. Cybernetic Ceremony in Velvet Black (Sigg06-BDA), inkjet, various sizes from 8.5 11 in to 125 160 in, 21.5 28 cm to 315 405 cm, 2006. ( Sherban Epur)

Fig. 1. Fine Arts and Cybernetics, installation with Meta-Phorms, mixed media, various sizes; Sigma9 Festival, Bordeaux, France, 1973; the 3rd fine Art Competition, Platres, Cyprus, 1973; the New Gallery, Bucharest, Romania, 1974. ( Sherban Epur) Artists collection.

I was privileged to be encouraged atthe start by C.C. Tica Constantinescuand Henri Togo Catargi, two great Ro-manian painters in the entourage of Ma-tisse, Pallady, Fujita and Dufy.

In 1962, while still in the research lab, I had the opportunity to observescreens displaying output curves whilemeasuring electronic devices. The elec-tronic spot, like a bright star, was draw-ing lively, elegant curves on the darknessof the screen. It was then that I conceivedof drawing my own forms with digital devices.

Two years later, I resigned my positionand went to paint full time in the AppleMeadow Village at the foothills of theCarpathian Mountains, a place of inde-scribable beauty. The paintings I pro-duced apparently had some merit, forthey gained me admission to the Allianceof Fine Artists.

It soon became clear to me, however,that art must reflect vast new areas ofknowledge and experience. The worldhad already entered the era of mass com-munications, the moon had been visitedand robots and computers were in theworks.

A short-lived period of liberalizationstarting in 1966 introduced a stream ofnew books and information to the un-derground. For the first time we had access to books containing the works ofgreat contemporary masters. On becom-ing initiated into developments in art

ophy, aesthetics and computer graphics,Mihai Nadin [3]; in music, Aurel Stroeand Lucian Metzianu. Cybernetics, in-formation theory, structuralism, mathe-matical games, etc. became current topicsin various intellectual milieus. In the fine-arts world, otherwise characterized bytraditional oil painting and works strait-jacketed by socialist propaganda, an ex-ception was the flourishing center ofTimisoara, where artists such as StefanBertalan, Roman Cotosman, ConstantinFlondor, Paul Neagu and Diet Sayler, notto mention, in Bucharest, Ion Bitzan, An-drei Cadere, Ion Grigorescu, Mihai Oloszand Illie Pavel, were engaged in inno-vative experiments in constructivism,concrete art, structuralism, land art, con-ceptualism, serialism and kinetic art. Adina Caloenescu dedicated herself to cybernetics.

In 1966 I entered a period of multidis-ciplinary studies in many areas appar-ently unrelated to art [422]: informationtheory, cybernetics, structuralism andconstructivism as an unfolding mathe-matical game. I was fascinated by dy-namic natural processes [23]. Suchprocesses convey information and involveactions, reactions, changes of state andbehaviors. In short, I had unwittinglystumbled upon cybernetics and felt com-pelled to make it the driving force of mycreative process.

From the start, I made a distinction between computer art and cybernetic art. It seemed to me that the first type ofart was completely computer dependent,

and science in the free world, a small underground of individuals immediatelystarted writing, promoting and experi-menting in their fields of expertise.These included, in mathematics, G. Moi-sil, Solomon Marcus and their students;in electronics, Edmond Nicolau [2]; inliterature, Toma Pavel and Adrian Rogoz;in philosophy, Victor Mashek; in philos-

404 Epur, An Artists Journey in Art and Science

Fig. 2. Tree, ink, 11 17,28 43 cm, 1974. ( Sherban Epur) A Meta-Phorm resultingfrom the interaction of a random flux of stimuliand a generic curve.Artists collection.

Fig. 3. Personae (db21), gouache, 20 26 in, 50 65 cm, 1983. ( Sherban Epur) Meta-Phorms; interactions of a random flux of stimuli with a domain with human shape using three different methods. Artists collection.

whereas the second, being more a way of looking at how things relate to eachother, was subject to experimentation ina variety of media and with various tools.No longer machine dependent, my imag-ination could invent all sorts of graphicscenarios to be expressed in mathemati-cal statements. Mathematical statements,however (the Pythagorean theorem, forexample), are, by their very nature, si-multaneously computer free and com-puter compliant. With this strategy I wasable to pursue experiments even whenspecialized tools were not available. Whenneeded, my mind was the computer andmy hand the plotter (Fig. 2).

Concurrently, I began to lecture andwrite at every opportunity to promote cy-bernetics and explain these new experi-ments in art so at odds with the contextof the period. I never doubted that com-puter art represented a legitimate andunexplored territory with a brilliant fu-ture.

By the end of 1967, two directions hademerged; these remain the chief focus ofmy work to this day: the S-Band and theMeta-Phorm.

Both types of work were shown in sev-eral venues [2429] between 1969 and1978. At the Sigma 9 Contact II in Bor-

method I had already developed, relyingon code-memorized thinking, which hadalready proven to be conveniently fastand efficient, albeit highly personal.

The decades 19802000 may be fairlydescribed by the word seclusion. Eventu-ally, I started to show my work again invenues dedicated to digital art. The NewYork Digital Salon, in particular, proved avery welcoming art family as early as 1995.

THE S-BANDThe S-Band (Sherbans Band) is a long,bidimensional material structure, carry-ing colored stripes on either of its sidesand with random geometrical parame-ters (Fig. 4). When folded alongsidecreased edges, the band reconfigures 12visual variables, three of geometry andnine of color. In the end the S-Band is atwo- and/or three-dimensional paintedsculpture. The result is a large family ofnonsubjective [31] art alternatives. Theunderlying idea is that the latest configu-ration obtained stimulates the viewerscuriosity and encourages the viewer tofind a new one. I view this as an interac-tive situation. The purpose of the bandis not to imitate nature, as origami does,but to produce nonsubjective, enjoyableart forms. Its ability to reconfigure bothgeometrical and visual attributes ensuresits independent identity. S-Bands exist inthree subsequent generations of forms:those produced manually (Fig. 5); com-puter explored (Fig. 6); and combinedin two and three dimensions (Fig. 7). Thecomputer generation lends itself to theuse of the Birckhoff formula [32], whichaids in the optimization of aesthetic qual-ity by adjusting the complexity.

THE META-PHORMThe Meta-Phorm (derived from meta +metaphor + form) is intended to be the vi-sual appearance of an abstract creative

deaux, France (1973), I would have hadan ideal opportunity to meet firsthandsome of the most influential artists andanimators in the field of computer art,such as Georges Charbonnier, AbrahamMoles, Herbert Franke, Herve Huitric,Peter Kreiss, Kenneth Knowlton, VeraMolnar, Manfred Mohr and Georg Nees(I would get in touch with the latter in1995 [30]). However, as on all other suchoccasions, I was denied a passport.

Beginning in 1976, Romania slowly en-tered one of its darkest periods, a time in which terror, poverty and draconianrestrictions obtained. Of course, my ex-periments ceased even to be tolerated,and I was completely marginalized. As anartist couple, my wife, Letitzia Bucur, andI faced a dilemma: We had either to aban-don art or attempt to safeguard our ca-reers. In 1977 we decided to emigrate tothe U.S.A. It was not until 1980 that wesucceeded, after many harrowing devel-opments, in acquiring passports and leav-ing for New York. We left behind most of our artwork. We did not experiencethe cultural shock we had been warnedabout, but the problems of making a liv-ing while continuing to paint were almostoverwhelming.

In 1985 I made the Macintosh my toolof choice. It was only in 20002005, how-ever, that the technologies resulting infast computers, scanners, digital cameras,camcorders, professional printers, CDs,DVDs, archival papers and inks, and con-sistent color calibration came on-line asthe affordable realities I had anticipatedsince the late 1960s. In the meantime, I had continued to prepare computer-compliant projects to have ready againstthe day when realizing them would be-come possible (Fig. 3).

Of course I ventured into program-ming, especially Lingo and Action Script.However, weighing the time required for learning and becoming fluent in thecodes against my expectations and the re-sults obtained, I decided to stick with the

Epur, An Artists Journey in Art and Science 405

Fig. 4. S-Band, generic master with vertical stripes, hand-printed paper, 4 27 in, 10 70cm,1968. ( Sherban Epur) Artists collection.

Fig. 6. S-Band (sb2605a2Bh16), 6.5 7.5 in,16.5 19 cm, and larger sizes, inkjet, 2005;second-generation computer experiment ofthe S-Band in Fig. 5. ( Sherban Epur)Artists collection.

Fig. 5. S-Band (sb2605a2), hand-printedpaper, 6.5 7.5 in, 16.5 19 cm, and largersizes; first generation hand-manipulated,1969. ( Sherban Epur) Artists collection.

seText Box

seText Box

proposition (transposition of an idea intomatter) by introducing geometricalforms into a game relationship that em-ulates the cybernetics model.

In my school years I was struck by thefact that a student, in attempting to solveany given mathematical problem withchalk on a blackboard, unwittingly endsup making a painting of sorts. In 1967, it occurred to me that I might make theprocess art specific: in other words, finda kind of geometry dedicated to art. Sucha geometry might then become the start-ing theme for my work.

As I soon found, this idea had alreadybeen tackled from many directions byothers [33]. My approach, however, is in-tended to realize the final image/objectby emulating cybernetics.

The first step was to formulate a set of conventions/axioms specific to myworking universe, the most important being that a geometric form on a sheetof paper symbolizes an entity endowed with life ready to participate in a gamethrough combination and interaction, inthe same way that a child imbues her dollwith life or a chess player puts himself inthe shoes of the missing partner.

For me, commands of the type gothere, do this, and statements such as aspecific point P is impervious to stimu-lation, or the behavior of point P will be a geometrical domain expressed by a certain drawing are all legitimate. Inmy working space a point is a black boxdefined by its geometrical coordinates/location and a given behavior. The latter,conceived as an algorithm, may be writ-ten or embedded in the artists thinking.It is the nexus in which an input may trig-ger an output or behavior. All locationsin the working space where such behav-ioral black boxes are positioned arecalled Meta-Points. Otherwise, any pointthat is merely a feature of conventionalgeometry will be considered static. Con-sequently a curve, a domain or a pointpopulation will constitute an ensembleof Meta-Points with similar output mani-

sarily comply with mathematics or phys-ics, although I find these are of great inspiration and often use them.

The work unfolds according to the fol-lowing scenario:

The players in this visual game, to-gether with their roles, are defined.

A theme is proposed by asking an ab-stract question: What image will resultfrom the implementation of a certainmethod?

The method is selected to establishrules whereby the theme, idea or creativeinspiration becomes an image/objectand is materially realized (usually via adrawing). At the start, there is a conceptthat is fully active and visually a cipher;when the process is exhausted, the con-cept is fully visualized and the immaterialhas been translated into matter. The immaterial becomes material, a visualnothing becomes something. It canbe said that the process itself infuses orig-inality into the work. Indeed originality[34] is at its highest point when the vis-ual information is at its maximum. In my work this happens when the image reveals itself as an unforeseen surprise.The latter inspires further inspirationand may trigger intuition. Figure 9 is anexample.

The players: Take a domain D, dividedby any number of free/random curves,which results in any number of unevencells. Let us also consider inserting aMeta-Point somewhere into the domain(Fig. 9-1).

The theme takes the form of a questionor proposition: What image will resultfrom the interaction between the pointand the field?

The method: Suppose that, fallingsomewhere inside the field, the point

festations, if and when triggered, locatedin space according to a given law or equation. Such ensembles may translateinto organized or random collections ofpoints, lines, polygons, general curves,etc., regardless of complexity. They areexpected to behave like live entities inways specified by the artist and will function as participants in the furtherbuildup of a Meta-Phorm (Fig. 8).

The process of building a Meta-Phormis essentially a game, but it is designed notto score points or pinpoint a target, butto elaborate an artistic image. Its rulesare stated in mathematical form with ap-propriate symbols of the artists choice(in order to clarify, impose order, estab-lish consistency and memory). Thereforethe game develops through the behaviorof its counters (geometric shapes, as de-fined above), proceeding in overlappinglayers or steps, and may best be perceivedas a storyboard or animated sequence, although each intermediate phase pro-vides an image of considerable aestheticvalue and potential of its own.

Since I have placed my activity in therealm of art, the above need not neces-

406 Epur, An Artists Journey in Art and Science

Fig. 7. S-Band, maquettefor a 20 120 10 ft (6 6 3 m) project,1971. ( Sherban Epur)

Fig. 8. Meta-Points. ( Sherban Epur) (1) Points symbolized inconventional geometry. (2) Meta-Points in placeof the points in (1). (3) A curve made ofpoints in conventionalgeometry. (4) The curve in (3)made out of Meta-Points.

finds itself inside one of the cells. Afterscanning the environment it detects avertex of the cell and connects itself to it.It will then duplicate itself alongside theconnecting line so that the distance tothe offspring is in a given proportion to

The Result: The point leaves a graphictrace of its life in relation to its environ-ment in the form of curves and othergeometrical shapes. We will consider theintended final artistic image to be the visual totality of all geometric elementsparticipating in the development of theprocess. Such a totality may consist of theentire visual complex, its evolution as ananimated sequence, a storyboard or thestatic images of the individual layers (Fig.9-4 and 9-5).

To consider another example (Fig. 10):Here, the Meta-Phorm is the end prod-

uct of the interaction between six othersin a three-level process. First, the constantfrequency of a flux of stimuli/vectors(Fig. 10a) is randomized (Fig. 10c) by ageometrical frequency converter (Fig.10b). Next, another system, made of onlyone object, a vector/stimuli (Fig. 10d),interacts with a chain of segments (Fig.10e) and produces the domain (Fig. 10f).Finally, the interaction of the domainwith the random flux of stimuli (Fig. 10g)produces the final Meta-Phorm (Fig.10h). The latter will be a major part ofthe final artwork (Article Frontispiece).

Aesthetic assessment. The Meta-Phorm, as a complex, is continuallygauged against aesthetic considerationsto ensure visual expressiveness and effi-ciency. Meanwhile, the only way to con-sider color at this stage and avoid kitschis to identify and emphasize symbols andoperations.

So far, the resulting artistic image is alinear drawing. In the next stage it willreach its final status as an independentcomposition.

SUBJECTIVITY, NONSUBJECTIVITY, COLLECTIVE EXPERIENCEThis process entrusts the Meta-Phorm (in Fig. 10h for instance) to the nonsub-jective mathematical operations burieddeep in the many features of software-hardware specialized in digitally analyz-ing and handling images. These tracein/reduce/recognize/extract mathemat-ical and electronic attributes from the image and use them to shift, reorganizeand transform it (subjectively assisted by the artist [35]). This is what I think of as mutation of content. Connected as amathematical continuum of numbersand formulas, the palette of colors, theirshape and the surfaces they occupy arehandled simultaneously, resulting in aconsistent and unified totality that resur-faces in a completely unexpected non-subjective composition of entirely newvisual signs (Fig. 11). The many multi-

the distance to the vertex. In Fig. 9-2 theproportion is the golden mean (Fibo-nacci number = 1.618).

The process will be continued throughas many generations as necessary for theimage to remain artistic (Fig. 9-3).

Epur, An Artists Journey in Art and Science 407

Fig. 9. Population of points as the outcome of the interaction between a point and a geometricdomain. ( Sherban Epur) (1) In this particular case, the domain/field is divided by ran-dom curves into irregular cells and the points fall somewhere in one of them. (2) The firstgeneration of offspring and (3) the second. The parameters that decide the size of the popu-lation are the randomness of the points positions and the number and position of the cellsvertices. (4) and (5) show graphic solutions that improve clarity and visual expression.

layered mathematical operations are car-ried out exclusively inside the secrecyof the software, which in turn waits onfrequent aesthetic decisions from theartist [36]. Figure 11 and Color Plate Dshow such compositions selected from alarge body of alternatives, devoted onlyto the operations that took place in pointP1/Step1 of the Meta-Phorm in Fig. 10h. The originating Meta-Phorm (Fig.11a), while remaining embedded andrecognizable, melts inside an unexpectedcomposition that grows out of it, non-subjectively produced but subjectively se-lected, and becomes the major feature ofthe work (Fig. 11b11l ). This is an over-riding metaphor for the coexistence ofthe creative impulse embedded in its self-created form. At this point the processproduces, for the second time, surpriseand originality, which trigger a new cate-gory of creative ideas.

The work becomes a dual process, a continuous give and take between the artist and a segment of collectivetechnological experience at large, holo-graphically embedded in the software-hardware. The latter takes over theoperations entrusted to it until it is inca-pacitated by the absence of discrimina-tive decisions required to evaluate theresults and not found in the exhaustedalgorithms. At this point the artist iscalled on to reclaim his supervising au-thority inasmuch as the computer lacks

This conclusion calls for some com-ment on the idea of mediated subjec-tivity.

For some, art seems to start as a per-sonal inclination, the need to express and convey something. For others, it is a response to social demands in the mod-ern industrial context of communication,consumption, efficiency, etc. The first attitude is permeated by subjectivity. Anonsubjective approach is more suit-able to the second, which answers to theneeds of many and is, therefore, mostlyimpersonal.

In the process described above, bothattitudes are joined. The subjective atti-tude to art is entrusted to a rigorous objective intermediary (mathematics,computers), which, after processing, re-turns the result as a family of alternativesready for interpretation (Fig. 11). This,however, requires again the use of a per-sonal, global cultural assessment. Fromthis perspective, there are two partnersin this process: the individual (artist) andthe collective experience [37]. The lat-ter, a consensus about things of broad interest, is elaborated by the sustained effort of many persons throughout theworld. Such a collective experience canstretch across one or several generations,continuously measuring itself against thecontent of previous generations, and rep-

408 Epur, An Artists Journey in Art and Science

Fig. 10. Persona, master (Sigg06-C4). ( Sherban Epur) (a) The constant fre-quency of a flux ofstimuli is randomized in (c) by the frequencyconverter in (b). A generic human shapeseen as a particular caseof a general geometricdomain in (f) resultswhen a one-stimulusinput system (d) inter-acts with a polygon (e).In (g) the random fluxof stimuli in (c) inter-acts with the shape in(f) and produces thePersona in (h). Each of these interactionsproceeds from specificalgorithms.

Fig. 11. Compositions with Meta-Phorms, samples (2706MontajB&W). ( Sherban Epur) (a) Shows the operations devoted to the developments in P1, Fig. 10h. (b)(l) show theproduction of new visual content from (a). Everything that is not in it derives from it.

intuition and has no opinions. Here wehave a mediation between subjective andnonsubjective actions.

resents a flow of intelligence that estab-lishes trends and pinpoints generally ac-cepted opinions and practices. Computersciences and technologies are regulated by such a flowing body ofknowledge. Therefore, when one usescomputers, one shares personal experi-ence with the impersonal, anonymouscollective experience contained in bothsoftware (knowledge) and hardware(technology) and reflecting the creativepower and potential of the society at agiven moment. One may become awareof the extent to which the impersonalis embedded in the created end prod-uct of such a body of knowledge (art,computers, technologies, etc.). To oursurprise, however, the concept of aware-ness of the impersonal in the created may in-vite us to revisit definitions of spirituality,especially in the light of modern inter-pretations of Hindu philosophies [38].At this point, however, our discussionbreaks into new dimensions.

References and Notes

1. The 9th Sigma Festival, Contact II, featuring art-works by Sture Johannesson, Peter Kreiss, KennethKnowlton, Herbert Franke, Herve Huitric, Vera Mol-nar, Manfred Mohr, Georg Nees, Jacques Palumbo. I participated with 11 gouaches, a 16-mm film of S-Bands and a paper at the colloquium CreationArtificielle chaired by Georges Charbonnier andAbraham Moles at the Gallery of Fine Arts, Bordeaux,France, 1973. Director: Roger Lafosse. See GeorgesCharbonnier, Lordinateur au service de lArt, Con-naisance des Arts, No. 264 (1974) pp. 7075.

2. Edmond Nicolau, Introducere n cibernetic (Buch-

arest, Romania: Editura Technica, 1969).

3. Mihai Nadin, Elements of Meta-Aesthetics (in Ro-manian) (Bucharest, Romania: Eminescu, l972).

4. Jurgis Baltrusaitis, Metamorfozele Goticului (Buch-

arest, Romania: Meridiane, 1978).

5. Jean Baudrillard, La Morale des Objets, Com-munication, No. 13 (Paris: Seuil, 1969) pp. 2350.

6. Albert Ducroq, Le roman de la Matire, Cyberntiqueet Univers (Paris: Julliard, 1963).

7. Matila C. Ghyka, Le Nombre dOr (Paris: Gallimard,1931, 1959).

8. Rennais Huyghe, Lhistoire de lArt Contemporaine(Paris: librairie Felix Alcan, 1934).

9. Paul Klee, crits sur lart, Vol. I, La Pense Cratrice,and Vol. II, Histoire naturelle in finie (Stuttgart, Ger-many: Schwabe et Cie. Verlag; Paris: Dessain et Tolra,19771980).

10. Henri van Lier, Objets et Esthtique, Commu-nication, No. 13 (Paris: Seuil, 1969).

11. Jean Piaget, Le Structuralisme (Paris: Presses Uni-versitaires de France, 1968).

31. Nonsubjective: Undistorted by emotion or per-sonal bias, a connotation richer than that carried bythe abstract or objective because it points to all fourkinds of subjectivity related to art.

32. A = O/C-A stands for aesthetical value, O fororder and C for complexity.

33. Bense [16]; Bill [17]; Gunzenhuser [18]; Nake[19]; Nees [20,21]; Rieder [22].

34. Let O be originality, t time and I(t) the signifi-cance of the information. When the message is com-pletely new, that is, it cannot be anticipated by thecurrent status of education or culture and, in our example, is unforeseen the amount of conveyed in-formation is at its fullest while the amount we as-similate is at its lowest point. By acquiring the set ofnotions by which we understand its significance, how-ever, I(t) grows in time (varying from person to per-son and culture to culture). This can be formulatedas follows: O(t) = (Iconveyed I(t)assimilated)/ Icon-veyed. As time t passes, the learned part of the mes-sage, I(t)assimilated, increases while at the same timeoriginality O(t) is diminished. When time reaches themoment t1 when nothing unfamiliar remains fromthe original message I(t1)assimilated = Iconveyed, theobject becomes assimilated, understood and loses alloriginality: O(t1) = 0.

35. Subjective: proceeding from or taking place in apersons mind rather than drawn from the externalworld: personal, intuitive, subconscious. The mostsubjective element is the fever of expression eachartist brings to the work. We may find subjectivity alsoin the narrative/literary subject, kitsch and the waysdifferent people or cultures interpret an image.These are attributes foreign to the true specifics ofthe visual arts language and are arbitrarily infused/attached to it.

36. While constantly aware of modern investigationsin aesthetics (see refs. [1622]), I rely heavily on thefine arts findings, resulting from historical practice,as passed down to me by my two mentors, and which,in a nutshell, are: great sincerity of personal emotion(best explained by Matisse; see Jack Flam, Matisse onArt [Berkeley, CA: University of California Press,19952004]), originality of concept, originality oftechnique, strong colors and sonority (a term ex-trapolated from music: having or producing a veryfull, deep, rich spectrum of resonant visual effectsand high complexity).

37. Collective experience is not to be confoundedwith collective mind.

38. Paramahansa Hariharananda, Kriya Yoga (Home-stead, FL: Kriya Yoga Institute, 19772006) intro-duction and pp. 123.

Manuscript received 18 November 2005.

Trained in electronics and painting, SherbanEpur began working on projects combiningart and science in Communist Romania in1967. Currently, he resides in New York, wherehe immigrated in 1980. His focus is on cre-ating unanticipated images from cyberneticinteractions or their graphic representations.As an international artist, he has exhibitedin many venues; he has also lectured and writ-ten extensively to promote the application ofscience to art. For a complete curriculum, visit.

12. Abraham A. Moles, Theorie de la complexit et civilisation industrielle, Communication, No. 13(Paris: Seuil, 1969).

13. Abraham A. Moles and E. Wahl, Kitsch et ob-jets, Communication, No. 13 (Paris: Seuil, 1969) pp.105129.

14. Nadin [3].

15. Nicolau [2].

16. Max Bense, Einfhrung in die Informations-sthetic, in Kunst und Kybernetik. Ein Bericht ber dreiKunster ziehertagungen (Recklinghausen, Germany:1965, 1960, 1967).

17. Max Bill: The aim of Concrete art is to create ina visible and tangible form things which did not pre-viously exist. . . to represent abstract thoughts in asensuous and tangible form. Tate Online/Glos-sary/Concrete Art, .

18. Rul Gunzenhuser, Aesthetiche Mass Birkhoffsin Informationsthetichen Sicht, in Kunst und Ky-bernetik [16].

19. Frieder Nake, sthetik der Informationsverar-beitung (1974).

20. Georg Nees, Geometry and the Cognitive Prin-ciple in Semiotics and Aesthetics, Semiosis (1977/19781995).

21. Georg Nees, Regency Graphics and the Esthetics Laboratory: Picture Generation by Point-Distinction and Pseudodistance-Minimizing, Leo-nardo 23, No. 4, 355361 (1990).

22. Harold Rieder, Einfhrung in die Informations-psychologie, in Kunst und Kybernetik [16]).

23. By dynamic processes I mean processes that al-low a system to adapt to conditions otherwise un-known to it.

24. The 25th Edinburgh International Jubilee Festi-val, the Richard Demarco Gallery, Edinburgh, Scot-land, 1971.

25. Work (Meta-Phorm) awarded at the Third Inter-national Fine Art Competition, Platres, Cyprus, 1973.

26. The 8th Youth Biennial of Paris, invited by France(S-Bands, movie and installation), Museum of Mod-ern Art of the City of Paris, France, 1973. Director:Georges Boudaille.

27. See Ref. [1].

28. Participation with S-Bands at the major Roma-nian Modern Art exhibition, Novi Sad, Yugoslavia,1974.

29. Painting and Cybernetics, installation and ex-tensive personal exhibition, papers and conferences,part of the Art and Energy exhibition, the NewGallery, Bucharest, Romania, 1974. Curated by DanHaulica.

30. Excerpts from a 1996 letter from Georg Nees:The material you sent me is that rich and important,that it has gotten an extra file in my private library. . . .The real surprise of course, is the copy of Connais-sance des Arts, #264, fevrier 1974, proving our com-panionship in exhibiting computer art. So you are areal pioneer of computer art!!! What I admire highly,is your ability to invent innovative canons of form. . . .So you have found yourself your personal languageand writing of form, what is a rare event, I think. . . .

Epur, An Artists Journey in Art and Science 409