andrewwelsby

This post is a hugely truncated version of a chapter I wrote in 2020 for an MA Art History. This website, and the posts contained herein are not part of a so-called essay-mill, and as such remain the intellectual property of me, Andrew Welsby (2025). It’s made available for personal use, research and non-commercial purposes only. It may not be reproduced, distributed or used for commercial purposes without my permission.

This post explores how visitors experienced two landmark exhibitions of the late 1960s and early 1970s: Cybernetic Serendipity (1968) and Software (1970). It reconstructs the spatial and sensory aspects of these exhibitions, while examining how each incorporated principles of cybernetics, interactivity, and systems thinking. The post also considers how curatorial decisions shaped the nature of audience engagement, comparing the formal display strategies and conceptual underpinnings of the two shows. Cybernetic Serendipity is situated within a short timeline of early computer art exhibitions, while Software is discussed as a significant evolution in the conceptual framing of technology and art.

Cybernetic Serendipity: The Computer and the Arts was held at London’s Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) between 2 August and 20 October 1968. Curated by art critic and then assistant director of the ICA, Jasia Reichardt, and designed by British-Polish stage designer Franciszka Themerson, the exhibition featured over 130 participants, including artists, engineers, scientists, and mathematicians.^[1] It sought not to present final achievements but to highlight the emerging possibilities of artistic collaboration with computing technologies. The exhibition aimed to demonstrate how computers might extend creative and inventive practices, foregrounding potential over completion.^[2]

The cultural backdrop of Cybernetic Serendipity was one of social and political turbulence: the aftermath of the so-called ‘summer of love’, global protests, and technological optimism.^[3] According to media historian Charlie Gere, interviewed for this research, the ICA and Reichardt were operating in a semi-countercultural context, aligned with yet distinct from more radical currents. The ICA’s institutional ethos, rooted in avant-garde experimentation and the critique of traditional artistic boundaries, made it a fitting venue for a show that collapsed distinctions between disciplines.

Reichardt was inspired by a 1965 exhibition she curated on concrete poetry and a subsequent conversation with German philosopher Max Bense, a pioneer in information aesthetics. She further familiarised herself with emerging digital practices through the American magazine Computers and Automation, which ran an annual computer art competition. This informed her approach to artist selection, privileging innovation and hybridity over traditional aesthetic categories. ^[4]

Cybernetics, derived from the Greek kybernetes (steersman), provided a conceptual framework for many of the works on display.^[5] As articulated by W. Ross Ashby and Norbert Wiener, cybernetic systems use feedback mechanisms to modify behaviour in pursuit of goals—a thermostat adjusting temperature, or a computer responding to input. Frieder Nake, a participant and observer of the show, emphasised the centrality of cybernetics to the exhibition’s logic and noted the UK’s significant contributions to early cybernetic theory. ^[6]

The exhibition’s title, Cybernetic Serendipity, suggests a productive tension between control and randomness—between system and play.^[7]  This duality was expressed in the layout and curation. Visitors were guided through three thematic sections: (1) works produced with a computer or cybernetic device, (2) cybernetic devices themselves as works of art, and (3) a learning zone that demonstrated practical applications of computing.^[8] Artworks were displayed on brightly coloured boards with information cards typed manually, giving the show a lively, almost pedagogical aesthetic. ^[9]

Machines, drawings, films, and sound pieces were positioned democratically, with little emphasis on the maker’s disciplinary background. ^[10] Reichardt deliberately downplayed the authorship of individual works, stating that it was not ‘particularly important to know the background of the makers’.^[11] This approach challenged traditional hierarchies of artistic value and encouraged viewers to focus on systems, interactions, and processes rather than artist identity.

The inclusion of interactive machines such as Edward Ihnatowicz’s Sound Activated Mobile (1968), Gordon Pask’s Colloquy of Mobiles (1968), and Nicolas Schöffer’s CYSP 1 (1956) emphasised embodied engagement.^[12]These works responded to sound, movement, or proximity, illustrating cybernetic principles in action. Visitors were not simply observers but participants within feedback loops. The overall atmosphere combined playfulness with wonder, particularly for younger audiences. An ICA press release reassured parents that the show offered ‘tame wonders’—interactive yet benign machines that delighted children while engaging adult curiosity.

Despite the novelty of the exhibits, the exhibition design remained relatively conventional. Works were separated into bays, directional arrows guided movement, and the gallery space retained a modernist logic of order and legibility. As curator Dorothee Richter later suggested, such display strategies may have served to legitimise the artworks by evoking the prestige of traditional painting exhibitions.^[13]

In contrast, Jack Burnham’s Software: Information Technology: Its New Meaning for Art, first exhibited at the Jewish Museum in New York in 1970, marked a shift from techno-aesthetic spectacle to conceptual inquiry.^[14] Inspired by Cybernetic Serendipity but departing from it in key ways, Burnham rejected object-based art in favour of systems-based processes. The exhibition foregrounded the cultural, social, and philosophical implications of computing, inviting artists to engage with emerging technologies as metaphors and tools for structural critique.

Burnham defined ‘software’ not literally as code, but as a conceptual model for understanding dematerialised art.^[15]This included projects that involved instructions, data, or participatory structures, even when no physical computer was present. The emphasis was on processual logic and the aesthetics of information.

One of the most emblematic works was Seek (1970) by the Architecture Machine Group at MIT, a cybernetic environment housing gerbils within a machine-controlled enclosure. A robotic arm continually rearranged blocks in response to the animals’ movements.^[16] Theodore Nelson, visiting the show, recalled watching a gerbil stare at the arm with something like awe or dread—a moment that allegorised human encounters with intelligent systems. ^[17] Unlike the joyful immersion of Cybernetic Serendipity, Seek induced ambivalence, raising questions about autonomy, control, and surveillance.

In sum, this post has examined how the two exhibitions approached cybernetics and interactivity in different but complementary ways. While Cybernetic Serendipity celebrated playful engagement and cross-disciplinary experimentation within a recognisable exhibition format, Software used the language of systems to probe deeper cultural transformations. Together, they mark a transitional moment in the history of art and technology—one moving from optimism and novelty toward critique and complexity.

Refs

Burnham, Jack, 1970. ‘Notes on Art and Information Processing’, in Jack Burnham, ed.,1970. Software: An Exhibition (New York: The Jewish Museum), pp. 10-14. 

Krauss, Rosalind, 1977. ‘Seventies Art in America’, October, Vol. 3, pp. 68-81. http://www.jstor.com/stable/778437 %5BAccessed 19 June 2020].

Nelson, Theodor, H. and Woodman, Ned, 1970. ‘Labyrinth: An Interactive Catalogue’, in Jack Burnham, ed., 1970. Software: An Exhibition (New York: The Jewish Museum), p. 18.

Nake, Frieder, 2020. Cybernetic Serendipity, [email] Message to A. Welsby (andy.welsby@me.com). Sent 20 August 2020: 13:21. [Accessed 20 August 2020].

Reichardt, Jasia, 1968. ‘Introduction’ in Jasia Reichardt, ed., 1968. Cybernetic Serendipity: the Computer and the Arts (London: Studio International), pp. 5-8.

Reichardt, Jasia, 1971. ‘Cybernetics, Art and Ideas’, in Jasia Reichardt, ed., 1971. Cybernetics, Art and Ideas (New York: New York Graphic Society), pp. 7-17.

Reichardt, Jasia, 2020. OU Dissertation, [email] Message to A. Welsby (andy.welsby@me.com). Sent 3 September 2020: 20:56. [Accessed 20 August 2020].

Richter, Dorothee, 2020. ‘Curating the Digital: A Historical Perspective’, in Dorothee Richter and Paul Stewart, eds, On Curating, Issue 45. https://www.on-curating.org/files/oc/dateiverwaltung/issue-45/PDF_to_Download/oncurating_45_final_download.pdf [Accessed 11 August 2020].

---

^[1] Reichardt, 1971: p. 11.

^[2] Unknown, 2015: p. 7.

^[3] Krauss, 1977: p. 68.

^[4] Interview with Nake, 20 August 2020.

^[5] Interview with Nake, 20 August 2020.

^[6] Interview with Nake, 20 August 2020.

^[7] Reichardt, 2014.

^[8] Reichardt, 1968: p. 5.

^[9] Usselmann, 2003: p. 390. 

^[10] Reichardt, 1968: p. 5.

^[11] Reichardt, 1971: p. 11.

^[12] johnwilliamturneriii, 2013.

^[13] Richter, 2020: p. 14.

^[14] Burnham, 1970: p. 11.

^[15] Nelson et al, 2003: p. 248.

^[16] Terranova, 2014: p. 61.

^[17] Nelson et al, 1970: p. 247.