andrewwelsby

Part 4: Conclusion

The four posts have provided a comparative analysis of two exhibitions which, for a brief moment in the late 1960s, connected computer art—a fringe movement—with the traditional art world. It has shown that while Cybernetic Serendipity and Software differed significantly in design and staging, they shared an underlying ideological context.

Cybernetic Serendipity employed a more conventional curatorial model, guiding viewers through a sequence of works using familiar media—sound, poetry, sculpture, graphic design—and more novel elements such as robotics and interactive systems. In contrast, Software presented itself as a constellation of immersive, system-based installations that often occupied entire rooms and challenged conventional understandings of the art object. Despite these differences, both shows were animated by similar intentions.

Both Reichardt and Burnham sought to challenge the way art is received. For Burnham, dematerialisation was key: ‘software’ became a metaphor for artist-conceived systems that withdrew art from the finite object traditionally linked to formalism and the art market. Reichardt, by contrast, sought to democratise art by creating a fun and inclusive experience. The popular reception of Cybernetic Serendipity—with 60,000 visitors—testified to this success, especially as national and local press supported family attendance. By comparison, Software was met with suspicion due to technical breakdowns and a lack of clarity in the exhibition’s layout. What binds both exhibitions, however, is their marginal presence in the critical discourse that followed. The association of computers with military applications proved an obstacle: as Charlie Gere notes, art made from repurposed missile technology was off-putting at a time when art was championing the rights of women, the poor, and marginalised communities.[1]

The posts have not attempted to map the lineage of computer art alongside systems art or conceptualism, but instead analysed the exhibitions ideologically. Framed by the socio-economic shift toward a technologically driven capitalist economy, the work of Louis Althusser has proved crucial. Writing around the time of these exhibitions, his theory of Ideological State Apparatuses illuminates how these shows worked to reproduce the relations of production. Both exhibitions offered an imagined future—part utopian, part mechanised—in which robotics and computation altered the viewer’s perceived social role. The exhibitions thus acted as ideological representations of both contemporary and projected relations between art, labour, and technology.[2]

This raises the question: why offer this imaginary vision to the viewer? In Software, the ideal is democratic, systemic, and immaterial—a version of art that is reproducible and interactive, in the hands of many rather than a privileged few. In Cybernetic Serendipity, the ideal is similarly framed around empowerment and playful engagement. However, these ideals arguably conceal a deeper ideological function. As Althusser argues, ideology recruits subjects to accept their position in the relations of production. The exhibitions thus helped viewers internalise the idea that technology is not a threat, but a necessary and even empowering part of their future.

Other themes have emerged from the research that warrant further exploration. Both exhibitions enabled varying degrees of shared authorship, with spectators engaging directly with the systems on display. This interaction fostered an illusion of social partnership, where labour seemed distributed between viewer and artist. Paul O’Neill has suggested that this form of participation introduces a hierarchical structure, reproducing the division of labour rather than eliminating it.[3] This prompts further questions about the role of the machine: who or what is labouring, and for whom?

While this dissertation has explored fears surrounding computers, it focused primarily on their associations with military technology. The public’s mistrust stemmed from memories of WWII and Cold War applications, leading to a paradox: computer art, sometimes created with repurposed military machines, was also used to alleviate technological anxiety. Although Althusser’s theory details how ideology reproduces ruling-class interests, this study did not deeply examine the worker’s fear of obsolescence. Further research could investigate how exhibitions like these functioned to suppress or transform fears of automation.

The issue of authorship also warrants attention. In algorithmically generated art, where the artist does not directly mark the work, who is the author? What role does the computer play: is it a tool or a co-creator? These questions challenge long-standing assumptions about originality, intention, and the artist’s authority. Thinkers such as Michel Foucault and Roland Barthes have questioned the author-function and the construction of artistic genius. Computer art, with its reliance on systems and algorithms, brings these debates to the fore.

The critical and historical reception of early computer art reveals profound contradictions. Once marginalised, the aesthetic strategies of computer art—code, systems, interactivity—have now become central to contemporary practice. The very technologies once condemned as dehumanising are now vital to the daily operations of not only digital artists, but artists working across disciplines. As this research has shown, what was once dismissed as ‘science fiction masquerading as art’ has become foundational to the way art is made and understood today.[4]

---

[1] Charlie Gere, interview.
[2] Louis Althusser, Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses, 1970.
[3] Paul O’Neill, writings on curatorial labour.
[4] Early art world critiques of computer art, detailed in Part 3, https://andrewwelsby.com/2025/07/23/part-3-the-contrasting-ideologies-of-cybernetic-serendipity-and-software/.

Refs

Althusser, Louis, 1970. Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (France: La Pensée) http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm [Accessed 2 September 2020].

Gere, Charlie, 2020. Interview on Computer Art. Interviewed by Andrew Welsby. 17 August 2020, 13:00.

O’Neill, Paul, 2007. ‘The Curatorial Turn: From Practice to Discourse’, in Judith Rugg, and Michèle Sedgwick, eds, Issues in Curating Contemporary Art and Performance, pp. 13-28. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/open/reader.action?docID=329916&ppg=12 [Accessed 24 August 2020].