QUESTION #1: Recently you’ve started a network for biofeedback artists and researchers, can you tell more about the origins of it?
Sure, that’s my favorite subject at the moment! The Biofeedback Art|Research Network, initiated by me and supported by Gray Area (a San Francisco-based non-profit organization), is the first professional association of a kind that serves to recognize the diverse experiences and identities of practitioners who came to the scene after the 1960s and to provide a platform for the work of the younger generation of biofeedback artists. In addition to the peer review, collaboration matchmaking, presentation, and performance opportunities, the network members and associates receive a chance to contribute to the book project updating the canonical narrative of that biofeedback art that hasn’t been a subject of critique or revision in over 50 years.
Geography of the current members spans North America, Europe, East Asia, and Australia, but we hope to grow and cover all continents! As the name suggests, the community is comprised of artists, scientists, and scholars who may be affiliated with academia or pursue a track of independent creatives. Along with Members, who are presently dealing with the topic, the Network enjoys the contribution of Associates – academics, and professionals who either worked with the topic in the past but moved on to explore different subjects or possess valuable expertise outside of the boundaries of biofeedback art.
QUESTION #2: Earlier this year you organized a public panel discussion & screening about early telecommunication art. Does this have anything in common with the tradition of biofeedback art?
In June, when leading a panel about early tele-improvisation in Los Angeles in the 1990s, I didn’t quite realize that the connection between telecommunication art and biofeedback art, at least within the California region, is a direct one. I’ve been aware of the network of artists who pioneered then nascent art science in the 1960s-70s, but, without a project-based confirmation of otherwise informal interaction, I couldn’t claim the cross-pollination. Being back and forth to North California over the last few months, I began to pay more attention to the local history of experimental music and performance art, which led to understanding how the Bio-Dis-Plays (1976-78) project series of Richard Lowenberg, a collaboration between artists and tech hubs in the Bay Area of the 1970s, became a meeting point for bioart and telecommunication art experiments.
Kit Galloway, who along with his late partner Sherrie Rabinowitz came to prominence with the Satellite Arts (1977), a collaboration with NASA, has been a central actor in my discussion of the local legacy of telecommunication arts. In 1984, funded through the ’84 Olympics, Kit and Sherrie started a community space called “Electronic Café” where people could creatively interact with novel telecommunication technology. Later they moved to the 18th St Art Center and became Electronic Café International (ECI). In the 1990s, the place became a point of attraction for experimental musicians and performance artists interested in using means of telecommunication as a medium for their artworks. Putting it bluntly, we can draw an analogy between the “image-as-a-place” concept of Kit and Sherrie and its implementation with early tools of remote audio and video communication and post-COVID-2019 poignant discussion about performing live over Zoom. In the April lecture at UCLA and in the discussion for the Digital New Arts Festival in Santa Monica, organized by Michael Masucci of EZTV (also a resident of the 18th St Art Center since the 1990s), we attempted to uncover the local legacy pertaining to tele-performance. Developing awareness of the work of Richard Lowenberg with bio-mediums, featured in The Secret Life of Plants (1979) dir. by W. Green, I came to realize that the remote and interspecies communication experiments encompassed both the biofeedback projects and collaboration with Kit and Sherrie.
An exchange with Kit Galloway (r) during the lecture about tele-improvisation for a class of Victoria Vesna, dir. of the Art|Sci UCLA Center. Credit: Victoria Vesna; Los Angeles, 2024.
QUESTION #3: What is biofeedback art in 3 sentences? Where is it situated in the genealogical tree of arts? How would you map it?
(That’s a challenging task! I’m actually in the process of revising the definitions and questioning the adequacy of the master narrative of the practice as captured in “Biofeedback and the Arts” published in 1975 by A.R.C. Press.)
Biofeedback art is a relatively new and innovative form of artistic expression that uses biofeedback technology to create interactive and dynamic pieces of art. By measuring physiological responses such as heart rate, brain waves, and skin conductance, artists are able to create artworks that respond and adapt to the viewer’s own physiological state. Emerging around the 1970s, biofeedback art followed the popularization of biofeedback therapy that is based on the principle of voluntary control of otherwise unconscious physiological processes based on real-time communication of data through visuals or sound.
As far as the mapping goes, biofeedback art may be deemed as a subgenre of bioart. Its particular manifestations, such as biofeedback music, may be considered a “doppelganger” of minimalist music – drone a-la La Monte Young, to be specific.
Article of composer Richard Teitelbaum in “Biofeedback and the Arts” (1976). Credit: Anastasia Chernysheva; Urbana, 2022.
QUESTION #4: Could you tell about the driving ideas behind the Network? Are there people of impact whom you would like to shut out?
The idea of the network came out of the need to update the half-century-old narrative about the practice and learn about emerging artists from around the world whose work isn’t captured in the books yet. The lack of means for offering immediate compensation to contributors to the edited volume made me think of ways to create something that would be of service to members of the creative and research community. Thus, the concept of the Biofeedback Art|Research Network, the first-ever professional community associated with the niche field, came into existence. Just as the aspired book project, the network serves to recognize and honor the diversity of experiences and identities of practitioners who came to the scene after the 1960s.
Past a couple of months after participating in a Graduate Consortium of the International Conference New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME2024), which left me with no relevant feedback or critique – expected in a setting of this kind, I made a leap of faith trying to establish the “ecosystem” for the informed conversation and exchange between artists and researchers who are capable not just to reiterate the names from the canonical book but to shift the paradigm set up by “Biofeedback and the Arts.” I keep referring to Canadian composer Erin Gee addressing the stigma around affective biofeedback as an inspiration to both my return to the topic and the start of acting on the status quo in the field. Of great encouragement has been Robert Fink, Professor at Herb Alpert School of Music at UCLA, and a noted specialist on minimalism turned to research on EDM (Electronic Dance Music). Michael Masucci of EZTV showed me a great example of pushing the envelope despite resistance, rejections, and lack of immediate acknowledgement of the efforts.
Jake Metz (l) and Joy Yang (r) as brainwave performers for “Portable Gold III.” Credit: Fred Zwicky; Urbana, 2022.
QUESTION #5: What’s next for the Biofeedback Art|Research Network?
Let’s start with a few words about the timeline. Between 2022, when I put together an event series featuring a brainwave performance and a collaboration with the Mind in Vitro NSF Expedition, and 2024 many things changed for me, which included relocation from Urbana (Illinois) to Los Angeles and leaving PhD program. For a period of time, I abandoned the topic of my dissertation research and the about-to-begin creative practice. Thanks to a non-intentional nudging of the already-mentioned friends and mentors, I began taking tiny steps toward the return to the field I had to step out of. In May 2024 I gave an invited lecture at UCLA about the topic. Then I proceeded with the NIME presentation in September. In October I began gauging the possibilities of endorsement of what was to become a network. The initial intent was to make it a “chapter” under the umbrella of a bigger already established organization since starting something on my own was too intimidating. Because of the waiting time for inquiries and diminished agency associated with the “stemming” scenario, somewhat organically the Network became a thing of its own. Within a month after being announced, over 10 people reached out to me about joining and generously shared their work. People’s response to the initiative has been rewarding beyond my expectations.
I’ve been very fortunate to receive the support of Gray Area, known as a hub for radical artistic expression that traverses disciplinary constraints. In the forthcoming months, I hope to develop a “body music” series that will find its landing at Gray Area. In Los Angeles, I’m going to arrange an academic symposium at UCLA School of Music and biofeedback performances-demonstrations in tandem with Bergamot Station Arts Center, if the Santa Monica Arts Council approves our grant application. Having an example of the Electronic Café in mind, I fancy the idea of contributing to the cultural program of the ’28 Olympics, capitalizing on the legacy of Santa Monica and UCLA in the field of biofeedback research. I think the little know the fact that the Biofeedback Research Society was founded in the City of Santa Monica by a woman scientist Barbara Brown (UCLA/Veteran’s Administration), in 1969 could serve as a good premise for re-negotiating the relevance of biofeedback art and addressing robustness of its output as of a hybrid art-science practice.
Follow Biofeedback Art|Research Network on:
N.B.: This interview was originally designated for LA-based media. Published with minor modifications.