To: the former organizers of ISEA Symposia (International Symposium on Electronic Art)
From: the ISEA Board (Inter-Society for the Electronic Arts) & HQ
Date: July 20, 2000
Subject: Survey/10 year Anniversary

Dear friends, ISEA is celebrating its tenth year anniversary. That is to say: the Inter-Society for the Electronic Arts was founded in 1990, and this year the Tenth International Symposium on Electronic Art is taking place (ISEA2000 in December in Paris). The first ISEA symposium took place, of course, in 1988.

For the occasion, ISEA Head Quarters in Montreal have asked the founders of ISEA (Theo Hesper and Wim van der Plas), to write an article on 'ten years of ISEA'. To be published on the ISEA WWW site (www.isea.qc.ca) and, possibly, in the ISEA Newsletter and elsewhere.

It seemed a good idea to us, to invite all ISEA symposium organisers to contribute to this story. After all, we made history together. Herewith, we kindly ask for your co-operation on this limited survey. If you feel other organizers besides yourself contributed in an equal way and should respond too, please feel free to copy this document for them. Thank you!

Enclosed is a short questionnaire. It starts with some personal questions that you are, of course, free to respond to or not. Than there follow a few closed questions on the symposium budget etc. In the last, most substantial set of questions we try to get an impression of your experiences and expectations before, during and after the symposium, as well as your opinion on the future of ISEA. You are free to elaborate on these issues if you wish and, of course, add any comments you may like to include.

Yours sincerely,

Theo Hesper (founder and former Chair of ISEA)
Wim van der Plas (co-founder and board member of ISEA)

The surveys were returned by the following persons:
Johan den Biggelaar (FISEA)
Wim van der Plas (SISEA and a little bit about FISEA & ISEA96)
Ross Harley (TISEA)
Roman Verostko (FISEA'93)
Cynthia Rubin (ISEA95)
Wimfred Grashoff (ISEA96)
Shawn Decker & Michael Rodemer (ISEA97)

1988
FISEA
Utrecht, Holland

Personal data

-Name Johan C.M. den Biggelaar
-Age (current): 48
-(General) position at the time of the ISEA symposium: Projectmanager innovation at the Utrecht School of the Arts -Current position: Managing Director of CIBIT in Utrecht (a commercial consultancy and training company)

Symposium data

-Name of the Symposium FISEA: First International Symposium on Electronic Art

-Title or function within the Symposium organisation: Co-chairman (Ton Hokken and I shared the position of Chairman. Ton's role was mostly in financing and support from the Utrecht School of the Art. I was the main organiser.)

-Period in which you held this position: From the beginning of 1988 until after the symposium (I took over the role of Wim van der Plas who initiated the symposium, but decided to leave the organisation)

-Rough budget of the symposium: Dfl 400.000 (about US $ 180.000)

-Sources of income of the symposium in order of importance: National Government, Local Authority of the City of Utrecht, Utrecht School of the Arts, Sponsoring by companies, Participation fees

Expectations/Experiences

-Was it your own initiative to want to organise the symposium? If not, whose idea was it?

It was an idea by Wim van der Plas of a small computer arts organisation in Rotterdam.

-What was the motivation to want to organise the symposium? For example idealism or making money? Did you expect that it would be beneficial to your career? In general what did turn you on?

We were developing a very ambitious plan for the Centre for Art, Media & Technology (CKMT) and thought that the symposium would provide a good opportunity to launch this centre with an international audience.

-Could you say something about the relationship between your expectations before you started organising the symposium and the actual experience of organising it? Or, put differently: As a job, how did you experience organising the symposium (f.e. as a rewarding activity, as a disaster, etc.)?

I was already working on two major projects: the launch of the CKMT, the foundation of the Centre for Knowledge Technology (an industry-oriented centre of excellence). These two multi-million projects already took most of my time and energy.

Therefore, the organisation of FISEA did not get the attention and professional organisation it deserved. Nevertheless, we succeeded in most projects that made up the total event and it certainly was worthwhile for both the participants as well as a wider audience in the City.

Personally I was totally exhausted before the event even started and I hardly had time to enjoy the results of all our hard work (-:

-In general terms, what went well and what went wrong? If this project was not (completely) successful to your opinion, think back and verbalise your main frustrations. You may also include your personal high lights, if there were any. This question both refers to the organization of the event as well as to it's content.

Since FISEA took place twelve years ago, I find it difficult to bring back the 'feeling' about this event. Personally I learned a lot about the organisation of such an event. It was the first time I ever organised a seminar... What gave me a lot of pleasure, was the support from many international participants and the people in my team to go forward. Without their enthusiasm for the concept, their ideas and concrete support, it would never have happened. Also, the support of the people behind Leonardo was quite important.

I can remember that the organisation of the judgements of the contributions for the various Prizes caused a logistic nightmare. In the end however, we managed to get it all done in time, although I was not satisfied with the rigidness of the whole process.

The various discussions about the foundation and future of ISEA (the International Society on Electronic Arts) were quite interesting and rewarding, since these activities were the basis for further developments.

What went wrong? I was not satisfied with my opening speeches of FISEA and the CKMT. I was just not properly prepared and too tired to get my brain into gear (-: Furthermore, the spin-off in terms of publicity for CKMT and FISEA was not what it should have been. We were very much focused on the organisation and the content and we should have appointed a professional press person to inform and involve the media on beforehand.

-How, according to your personal feelings and the feed back you received, did the participants experience the symposium? Were the reactions predominantly positive or negative? What was criticised most, what was complimented most?

The reactions were predominantly positive and most criticisms were on organisational details, such as the long walk from the seminar room to the restaurant for lunch...

-Please try and describe the direct and/or indirect effects the symposium had, in your opinion (on f.e.: the development of electronic art in general, the development of electronic art in your country, the development of electronic art in the involved institute(s), on your personal life).

The major outcome in my opinion was that FISEA created an international platform for artists, composers and other multimedia artists to discuss multidisciplinary art forms. To me personally, that was the main objective of CKMT and FISEA.

It was quite disappointing that shortly after the symposium took place, the Board of the Utrecht School of the Arts decided for internal political reasons, to abandon the CKMT project. Therefore we were not able to reap the benefits from FISEA from an institutional and personal point of view. After this happened, I decided to leave the institute en I started to work in a totally different direction.

-Please describe the same for the whole series of ISEA symposia.

I did not attend any of the other symposia.

-What lessons can be learned from the history of ISEA symposia (and/or from the issue you organised) and what does that mean for the future issues of the ISEA Symposium?

Same.

And would you do it again (when asked)?

No, thanks (-:

-Other comments....

It gives me great personal satisfaction to see that FISEA was followed up many times and all over the world and to know that I was involved in the foundation of ISEA and this series of events !

1990
SISEA
Groningen, Holland

Personal data

-Name Wim van der Plas

-Age (current): 54

-(General) position at the time of the ISEA symposium: Manager of the Netherlands Instititute for Computer Animation (SCAN), post-graduate department of the Groningen Art School.

-Current position: Professor at the Media Technology department of Applied Sciences of Utrecht Polytechnic.

Symposium data

-Name of the Symposium SISEA, Second International Symposium on Electronic Art.

-Title or function within the Symposium organisation: Executive director.

-Period in which you held this position: 1989-1991

-Rough budget of the symposium: hfl. 300.000

-Sources of income of the symposium in order of importance: Ministry of Culture Ministry of Education Participant fees Several national & local foundations The school (in kind)

Expectations/Experiences

-Was it your own initiative to want to organise the symposium? If not, whose idea was it?

Originally, the Utrecht Art School was going to organize the second issue (after they organized the first). However, after about a year, they sent out a signal they wouldn't be able to do it. Roger Malina asked me, as one of the initiators of the first symposium, whether I could take over.

-What was the motivation to want to organise the symposium? For example idealism or making money? Did you expect that it would be beneficial to your career? In general what did turn you on?

Of course, my main motivation was to make an incredible profit and retire on an island in the South Pacific. But seriously: I had never felt very satisfied about not finishing the first symposium, I left that after I had done all the initial work (Call for Papers etc.). This had to do with a new (regular) job offer I couldn't refuse. Of course I made sure the first symposium was in good hands before I left, but nevertheless. I felt good about the opportunity to this time finish the job.

-Could you say something about the relationship between your expectations before you started organising the symposium and the actual experience of organising it? Or, put differently: As a job, how did you experience organising the symposium (f.e. as a rewarding activity, as a disaster, etc.)?

I still feel good about organizing SISEA, it was a very rewarding activity, even though it was very exhausting. My wife Heidi (who also worked for the symposium) and I literally needed a year to recover. In 1996 I also co-organized an ISEA and experienced something very close to disaster. This had to do with the retreat of the organizing institute (Rotterdam Art School) at a late stage, before the major funding had been accomplished. SISEA had the full support of the Groningen Art School and this made the job bearable. Also, SISEA was much smaller in those days, we received maybe 300 proposals, as in 1996 it was over 1000.

-In general terms, what went well and what went wrong? If this project was not (completely) successful to your opinion, think back and verbalise your main frustrations. You may also include your personal high lights, if there were any. This question both refers to the organization of the event as well as to it's content.

The high light for me was the night of Concerts & Performances, with a technically very complicated performance by Stelarc. Thanks to the dedicated work of the people of the art school and Scan. I still like to look at the video of that performance. On the other hand I made big mistakes in planning the Film & Video show. I tried to incorporate last minute entries, rented the wrong 35mm film projector, etc. Disappointing was the support from the City: they supported us with something like Hfl.5000 and sent us a bill for renting their cultural center of Hfl.32.000. Positive was the support of Hewlett Packard (Hfl.10.000). This is really the only time I managed to get substantial commercial sponsoring for an event. Support in kind (lending of computers etc.) was given quite easily, both in 1990 and in 1996.

-How, according to your personal feelings and the feed back you received, did the participants experience the symposium? Were the reactions predominantly positive or negative? What was criticised most, what was complimented most?

I have received an amazing amount of positive reactions from participants, both verbally and in writing. People really liked the inter-disciplinarity. The graphics people meeting the music people, that was new and very rewarding to them. Since I partly messed up the Film & Video show, I got some angry reactions as well: from people that had their work in the program, but it wasn't shown. They were right being mad at me. I tried to make up by including their work in the Best of SISEA video tape we published after the symposium.

-Please try and describe the direct and/or indirect effects the symposium had, in your opinion (on f.e.: the development of electronic art in general, the development of electronic art in your country, the development of electronic art in the involved institute(s), on your personal life).

I have the feeling the ISEA Symposia have substantially contributed to the development of electronic art in general, but it is difficult to prove. In Holland, we have an amazing amount of electronic art events now. I like to think that FISEA and SISEA helped to get this going. The institute (SCAN) flourished for a while (I left in 1992), but lately I don't hear from them anymore. What did happen, however, is students and other young artists that helped organize the symposia, made a noticably good (re-)start of their career.

For me personally, it was a boost. This made me believe I could pull of another one: ISEA96 in Rotterdam. However, ISEA96 met with so many problems that it was a nightmare to organize. No money, no backing institute; we had to do it with unexperienced (but hard working) volunteers. I ended up at an Intensive Care ward one day before ISEA96 took place and my survival is still considered a medical miracle in that hospital. I still like to say I am the living proof that ISEA can kill you.

-Please describe the same for the whole series of ISEA symposia.

As I said: I have the feeling the ISEA Symposia have substantially contributed to the development of electronic art in general, but it is difficult to prove. Having been involved from the beginning and having missed only one issue (ISEA97, due to my illness), this is my impression: the symposia have brought to the surface a potential community of people working in the same field and aiming at the same purposes. ISEA belongs to the electronic artists and the electronic art community cares about ISEA. This is unique, no other electronic art event has this kind of identity. Since ISEA "belongs to the people", it is on the one hand difficult to keep it going (there is an 'anarchist' element in it's identity), but also probably it's best insurance that it will continue.

-What lessons can be learned from the history of ISEA symposia (and/or from the issue you organised) and what does that mean for the future issues of the ISEA Symposium?

The most severe critisism ISEA has encountered for quite some time now, is the lack of cultural diversity. It is roughly the same (western) crowd that attends ISEA's. Contrary to what many persons seem to think, this is an issue the board of the Inter-Society takes very serious. It is a different matter how to change this though. We are open to constructive suggestions. Another, but related problem is the fact that the Inter-Society is not really in control of the way the varying Symposium organizers take up their task. There are Guidelines but there is no way we can force the organizers to live up to them. This makes for surprises, sometimes positive, sometimes negative. The same mistakes are made over and over again. The task of organizing an ISEA is usually underestimated. People who have done it know it is an incredible difficult and heavy job.

-And would you do it again (when asked)?

Only when it is held on an island in the sun.

-Other comments....

I would like to see ISEA go back to annual. It would give more cities a chance to organize it, maybe also in unusual countries (or islands). It would give more (young) artists a chance to show their work and meet with each other. The general formula of the ISEA symposia (host cities organizing it themselves) makes this organizationally possible. In this way, we can involve more people and make ourselves stronger.

1992
TISEA
Sydney, Australia

Personal data

-Name ROSS RUDESCH HARLEY

-Age (current): 39

-(General) position at the time of the ISEA symposium: DIRECTOR

-Current position: ARTIST/LECTURER, MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES, SYDNEY

Symposium data

-Name of the Symposium TISEA

-Title or function within the Symposium organisation: DIRECTOR, BOARD MEMBER

-Period in which you held this position: 1992

-Rough budget of the symposium: APPROXIMATELY MILLION [$AUSTRALIAN]

-Sources of income of the symposium in order of importance (most important first, f.e. 'national government', or 'participation fees', etc.): AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION AUSTRALIA COUNCIL FOR THE ARTS AUSTRALIAN NETWORK FOR ART AND TECHNOLOGY SONY SILICON GRAPHICS PARTICIPATION FEES

Expectations/Experiences

-Was it your own initiativeto want to organise the symposium? If not, whose idea was it?

A GROUP OF AUSTRALIANS AT SISEA GOT TOGETHER AND PROPOSED THAT WE DO THE EVENT IN SYDNEY. AN ORGANISING COMMITTEE AND THEN BOARD WAS THEN FORMED.

-What was the motivation to want to organise the symposium? For example idealism or making money? Did you expect that it would be beneficial to your career? In general what did turn you on?

WE ALL WANTED TO ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF NEW MEDIA IN AUSTRALIA AND TO SHOWCASE THE WORK OF LEADING INTERNATIONAL ARTISTS, SCHOLARS AND PRACTITIONERS IN THE FIELD. THE AIM WAS TO OPEN PEOPLE'S EYES TO THE CUTLURAL/ARTISTIC POSSIBILITIES AND SHORTCOMINGS OF ELECTRONIC MEDIA ART.

-Could you say something about the relationship between your expectations before you started organising the symposium and the actual experience of organising it? Or, put differently: As a job, how did you experience organising the symposium (f.e. as a rewarding activity, as a disaster, etc.)?

THE WORK OF PREPARING FOR SUCH A LARGE-SCALE EVENT WAS ENORMOUS. NOTHING WOULD HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT THE HARD WORK AND DEDICATION OF A LARGE TEAM OF COMMITTED ARTISTS, SCHOLARS AND TECHNICIANS WHO SAW THE BENNEFITS OF RUNNING THE EVENT AS WELL AS WE COULD. I PERSONALLY KNEW FROM DAY ONE THAT THERE WAS A LARGE AMOUNT OF WORK TO BE DONE, BUT EVEN THESE EXPECTATIONS WERE ECLIPSED BY THE SHEER SIZE OF THE EVENT. BY THE TIME TISEA STARTED, THERE WAS NOTHING WE COULD DO BUT ROLL FORWARD WITH THE MOMENTUM AND THANK OUR LUCKY STARS WE HAD SUCH A GREAT TEAM AND BUNCH OF INVITED GUESTS AND OTHER PARTICPANTS COMING TO SYDNEY FOR THE ROLLERCOASTER RIDE.

-In general terms, what went well and what went wrong? If this project was not (completely) successful to your opinion, think back and verbalise your main frustrations. You may also include your personal high lights, if there were any. This question both refers to the organization of the event as well as to it's content.

THERE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES IN AN EVENT OF THIS KIND, BUT THEY WERE REALLY MINIMAL. MY RECOLLECTIONS ARE REALLY OF AN EXTRAORDINARY TIME BEING HAD BY ALL. IF THERE WERE FRUSTRATIONS, THEY WERE PROBABLY TO DO WITH THE DIFFICULTIES OF KEEPING THE EVENT ON BUDGET. WE WENT OVER BUDGET SIGNIFICANTLY. BECAUSE THE EVENT WAS SO SUCCESSFUL, THE FILM COMMISSION AGREED TO PAY FOR THE OVERAGES.

-How, according to your personal feelings and the feed back you received, did the participants experience the symposium? Were the reactions predominantly positive or negative? What was criticised most, what was complimented most?

AS ABOVE, I FEEL IT WAS GENERALLY VERY WELL RECEIVED, AND PEOPLE HAD A GREAT TIME. THE ONLY CRITICISM WAS THAT IT DIDN'T GO FOR LONGER! MANY LOCALS COMPLAINED THAT THEY COULD ONLY SEE SOME OF THE EXHIBITIONS FOR A FEW VERY SHORT DAYS.

-Please try and describe the direct and/or indirect effects the symposium had, in your opinion (on f.e.: the development of electronic art in general, the development of electronic art in your country, the development of electronic art in the involved institute(s), on your personal life).

I THINK TISEA MADE QUITE AN IMPACT ON THE LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL SCENE. HERE, IT MADE PEOPLE REALISE THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF VERY EXCITINGAND ERRUDITE WORK GOING ON IN THE FIELD. IT TOUCHED A WHOLE NERVE OF NEW MEDIA THAT WAS ONLY JUST COMING TO THE FORE. TISEA HAPPENED AT THE RIGHT TIME AND THE RIGHT PLACE. WE ALSO FELT THAT THE EVENT HELPED SET A NEW BENCHMARK FOR THIS SERIES OF SYMPOSIA. ALTHOUGH ISEA WAS STILL YOUNG, WE MANAGED TO PRODUCE A 'MATURE' EVENT THAT DIFFERED FROM SIGGRAPH AND THE MYRIAD OF VIDEO AND ART FESTIVALS AROUND THE WORLD. THERE WAS EQUAL EMPHASIS PLACED ON EXHIBITING IN MUSEUM ENVIRONMENTS AND DISCUSSING COMPLEX IDEAS IN A SCHOLARLY FORUM.

-Please describe the same for the whole series of ISEA symposia.

I'VE ALWAYS ENJOYED THE ISEA SYMPOSIA I HAVE BEEN TO, AND HAVE FOND MEMORIES OF ALL THEM. I KNOW THIS SOUNDS SENTIMENTAL, BUT HEY...

-What lessons can be learned from the history of ISEA symposia (and/or from the issue you organised) and what does that mean for the future issues of the ISEA Symposium? And would you do it again (when asked)?

HMMMMM. GARY WARNER AND ALESSION CAVALARO AND I HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS. THE CHEMISTRY OF THE TEAM, THE VENUE AND THE MOMENT WOULD ALL HAVE TO BE RIGHT. WE'D REALLY ONLY CONSIDER IT IF WE COULD DO IT BETTER THAN WE DID THEN, AND THAT WOULD BE VERY HARD.

1993
FISEA'93
Minneapolis, USA

Personal data

Roman Verostko, Age: 71 (Born 1929)

-(General) position at the time of the ISEA symposium: Professor, Minneapolis College of Art and Design

-Current position: Professor Emeritus, Minneapolis College Art and Design Symposium data

-Name of the Symposium FISEA'93

-Title or function within the Symposium organisation: Program Director

-Period in which you held this position: Organized Symposium from the outset (1991...) and continued to completion and all necessary follow up business.

-Rough budget of the symposium: 0,000 (Includes Contributed Services)

-Sources of income of the symposium in order of importance: Minneapolis College of Art and Design Volunteers Other participating Institutions Commercial Interests Expectations/Experiences The Symposium fulfilled most of our expectations and in many ways exceeded what we expected at the beginning.

-Was it your own initiative to want to organise the symposium? If not, whose idea was it?

My own initiatives were the major effort and input. The President of the College of Art and Design had a very real interest in making it happen. The Symposium was made possible by the resources of the College and the support of the President.

-What was the motivation to want to organise the symposium? For example idealism or making money? Did you expect that it would be beneficial to your career? In general what did turn you on?

My interest was ideological and professional. The College's interest was based on its teaching mission. The costs to me in both time and money were major. I contributed a Sabbatical year of my time in planning and a home office with fax, phone and computers. During the semester before the symposium the College gave me released time and provided other resources to make the symposium possible. The College's teaching mission supported the idea. Our concern was always whether and how we could pay for the event and not incur a huge dept.

-Could you say something about the relationship between your expectations before you started organising the symposium and the actual experience of organising it? Or, put differently: As a job, how did you experience organising the symposium (f.e. as a rewarding activity, as a disaster, etc.)?

The work load exceeded my expectation and taxed all of my resources to the limit. The reward comes from what one learns and how one grows from such a project.

-In general terms, what went well and what went wrong? If this project was not (completely) successful to your opinion, think back and verbalise your main frustrations. You may also include your personal high lights, if there were any. This question both refers to the organization of the event as well as to it's content.

As I review all that was accomplished at FISEA 93 I am very proud of our achievement considering when we began. I started planning in 1992 while Australia was still in its planning stage. The Symposia history up to then was Groningen (1990) and Utrecht (1988). We were fortunate that we had the groundwork of Utrecht and Groningen and I greatly appreciated what had been achieved in the Netherlands and I believed deeply in the mission of ISEA. Wim van der Plas encouraged me and kept the ISEA concept alive. So I was very willing to work at it but did have difficulty convincing others that ISEA was a growing international organization with substance. The turning point for me was in Chicago at SIGGRAPH in 1992.

By then I had printed up a couple thousand program announcements and went to Chicago with my wife who served as Program Committee Chair. We were fully prepared. We had the ISEA/ISAST meeting time and place published in the SIGGRAPH program guide and the ACM Journal. This was not our first regular meeting at SIGGRAPH but this one had a new air and there was excitement as we had the principals there from Australia, the US, and Helsinki . Wim van der Plas, my wife and I posted signs everywhere reminding participants of the ISEA/ISAST meeting time and place. We had arranged a table with white table cloths, name places, microphones and projectors. By the time the meeting opened we had filled the hall to overflow and, as meeting planner, I had the good fortune to be the chair. We yielded to Australia first as we wanted Australia to have a winning event in November and Australia was fully prepared to get people excited! Following our presentations and distribution of our FISEA 93 Call for next year we caucused in small interest groups. The air of excitement, at that moment, convinced me that ISEA was now well on its way to a meaningful future. Why, some may ask, was all this so important? At that time there were more and more artists who wanted some kind of forum that shared their major interests. Many who had never heard of ISEA had their first exposure to the idea for this forum and it appealed to them. There were several groups that emerged from SIGGRAPH but the ISEA/ISAST group promised to provide the kind of forum they wanted. The rest is history. Australia was a great success

- the performances and exhibition venues were totally satisfying in every way. The following year Minneapolis brought more professionals and new ideas; the animation at the Walker Art Center; the concert at the Tedd Mann; the MCAD GAlleries and Installations - all converged to say the ISEA Symposia are substantial items! Some had criticized the Poster that was also the catalogue cover; yet, our catalogue won an award. The ISEA series was now established with a history of 4 events. Helsinki followed with vigorous success and Montreal grew beyond anything I ever expected to see in the earlier years. Back to beginnings - another item stands out in my mind in regard to beginnings. I recall that Paul Brown had come from Australia and we had planned that he would demonstrate the use of Gopher on the internet. We had arranged internet stations at the convention hotel and Paul was there for demos. It turned out that Mosaic had emerged that year; imagine being able to browse with graphics! So Paul changed his plan and was able to demo the use of Mosaic, even with slow modems Mosaic seemed like a miracle. My correspondence with Wim van der Plas and FISEA 93 participants was strictly ASCII text. I posted all announcements as texts and even made a FISEA '93 logo for announcements with text. For those who don't remember there was a form of ASCII graphics: shapes and figures were made with characters. You can find historic examples today on the web. The other interesting item in regard to electronic art-form history is fax art. As late as 1993 the fascination with the FAX machine and FAX ART continued. Some will remember that the Fax Art at the 1992 SIGGRAPH was a major component of the activities even though the high end presenters had live graphics from around the world. I recall sending FAX pieces to various events in Europe as late as 1994. FISEA 93 may have had the last of the interesting FAX ART shows. Mosaic and the advent of browser graphics brought an end to fax art. The history of ISEA encapsulates a lot of the history of computer graphics. It's documents are a valuable resource and I consider our contributions at Minneapolis to have been substantial and very satisfying to me professionally. There are many things I would do differently today, but so much has changed. I prefer not to dwell on the failures and shortcomings.

-How, according to your personal feelings and the feed back you received, did the participants experience the symposium? Were the reactions predominantly positive or negative? What was criticised most, what was complimented most?

There were a few negatives mostly due to misinformation and oversights. We didn't have any outside support so we couldn't do much of anything for our contributors. My cutbacks were hard on those who deserved more help. This was very hard on me as I wanted to offer more but we just couldn't do it. We had a number of last minute set-backs that were very painful. This is never seen by others but somehow we managed to cover it all and get the job done. Positive feedback included: contacts were important for most attendees; workshop and technology exposures opened up a new avenue for some; for others the symposium exhibitions provided a measure of their own work.

NOTE: I am attaching a summary of the symposium as written after the symposium. You may find parts useful. [Will be included later, ed.]

Best wishes, Roman

1994
ISEA94
Helsinki, Finland

under construction

1995
ISEA95
Montreal, Canada

Personal data

-Name Cynthia Beth Rubin/Greg Garvey

-Age (current): 49++/45++

-(General) position at the time of the ISEA symposium: assistant professor at the University of Vermont (Rubin) assistant professor at Concordia College (Garvey)

-Current position: part-time instructor, Rhode Island School of Design (Rubin) visiting artist, Quinnipiac University (Garvey) Symposium data

-Name of the Symposium ISEA 95

-Title or function within the Symposium organisation: Co-chairs of Conference Committee (Papers-Panels)

-Period in which you held this position (from...to...): From '93 to end. On organizing committee from the beginning (1993), jobs were assigned about a year in advance

-Rough budget of the symposium: ???

-Sources of income of the symposium in order of importance: ???

Expectations/Experiences

-Was it your own initiative to want to organise the symposium? If not, whose idea was it?

The idea came from a core group who attended TISEA in Australia. We began meeting right after that.

-What was the motivation to want to organise the symposium? For example idealism or making money? Did you expect that it would be beneficial to your career? In general what did turn you on?

Motivation was to connect with others in the field, both locally and internationally, while contributing to the community of those working in the electronic arts. Rubin: I was working in relative isolation in Northern Vermont. Weekly trips to Montr饌l for meetings gave me a context for exploring what was happening in the closest major city. It also fulfilled the 'service' obligation which was a part of my job at the University of Vermont.

-Could you say something about the relationship between your expectations before you started organising the symposium and the actual experience of organising it? Or, put differently: As a job, how did you experience organising the symposium (f.e. as a rewarding activity, as a disaster, etc.)?

Actually organizing it got complicated by the large staff that was necessary to get the job done in the end. These people, many of whom were volunteers, were absolutely wonderful but they did not know who those of us were who began the Symposium, and in the end, this team took over and left us out of the final stages. Probably necessary, but disturbing. On the other hand, the process of selecting proposals was very rewarding, especially working with a great committee of smart people.

-In general terms, what went well and what went wrong? If this project was not (completely) successful to your opinion, think back and verbalise your main frustrations. You may also include your personal high lights, if there were any. This question both refers to the organization of the event as well as to itケs content.

What went wrong is stated above: the staff forgot the people who started it all. This means that even seemingly trivial things - like sending press packets to our Universities, never got done - and this did have consequences for those of us how donated our time with the support of our Universities.

-How, according to your personal feelings and the feed back you received, did the participants experience the symposium? Were the reactions predominantly positive or negative? What was criticised most, what was complimented most?

Reactions were very positive. We did something very innovative in Montreal, which has not really been repeated. We poured over all of the submissions, both poster sessions and papers, and recombined people who did not know each other into panels. This was so successful that one group (New Narratives, chaired by Martin Rieser) is publishing a book that orginated with their session at ISEA95.

-Please try and describe the direct and/or indirect effects the symposium had, in your opinion (on f.e.: the development of electronic art in general, the development of electronic art in your country, the development of electronic art in the involved institute(s), on your personal life).

Rubin: ISEA has been great for pushing me to explore new areas in my work. I personally have been in more international exhibitons as a result of my involvement with ISEA. The effect that it had on my instituion at the time (U of Vermont) was positive in that I was able to have a small exhibition of artists from ISEA, and was able to bring a speaker from Brazil to the campus (Rejane Spitz). The effect was reduced, however, because of lack of outreach to the Vermont community by the office.

-Please describe the same for the whole series of ISEA symposia.

ISEA is at its best when people get to show off their work and then see the work of others and share ideas. At most ISEAs, every one is equal, and in this way ISEA is successful. When, on the rare occassion that a speaker talks down to ISEA attendees, it is unsuccessful.

-What lessons can be learned from the history of ISEA symposia (and/or from the issue you organised) and what does that mean for the future issues of the ISEA Symposium? And would you do it again (when asked)?

Not now - ask me again in 10 years!

-Other comments....

1996
ISEA96
Rotterdam, Holland

Personal data

-Name: Wimfred Grashoff

-Age (current): 30

-(General) position at the time of the ISEA symposium: Recently graduated ex student

-Current position: Logistics Consultant at NedTrain, the Maintenance department of the Dutch Railways Symposium data

-Name of the Symposium : ISEA96

-Title or function within the Symposium organisation: Executive Director

-Period in which you held this position (from...to...): from february 1996 till december 1996

-Rough budget of the symposium: 280.000 guilders

-Sources of income of the symposium in order of importance foundations disposing government budgets: 27% City of Rotterdam: 7% Other foundations: 10% Rotterdam Festivals: 15% Participant fees: 29% Sponsors (commercial): 4% Rotterdam Polytechnic: 9%

Expectations/Experiences

-Was it your own initiative to want to organise the symposium? If not, whose idea was it?

Organising the symposium was not my initiative. The initiative was Wim van der Plas, involved in the Electronic Arts Community since before the first ISEA symposium . He initiated as well the founding of ISEA96: the foundation responsible for the organisation of the symposium

-What was the motivation to want to organise the symposium? For example idealism or making money? Did you expect that it would be beneficial to your career? In general what did turn you on?

My motivation was most of all my interest in the organising and managing events. It seemed a weird but exiting job. Of course I hoped to learn from it. Furthermore, I was curious about Electronic Art, which I had not known about before.

-Could you say something about the relationship between your expectations before you started organising the symposium and the actual experience of organising it? Or, put differently: As a job, how did you experience organising the symposium (f.e. as a rewarding activity, as a disaster, etc.)?

Organising the symposium was a chaotic, exciting and sometimes frustrating job. As fundraising didn't work out as we expected, we had to reduce our ambitions time and time again. We had to cut out almost the whole exhibition and performance program. Without hardly any money to pay professional staff, we had to do the work with unexperienced and unpaid volunteers, being coached by Wim van der Plas, the program manager. All in all it was great. We had a marvellous team to work with. Though none of us was a professional, we managed somehow to organise the congress, without any real disasters, without conflicts and with lots of fun.

-In general terms, what went well and what went wrong? If this project was not (completely) successful to your opinion, think back and verbalise your main frustrations. You may also include your personal high lights, if there were any. This question both refers to the organization of the event as well as to it's content.

Wrong:
- there was hardly any cooperation with the dutch electronic art festival, which was held at the same time. This was really annoying and confusing to the visitors of ISEA96
- we made the tremendous mistake to reschedule a speaker from the first morning session (on that very morning), without consulting him, to the second or third day. He was very very angry about this, as he had invited colleagues from abroad to attend his lecture.
- To many abstracts were not included in the book of abstracts. Of course, the involved speakers didn't really appreciate this .
- We had two days of workshops prior to a three day symposium. These were held at three different locations, resulting in considerable logistic problems. Unfortunatly, mobile phones weren't that common in Holland in those days..
- About fuckin' everyone appeared to write for some obscure magazine, claiming to have a right to enter the symposium without paying. The participant fees decreased significantly because of that.
- Wim was as kind to drop about dead the day before the symposium. During the whole week we were convinced that he would not make it.
- After the symposium it took for ages (about a year) to complete reports etc.

Good
- The atmosphere was good, participants were enthousiastic en appreciated the program. - The time schedule was fairly well kept to
- Technically we only had a few problems, which could be solved in time
- Participant administration and financial administration was OK
- Most of the peripheral activities were appreciated as well
- I smoked about three packages of cigarettes a day..

-How, according to your personal feelings and the feed back you received, did the participants experience the symposium? Were the reactions predominantly positive or negative? What was criticised most, what was complimented most?

Has more or less been mentioned above

-Please try and describe the direct and/or indirect effects the symposium had, in your opinion (on f.e.: the development of electronic art in general, the development of electronic art in your country, the development of electronic art in the involved institute(s), on your personal life).

I have not the slightest idea about the influence of the symposium on the development of electronic art. I have not been involved in electronic art ever since. Not because of disappointment with the symposium, but simply because I quickly found a quite different job. On my personal life? I met quite a few nice people, some of which are still friends of mine. I had an exiting time. The experience of organizing the symposium was very usefull. Furthermore, I got to know a style of art I had not met before, and learned a lot about computers, networks, internet etc. It could have been more dramatical: completely exhausted after the symposium I fell asleep driving at the highway two days after the symposium, to awake on the shoulder by the noise of horns of the cars behind me. If there had been only one tree or wall it would have been the end, I suppose (and of Wims car as well)..

-Please describe the same for the whole series of ISEA symposia.

No idea

-What lessons can be learned from the history of ISEA symposia (and/or from the issue you organised) and what does that mean for the future issues of the ISEA Symposium? And would you do it again (when asked)?

If asked again under the same circumstances, I would dramatically lower the ambitions, or refuse to do it. Under normal circumstances (preparation time, support, network) it is really a fine job to do.

-Other comments....

Good luck in the organization of future symposia

1997 (1)
ISEA97
Chicago, USA

Personal data

-Name Michael Rodemer

-Age (current): 46

-(General) position at the time of the ISEA symposium: Asst. Prof. of Art at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago

-Current position: Asst. Prof. of Art at the School of Art and Design, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Symposium data -Name of the Symposium ISEA '97 - Content

-Title or function within the Symposium organisation: Co-Director, then later Academic Program Director, after I left the Art Institute to go to the University of Michigan

-Period in which you held this position (from...to...): Co-Director from (I think) December 1995, when we learned that Chicago was chosen to host ISEA 97, to May 1996, when it became clear that I would be changing institutions. I was Academic Program Director for the remaining time up through ISEA 97

-Rough budget of the symposium: don't know exactly, since this became concrete after I left, and was thus an internal matter in an institution for which I no longer worked.

-Sources of income of the symposium in order of importance (most important first, f.e. 'national government', or 'participation fees', etc.): don't know.

Expectations/Experiences

-Was it your own initiative to want to organise the symposium? If not, whose idea was it?

Yes, I first spoke with Roman Verostko at ISEA 93 about hosting the Symposium, and wrote a proposal shortly thereafter; in the summer of 1994, Shawn Decker and I re-wrote and submitted the proposal. Once Chicago was chosen, we decided to co-direct.

-What was the motivation to want to organise the symposium? For example idealism or making money? Did you expect that it would be beneficial to your career? In general what did turn you on?

I'm a true believer in the potential of electronic art for human expression and wanted to organize the Symposium purely for idealistic reasons. Incredible-sounding, and naive, but true. No advantages materialized for my career, as far as I can tell.

-Could you say something about the relationship between your expectations before you started organising the symposium and the actual experience of organising it? Or, put differently: As a job, how did you experience organising the symposium (f.e. as a rewarding activity, as a disaster, etc.)?

My expectations of the work of organizing the symposium turned out to have been realistic. No big surprises; the scale of the task grew and grew, as expected. More people pitched in to help, or were hired to help, than I had anticipated. So much the better. Although I left the School of the Art Institute of Chicago before the symposium, my colleagues there graciously allowed me to continue in the capacity of Academic Program Director, and the School supported my travel to Chicago to participate in ISEA meetings.

-In general terms, what went well and what went wrong? If this project was not (completely) successful to your opinion, think back and verbalise your main frustrations. You may also include your personal highlights, if there were any. This question both refers to the organization of the event as well as to its content.

I found that ISEA 97 was highly successful in everything it set out to do; I was disappointed with the calibre of most of the artwork that was shown, but that wasn't the fault of the symposium's organization: the field was, and is, simply immature.

-How, according to your personal feelings and the feed back you received, did the participants experience the symposium? Were the reactions predominantly positive or negative? What was criticised most, what was complimented most?

I got little feedback, which probably meant that things went well.

-Please try and describe the direct and/or indirect effects the symposium had, in your opinion (on f.e.: the development of electronic art in general, the development of electronic art in your country, the development of electronic art in the involved institute(s), on your personal life).

-Please describe the same for the whole series of ISEA symposia.

I think the three symposia I've been able to attend (93, 95, 97) mainly facilitated personal networking, as well as some discussion of what the field is about, and helped a lot of people build their academic careers. It's hard to tell if there has been an impact on the development of electronic art. Probably, but who knows?

-What lessons can be learned from the history of ISEA symposia (and/or from the issue you organised) and what does that mean for the future issues of the ISEA Symposium?

The size of the symposia is a problem. They cost too much, are too much work to organize, and suffer from bigness (too many simultaneous activities, too far to travel, too many people, little possibility for thoughtful conversations.) There should be smaller, regional symposia, with a world-wide mega-symposium only once in a while, maybe every 4 or 5 years.

And would you do it again (if asked)?

No.

-Other comments....

1997(2)
ISEA97
Chicago, USA

From:Shawn Decker
Date:Mon, 9 Oct 2000

-Name Shawn Decker

-Age (current): 43

-(General) position at the time of the ISEA symposium: Associate Professor, School of the Art Institute of Chicago

-Current position: same -Symposium data

-Name of the Symposium ISEA97

-Title or function within the Symposium organisation: Chair

-Period in which you held this position (from...to...): Spring 96, Spring 98 (roughly) -Rough budget of the symposium: 2,000 USD

-Sources of income of the symposium in order of importance School picked up a large deficit (0,000 +) Corporate donations (WWW site, etc.) Participation Fees Foundation support Individual Gifts State Support

-Expectations/Experiences

-Was it your own initiative to want to organise the symposium? If not, whose idea was it?

It was my idea, along with Michael Rodemer (who had left for another institution prior to the symposwium (Univ. of Michigan) but stayed on as chair of the academic symposium.

-What was the motivation to want to organise the symposium? For example idealism or making money? Did you expect that it would be beneficial to your career? In general what did turn you on?

In part we wanted to energize our institution with regard to new media. Also, we were interested in showcaseing the great stuff going on at our institution and in Chicago. Quite frankly, we felt that the art institute was largely thought of as a "painting school" and we wanted to change that idea. To this end, I suppose, we were also looking at advancing our department (Art and Technology).

-Could you say something about the relationship between your expectations before you started organising the symposium and the actual experience of organising it? Or, put differently: As a job, how did you experience organising the symposium (f.e. as a rewarding activity, as a disaster, etc.)?

It was a WAY bigger job than I expected. The things that were added to the symposium (a festival, etc.) kept making it bigger and bigger. The actual running of the symposium seemed to go all right, and was a lot of fun, but the rush of details and the stress before, and the reality of dealing with a large deficit afterwards were both very difficult. I think that in the long run, what we got back from it in fact was probably worth what we put in - but only just barely. I would say that personally, I learned a GREAT DEAL from this experience, and if I were to take on something like this again (I learned in part NOT TO, however), I would be much better at it. I also learned how to deal with enormous amounts of pressure, and how to organize and delegate work efficiently.

-In general terms, what went well and what went wrong? If this project was not (completely) successful to your opinion, think back and verbalise your main frustrations. You may also include your personal high lights, if there were any. This question both refers to the organization of the event as well as to it's content.

A lot went well, but I there were some key problem spots. Mostly, our institution had never done anything like this (not on this scale) and so there was practically no support for taking this on. This caused a great deal of trouble, and also lead to a good bit of the deficit we accrued. This meant that many offices within the school did not participate the way they should have, and many of their jobs had to be taken over by us or hired out. Likewise, very expensive consultants were brought in by the school administration, and we got very little out of that, but also paid a great deal of money which was more or less wasted. Another problem was that we didn't say no to enough people in the selection process, and this lead to too many things going on simultaneously. The review procedure itself was carried off pretty well, but we ran into various problems during the exhibition with changing requirements, for people's works, etc. Also, we had problems with our PR, and this led to lower attendance than we might have had. This was mostly due to the problems with our institutional readiness I mention above. On the plus side - the exhibition turned out quite well, and aside from a few exceptions - most of the artists were happy. The exhibition got very good reviews both locally and nationally. The keynote speakers were really great, and I was very happy we had decided to feature 3 different morning speakers, with a separate opening speaker (Laurie Anderson).

-How, according to your personal feelings and the feed back you received, did the participants experience the symposium? Were the reactions predominantly positive or negative? What was criticised most, what was complimented most?

See above with relation to the exhibition. I think the main criticism of the symposium part was that too many things were happening at once (we didn't say no to enough people) and I think that this was a problem. These were the main things that I heard.

-Please try and describe the direct and/or indirect effects the symposium had, in your opinion (on f.e.: the development of electronic art in general, the development of electronic art in your country, the development of electronic art in the involved institute(s), on your personal life).

My personal life only recovered recently :). I think that Chicago really benefited from this symposium. The Critic in the Chicago Tribune named Myself and Peter Gena as two of the "Ten Most important people in the Arts for the Year" at the end of 1997 on the basis of this event, so clearly he judged this as one of the most important Arts events of the year. I think also that the school of the art institute and particularly our students got a great deal out of this event.

-Please describe the same for the whole series of ISEA symposia.

I think that they had a big effect, particularly early on - I suspect that more recently (the last couple of years) as electronic arts have moved into the mainstream, that this effect has lessoned somewhat, but still it is very important.

-What lessons can be learned from the history of ISEA symposia (and/or from the issue you organised) and what does that mean for the future issues of the ISEA Symposium?

It takes a lot to run a truly international symposium like this - and it takes more each year as electronic arts join the mainstream. Simply dealing with the vast number of responses to a call takes a lot - actually mounting and financing the resources needed to present them is a very big job, and takes deep pockets to do a proper job of it. I think that it is going to be very difficult for this broad of an organization to continue to do this in the future.

And would you do it again (when asked)?

Hmmmmm.... After maybe a couple more years of recovery I might even consider it again - I would definitely think really long and hard before doing this again, and would really want to have the proper resources and situation in hand first.

-Other comments....

Thanks for taking this on - I look forward to seeing what themes emerge from the responses you get, as well as from your own unique outlook on all this as the founders of the series.

I look forward to seeing you in Paris in December!

Best, Shawn Decker

1998
ISEA98
Liverpool/Manchester, UK

under contruction

2000
ISEA2000
Paris, France

under construction