SUSANNE PÄCH ON HER LIFE WITH HERBERT W. FRANKE

Susanne Päch: It was, of course, Herbert! When I met Herbert, the Impressionists were everything to me. To some extent, so were the Expressionists and Constructivists. Perhaps there was already a transition in the making here.

SP: After a long life with Herbert, I am certainly strongly influenced by him. I find Herbert's integral approach very beautiful, as generative art has a backstory and should not be reduced solely to the tool of digital code. It is the fundamental approach of creating art not so much "from the gut" but with the mind. In this sense, generative art always involves analytical concepts that begin before the work itself—and it naturally involves algorithms, mathematical relations, and the codes used to implement them.

Herbert spoke in the 1950s of the artist and their approach as a rational "constructor." I find this image very fitting, which I now also pursue with the foundation's collection, in which Constructivists, concrete artists, generative photographers, as well as representatives of Op Art—who are known to have intensely dealt with human perception—are included, along with artists who have devoted themselves to machines or various technical tools for the rational design of works. Of course, computer artists, multimedia artists, or interactive artists who work with codes have been at the center of this development since the 1960s, as digital code has become the non plus ultra of this art trend.

SP: Generative art is an art movement in which the physical work loses its dominant role, and the process of creating image structures takes center stage. In doing so, these artists have also embraced new technical tools for their work: from the camera to the computer to artificial intelligence. Another typical characteristic of many generative works is the engagement with scientifically relevant questions, such as visualization, the investigation of perception phenomena, or more generally, the algorithmization and evolution of processes. In this sense, generative artists also contribute in various ways to bridging the gap between art and science.

SP: I believe it is precisely this analytical thinking that he placed at the center of art. He aimed not only to create art— and I deliberately include literature here— but also to always "understand" the underlying principles of aesthetics. For him, understanding meant discovering abstractly valid phenomena and placing them on a verifiable scientific foundation. He did this using the method he had been familiar with since his studies in theoretical physics: mathematical formulations.

As an example, I would like to mention his investigations into the growth description of a particular species of cactus according to the mathematically describable Fibonacci numbers. This was in the 1960s when he also, as a self-taught individual, delved deeply into information theory and cybernetics to use them as tools for his art theoretical considerations.

SP: First of all, I want to emphasize that I probably collaborated with Herbert far less than it may seem today, as I am currently focused entirely on building the foundation. However, I have always closely followed his work from the sidelines. Especially when he started programming on an Apple computer in 1980, we exchanged ideas more often. He was so excited to be able to develop codes himself, and he loved sharing that joy with me.

I mainly read his literary works only after their publication. When he was writing, he was in a kind of tunnel and difficult to reach. He dictated his novels, which meant he would remain largely in that parallel world for several weeks to not lose the thread.

In recent years, I have increasingly taken care of archiving his images because I realized that it would be an important task to keep his work alive even after his death. However, he always told me: "Don't worry so much about my archive; you have so many talents and ideas. You have something better to do." Nevertheless, he was always very pleased when something new was created, such as the website "art meets science" in 2007 on the occasion of his 80th birthday. With it, I laid the foundation for the current foundation website, even without knowing it.

SP: Yes, a few times, we also developed art projects together. Shortly after we met in 1979, I was part of the video art production of the ASTROPOETICON. It was based on the eponymous book featuring space images by the painter Andreas Nottebohm and poems by Herbert. The book as a concept was no longer enough for Herbert by the end of the 1970s. He wanted to create a video production from it. Both the images and the spoken poems were dynamically altered. By the way, the sound was created by Walter Haupt. He was a musician at the Munich State Opera and also the well-known director of the so-called Experimentierbühne (Experimental Stage) of that renowned institution, which unfortunately no longer exists.

Herbert had participated in several multimedia events there in the 1970s. Walter Haupt was responsible for the sound; he had Herbert's poems recorded and then altered them technically, while we interacted with the images live in the microphotography studio of Manfred P. Kage, a longtime friend of Herbert, using Rehberg's video sizer.

Herbert was sometimes secretly a bit sad that the narrator hadn't read the texts the way he had envisioned. But he always said: "The project is a team effort, and everyone can contribute their own ideas." Well, that was the reason I sat Herbert down in a studio in 2007 and told him to record the poems the way he wanted. I'm very glad I did that. They are a wonderful testament to Herbert's literary work. The cycle was performed for his 80th birthday as part of the event series "art meets science," which I organized as a personal gift for him, at the planetarium of the Archenhold Observatory in Berlin, under the artificial starry sky of the planetarium with musical accompaniment.

The poems read by Herbert were also used in 2021 for an NFT project with Harry Yeff and Trung Bao: the VOICE GEMS ASTROPOETICON. By the way, I also produced them as a video in 2021—with sounds from the two ambient musicians NOVA and Subheim. Herbert was very impressed; it was truly lovely to hear so much praise from him. Last year, we also showed it at the planetarium of the Volksternwarte Munich. The test screening went very well, so I hope the foundation can also showcase my version of the Astropoeticon in other venues in the future.

And then there was of course the multimedia project HOMMAGE À E.M., an interactive performance for a dancer and a visual artist. E. M. stands for Eadweard Muybridge, the inventor of motion photography in the second half of the 19th century, who, with his camera setups, became a precursor to cinematography.

The original HOMMAGE took place in 1989 as part of "artware," a sponsored art event by Siemens curated by David Galloway during the CeBit fair. There was a small room in the exhibition area that Galloway didn’t know what to do with. He asked Herbert if he had any ideas, and Herbert was never shy about that. So, we came up with the idea to design the space as a blue box and realize a dance performance within it. Herbert actually wanted to see me dance myself, as I had a semi-professional ballet training as a teenager and remained closely connected to ballet throughout my life. But I didn't want to. By that time, I was already known as a journalist in telecommunications. I would have felt uncomfortable if people from the industry I knew from a completely different context happened to be there. So, we collaboratively developed the project based on Herbert's idea, and I took on the choreography and direction of the performance. I hired the dancer from the ballet studio where I was taking classes at the time. A technician was also part of the team. The dancer moved on stage, using her body to draw movements in the blue space. Her dance was recorded live by a VHS camera, which transmitted the analog data to the Fairlight video sizer, where it was then altered live using both analog and digital techniques. These alterations were projected directly from the Fairlight onto a screen beside the dancer, who could also see the live images on a monitor at the edge of the front stage. Thus, the dancer and the visual artist formed an interactive unit, creating dynamic sequences on the screen—by the way, to sounds and music by Klaus Netzle.

SP: The questions arose from new insights in science or advancements in the technology sector. Herbert was always on the lookout for innovative machines or novel scientific visualizations. In the 1950s and 60s, for example, machines like scanning electron microscopes became more widely used in science and increasingly revealed new structural and evolutionary aspects of nature. But new findings in psychology, particularly the first quantifiable results regarding human perception and data filtering, were also very significant for him. Subsequently, he analytically and systematically examined the abstract theoretical foundations of aesthetics, often in collaboration with psychologist Helmar Frank. Then, in the 1970s, there were also data processing systems as universally applicable scientific tools, which significantly advanced our understanding of the world from the microcosm to outer space and brought considerable medical progress.

During that time, Herbert wrote numerous science fiction works that often took place in space but always reflected events on Earth and the development of humanity under the technological influence triggered by digitization.

Herbert always said: 'I am convinced that the emergence of artificial intelligence in human evolution will happen much more likely and, above all, much earlier than contact with extraterrestrial intelligence. We should focus our attention on that.' This underdeveloped interest in aliens led, by the way, to some die-hard science fiction fans in the 1970s urging him to write more space adventures featuring foreign intelligences, as that was supposedly the real topic of science fiction...

But back to the visual arts. Starting in the 1980s, PCs became central, finally giving him the opportunity to program. It was the interactivity of art, as well as the connection between music and moving images, that provided the experimental field here. And then there was always new software to try out.

I remember that Bryce by Kai Krause was released in the mid-90s and made a huge impact in the PC scene. With it, three-dimensional landscapes, which until then could only be admired in cinemas or on supercomputers, could finally be created right at one's own desk. Herbert was probably one of the first buyers of the tool.

A few years earlier, he had started using Wolfram's Mathematica, software that allowed for the construction of three-dimensional objects using mathematical formulas. Since Bryce allowed for the import of external data through interfaces, the somewhat unconventional series FANTASTIC WORLDS emerged at that time, a solitary work of representational art. Herbert incorporated mathematically constructed technoid objects into the utopian landscapes, creating an interesting tension in the desolate scenery.

Ultimately, this series, which was quite unusual for him due to its representational nature, belonged more to the category of fulfilling his playful instincts. Perhaps similar to how he had built plotters with Fischer-Technik in the 1970s to draw mathematical oscillation figures. Interestingly, some of these drawings found their way into the collection of the Museum of Modern Art, Ludwig Foundation in Vienna, as he had gifted them—along with color plotter images from the Color Raster series in the 1970s—to the well-known collector couple Bogner, whose collection later went to the Mumok.

The 1990s for Herbert, from my perspective, were characterized by the analysis with world models. He had already begun to reflect on his own life and the worldview he had developed in the 1970s, which is perhaps an age when one starts to take stock. It started in 1990 with his novel CENTER OF THE MILKY WAY, which I would describe as his most philosophical literary work.

At that time, he began experimenting with cellular automata using Mathematica, which allowed him to concretize his ideas about the nature and evolution of the universe—a world, as he always said, that is not truly predictable because it is also determined by real chance.

Since his student days and the emergence of quantum physics, he was convinced that this real chance is part of our universe, rooted in the underlying quantum world of reality. With the help of cellular automata and the one-dimensional world models they enabled, he simulated these effects using random generators. It became clear to him that while too much randomness in development leads to chaos, a measured use of chance represents a lasting enrichment of the world. He published all of this in a highly stimulating and deeply philosophical book, THE P-PRINCIPLE, with Insel-Verlag in 1995. Since it was never published in English, it has gone unnoticed by the scientific community. In it, he explains that for him, the universe is determined by the initial conditions (whoever set them or however they came about), the prevailing natural laws and their algorithms (the cosmic program), and also by real chance. For me, this book is on the list of five non-fiction and specialized books that I hope to publish in English with the foundation in the coming years.

Last but not least, I want to mention the experiments with 3D platforms that first emerged in the 1990s and immediately sparked Herbert's interest. However, Second Life was not a topic for him. What troubled him about it was precisely what fascinated him about Bryce: the ability to integrate data—or rather, mathematically coded self-constructed elements. Second Life only offered elements from internal building blocks that could only be assembled.

But when Herbert became acquainted with the platform Active Worlds through Derrick Woodham in the early 2000s, which had actually existed before Second Life but never achieved public popularity, he was immediately fascinated and purchased a piece of land. Here too, he mathematically constructed everything that could be found within it. Even the plants were based on a mathematical code he developed. Probably hardly anyone noticed this, but it was always very important to Herbert. Unfortunately, the Z-Galaxy can no longer be accessed today, but the foundation also hopes to work on its reconstruction if it can allocate the resources for it.

SP: So, we agreed that the art world largely denied these tendencies at the time, while today they are being discussed much more negatively in public due to the popularity of blockchain. Herbert always said he was convinced that his fundamental ideas are correct and that they can advance our understanding of the laws in our world a little further. This personal insight was ultimately more important to him than public recognition.

Experiencing indifference or puzzled shaking of heads is better than biting criticism from people who believe they can contribute but have no interest in the fundamentals at all. That reminds me, I recently found a newspaper clipping in the archive from the cultural section of the Münchner Merkur from 1958, a review of ART AND CONSTRUCTION. There’s a reviewer who finds the book noteworthy and tries to understand it, even though some aspects remain closed off to him. I find this wonderful: "To say exactly what this book has accomplished is – you can see it in the title – undoubtedly not easy, even impossible, for the author himself, but that is precisely proof of the genuinely novel aspect that makes the book so fascinating… One could call all these excellently reproduced results of the most complex photographic processes an adventure of appearance: these ultra-photos, aerograms, micro-shots, electron microscope images, crystal graphics, pendulum oscillograms, etc.; they evoke a sense of awe in the face of the 'relativity of our optical worldview,' the 'law of disorder,' the beauty and monumentality that prevail in the micro-events around us. The author, a great photographic experimenter, is a mathematician and knows how to master the magic wand of formulas excellently… when he seeks the 'key to the elegance of abstract forms' and wants to find further methods of abstract image design, when he speaks of the possibilities of abstract poetry… Franke's book is a remarkable confrontation of abstract art with exact mathematical thinking and the discoveries of the lens."

SP: Well, we didn't really "deal" with it; we simply acknowledged the criticism and continued doing our own thing.

SP: As I said, everything Herbert did in his life was meant to bring "understanding" about the world. It was never about money, fame, or mere recognition. Although, of course, it was nice for him, as for any person, to receive that recognition. He was fundamentally a thinker and a scientist, and for them, there is no giving up... because, if you are curious, there is always something new to discover throughout your life. External criticism holds little significance in that regard.

SP: We donated the archive of Herbert W. Franke to the ZKM in 2017. Initially, we included all works for which we still had duplicate copies. The original collection, of course, remained with us. However, this is just a small part. Herbert kept everything – not only correspondence but also a lot of material, mostly organized in projects.

The archive now consists of 30 meters of folders and boxes. This includes, for example, project materials for his scientific publications, for exhibitions he curated, and for consulting work, which was an important source of income for him. There is also a lot of project material for scientific work and articles, for exhibitions he curated, and for consulting work he did for industry to earn money. Additionally, there are numerous audio and video recordings of lectures and events. The material reflects his three main areas of work: generative art, science fiction, and science.

SP: The foundation aims to further explore Herbert's extensive body of work and make it publicly accessible in print, online, and multimedia for future generations. It also aims to support research projects that develop the bridge established by the visionary between the world of art on one side and the natural sciences on the other in the 21st century. The projects should complement or further specify his central ideas with new research methods.

SP: Oh yes, I am. The seven months of my life that I dedicated to preparing for the event, in order to create a lasting experience for all contributors and participants, were well invested time. By the way, I am still working on the numerous video documentations of the four-day event, which included conferences and events.

The initial idea was that Herbert wanted to inform the world about new trends through publications and exhibitions, and of course, inspire more people. This thought also drove the summit. As we now look back over several generations of generative art since the 1950s, I wanted to create a broad narrative from generative photography, with which Herbert entered the art world, to the use of artificial intelligence. I aimed to present this cross-generational development with important artist voices of each era, as well as art historians, museum officials, collectors, and contemporary platform operators in the blockchain, in a compact two-day conference program.

For this, the foundation invited around 60 distinguished guests from around the world – from Japan to Canada. It was probably not only a demanding program for me but also for all participants, but I wanted to showcase the dazzling facets of this historically grown and now so complex world of generative art, at the heart of which I placed Herbert's thoughts about the artist as a "constructor," as he called it, who works creatively with the help of various technologies and machines.

SP: Yes, thanks to Alfred Weidinger and you, we entered the world of Twitter, where the community of generative artists now meets. I know that many of the pioneers from the 20th century are still far removed from this world. I wanted to open this new world to Herbert’s companions. They were, as they later told me, excited about this new world and made many new acquaintances. But it was equally important to me that young artists learn more about the pioneers without whom their work would not be possible.

As a historian of science, evolutionary processes are very important to me. And I believe that while an artist can produce works without any knowledge of the history of their own practice, I am convinced that this knowledge adds depth. The young artists have also given me very positive feedback on this. I believe I have achieved the goal of bringing the two worlds of pioneers and contemporary artists, which had been long separated, significantly closer together.

SP: I can put it very succinctly: The most important part was the many friends from around the world whom I could meet again or for the first time in person. That was fantastic.

SP: You are right. The way of working has changed completely. There are indeed two worlds. Back then, one was largely on their own. But not only in art; in science, the research team has long since replaced the individual researcher. Today, a researcher can no longer fully grasp even their own specialized field. What this means is clear: people are increasingly losing their autonomy. In everyday life, this has come about through growing division of labor, and now it's also happening in the realm of thought. This development has both positive and negative aspects: in a team, you can gain more insights in a shorter time – with the downside that this knowledge is ultimately only available collectively, that is, virtually. At the same time, individuals are delving deeper into details and increasingly losing sight of the bigger picture. Apparently, this trend towards collectivity, driven by the possibilities of global networks for real-time data exchange, is also observable in art. Speed is indeed key. Everything is just in time...

SP: That's right. Herbert was not interested in commerce. However, that has become the central theme on Twitter: I believe that deeper communication about the truly important topics is not even possible on a platform like Twitter. You cannot reduce a genuine discourse about our complex reality to two sentences. Unfortunately, it seems that fewer and fewer people are willing to take the time to understand complexity and then publicly discuss the consequences in a controversial manner, weighing the pros and cons. Everything gets reduced to catchy slogans. In my view, this has nothing to do with Twitter itself; rather, Twitter is a result of this trend, which it unfortunately exacerbates. Personally, I do not find that good. Herbert's world was entirely different.

Recently, I found an interesting manuscript in the ZKM archive in our digital database, which I have just published on the website in both German and English. It dates back to 1978, so Herbert wrote it a year before we met. It essentially says everything that was important to him: "Making the invisible visible, expressing the unimaginable, recognizing the unknown… at this point, natural science merges with philosophy and art. And if I look at it from a very personal perspective, even my hobbies find a logical place in that no-man's land where all these endeavors intersect. This is how I try to make sense of it – like anyone who wants to find meaning in what they do."

SP: Don't ask me that; I don't have a proper answer. His fortune, in any case, was that he could produce incredibly quickly. His relentless curiosity was also helpful in trying to understand the interconnected global events as well as possible with human means. This led him to various topics that he didn't just want to grasp quickly but also analyze more deeply, often in "parallel processing," which may have allowed him to see connections that others did not. It was his special ability to bring loose ends together, to build bridges... a skill that likely forms the essence of creativity.

SP: The foundation has planned several project modules for the coming years, all of which aim to bridge the gap between science and art.

Project Art Theory: Currently, work is underway on the translation of THE PHENOMENON OF ART. I intend to publish the book containing Herbert's art theoretical reflections in English next year. Additionally, I want to support a research project in the field of neuroaesthetics. Perhaps this project can also be combined with a scientific symposium and an exhibition.

Then there’s the block on science fiction. The print edition of all literary works will largely be completed by the end of 2024. The foundation will soon release the eBooks of the entire collected works. THE ORCHID CAGE has just been released in a new translation by Springer. The goal, of course, is to make the most important literary works—five novels—available in English translation as well.

This project area also includes the previously mentioned theme of "philosophical worldview," featuring the science fiction novel CENTER OF THE MILKY WAY, the non-fiction book P-PRINCIPLE, and cellular automata as artistic implementation.

Last but not least, the foundation has initiated discussions with the Austrian Association for Karst and Cave Research, aiming to highlight Herbert's historical role in geology with the theoretical discovery of the method for dating stalactites, which Herbert pursued in the following decades leading to geochronological and climatological research. There are wonderful intersections with his science fiction works, such as his theoretical considerations regarding the caves on Mars, which he developed for a commemorative lecture for the Austrian Cave Association in the 1990s. His intense engagement with Mars naturally led him directly into science fiction, particularly to his novel REFUGE MARS (by the way, a title that was changed to ESCAPE MARS by dtv, much to Herbert's annoyance), where the Martian caves only represent a small facet on the sidelines. His friends from cave research, who often also read his literary works, took note of this with a smile back then.