MONIKA FLEISCHMANN & WOLFGANG STRAUSS: CREATING VIRTUAL WORLDS LIKE FAIRY TALES

Monika Fleischmann: We first crossed paths in the vibrant art scene of West Berlin in the late 1970s. The city's unique isolation fostered an intense creative atmosphere. Our initial connection began during Robert Kudielka's art history lectures at the University of the Arts, which deepened through our walks in the Tiergarten and meetings at iconic Berlin spots like the Paris Bar and the Dschungel. This creative exchange ultimately led us to open our first studio together.

Wolfgang Strauss: These shared intellectual spaces were vital to our connection. Our conversations evolved from art theory to creative experimentation, inspiring us to imagine collaborative projects ranging from immersive learning spaces to interactive urban installations. In 1987, we founded ArtWork, our art and architecture studio, and later co-founded ART+COM, the first independent research institute for art, interface design, and digital technology.

MF: Our artistic collaboration began in 1984 when Wolfgang brought home an Atari computer, which led me to experiment with digital media. By 1986, I was studying computer graphics. In 1987, we joined forces with other creatives around urban planning professor Edouard Bannwart to found ART+COM alongside our studio, ArtWork. Our institute near Zoo Station became a hub where hackers, architects, and artists came together to explore the digital frontier. We worked on projects simultaneously. While the design of the Hewlett-Packard headquarters in Berlin was a real-world design project, we used the Pool Office database to explore generative design concepts. This exploration led to works like BETWEEN ZERO AND ONE and later GENETIC BLUEPRINT, where generative transformations bring genetically modified designs to life. We understood this as systemic interactivity and felt that the computer became a dialogue partner, talking to us.

WS: ART+COM's interdisciplinary approach attracted major research grants for long-term projects such as New Media in Urbanism and Simulation of Comfort in Virtual Space. These funded research projects enabled us to create large-scale interactive art like BERLIN-CYBER CITY and HOME OF THE BRAIN. In the VR installation HOME OF THE BRAIN, visitors metaphorically encounter four pioneers of AI and the digital future. The visitors' movements echo the contrasting voices of the thinkers. Another special milestone for ART+COM was the development of TERRAVISION, a breakthrough in digital mapping that later inspired Google Earth and was featured in the Netflix film THE BILLION DOLLAR CODE. This follow-up project to the mapping beginnings of BERLIN-CYBER CITY was developed with the financial support and scientific vision of Deutsche Telekom's research department BERKOM, headed by Jürgen Kanzow.

WS: In the Geniale Dilettanten (Ingenious Dilettantes) movement of 1970s and 80s West Berlin, we embraced a multifaceted artistic practice that transcended traditional boundaries. As thinkers, designers, builders, and organizers, we saw art as integral to all aspects of life. This holistic worldview manifested in our pioneering explorations of emerging technologies. We started from scratch with some of the most experimental interfaces of the time—head-mounted displays and data gloves. Through an exchange with Jaron Lanier's company VPL, ART+COM acquired these utopian interfaces, driving projects like BERLIN-CYBER CITY and HOME OF THE BRAIN.

This cutting-edge VR technology, however, also revealed the need for a diverse team with IT skills to realize the technology's potential. In subsequent work, we moved toward more intangible and intuitive interfaces. We experimented with camera tracking in MURMURING FIELDS, electro-field sensing in MARS BAGS, and touchless interaction in POINTSCREEN. Later, we used neural networks to create graphical, spatial, and temporal interfaces such as SEMANTIC MAP, ENERGY PASSAGES, and MEDIA FLOW. Interfaces are key to unlocking content and meaning in interactive artworks. We consciously subverted the principle of "What you see is what you get" (WYSIWYG) that dominated early computer interfaces. Instead, we adopted the mantra, "What you get is what you did not see before."

Our performative interfaces are designed to inspire participants to uncover hidden relationships and meanings through active exploration. This evocative, trace-reading quality of the interfaces is essential to our vision of "Media Art as a Thinking Space for Digitality"—a concept we outlined in our manifesto. Ultimately, we understand immersion not as a passive visual stimulus but as active, mental engagement. Our interfaces are intended to facilitate the flow of mental activity, encouraging participants to become co-creators in the unfolding of digital artworks. This approach exemplifies our holistic, interdisciplinary perspective on the role of art in an increasingly technologized world.

MF: For me, art is looking at the world with childlike wonder and transforming that wonder into creation. We strive to create virtual worlds, like fairy tales, where we can rehearse for reality and exist in a state of "as if"—as if we were dreaming, touching water, or flying, using only our bodies. We create an (electronic) aura that allows us to exist in a new reality, a mixed reality. This concept refers to the performative interface, where technology becomes unnoticed and natural interaction takes center stage. Our performative interfaces use gesture, movement, and physical presence to create intuitive experiences, as seen in works such as LIQUID VIEWS, where viewers interact with their digital reflections, or MURMURING FIELDS, a walk-in sound archive where body movements generate visual and sonic responses. Our work with new digital interfaces—both tactile and non-tactile—such as virtual mirrors and interactive handbags, often grew out of play and experimentation. In our interdisciplinary teams, we have approached the development of algorithms collaboratively, with the artist acting much like a choreographer.

MF: While social media has changed the way artists connect globally from their studios, Berlin's in-person gatherings remain as important today as they were in the 1980s. Our story reflects this evolution: In the '80s, our ART+COM Salons became a physical hub where Berlin's digital pioneers and international visionaries, including Herbert W. Franke and David Rokeby, gathered to discuss the digital future.

WS: The change started early—we communicated with pioneers remotely using platforms like The WELL in California and Internet Relay Channels (IRC). This hybrid approach of combining digital and physical connections culminated in our platform NETZSPANNUNG.ORG. The platform created digital archives for new media art while fostering community through initiatives like the DIGITAL SPARKS student competition, the MEDIA ART LEARNING channel, and TELE-LECTURES streaming. We complemented these digital connections with physical gatherings at the CAST01–LIVING IN MIXED REALITIES conference and media arts festivals. Perhaps the most significant change is represented by our SEMANTIC MAP, an AI visualization of the NETZSPANNUNG.ORG database, where individual works and artists appear as nodes in a network of ideas, themes, and practices. This reflects today's reality: artists connect not only in person or digitally but also through complex networks of shared concepts and collaborative practices.

MF: The small international community expanded globally through festivals like Imagina, SIGGRAPH, and Transmediale, where we met influential figures like Sherry Turkle, Rebecca Allen, Rupert Sheldrake, and Roy Ascott—connections that continue today. Conferences curated by visionaries like Peter Weibel and exhibitions by artists like Simon Penny, Rafael Lozano-Hemmer, and Christine Treguier united us across disciplines. European Union projects deepened our networks, enabling collaborations with partners like Jeffrey Shaw at ZKM Karlsruhe and Steve Benford at the Mixed Reality Lab. These gatherings laid the groundwork for our Mixed Reality (MR) installations, such as MURMURING FIELDS and I2TV–INTERACTIVE INTERNET TV (1999), a distributed poetry play based on Ernst Jandl’s OTTO'S MOPS.

In the 1990s, we hosted influential events at GMD's Birlinghoven Castle, including MEMORIA FUTURA, CAST01, and the VISIONS OF VIRTUALITY exhibition. We launched NETZSPANNUNG.ORG to create a permanent space for media art in the face of evolving technology. Our TELE-LECTURES, in partnership with the Burda Academy, bridged physical and virtual space with speakers such as Wim Wenders and Barbara Stafford. This mixed reality approach became central to our practice, as demonstrated in projects like ENERGY PASSAGES.

MF: Social media has become essential for visibility, especially for digital and interactive art. Early on, our work faced unique challenges—interactive installations required shelf-sized computers and expert maintenance, making them difficult to commercialize. Today, the hardware is affordable and portable, and the software does not need to be built from scratch.

However, while some of our major works like LIQUID VIEWS have been preserved through migration and emulation efforts, other important pieces, such as HOME OF THE BRAIN, still await funding and resources for reconstruction. Additionally, the series BETWEEN ZERO AND ONE (1988) is only now being exhibited after decades, illustrating the ongoing challenge of making our (and other) pioneering digital artworks accessible to contemporary audiences as the "tools of visibility" (the technological means of presentation) continue to evolve. Migration and emulation are critical strategies for preserving digital art, allowing pioneering works to be maintained and experienced over time despite changes in the underlying technologies. This process remains an ongoing challenge.

WS: Our role as artists changed with the launch of netzspannung.org in 1999. We were inspired by Marvin Minsky's vision of books 'talking to each other,' which led us to develop a 'semantic landscape' for digital art curation. Through projects like THE VIRTUAL BOOK (2005), we explored new forms of creative publishing. Today's challenge is different: while social media offers unprecedented connectivity, tech giants see people as ‘users’ and consumers first. We're responding with a new initiative, THE BRAIN BOOK, that explores how AI might reshape artistic communication and community building.

MF: Increasing our social media presence would certainly help our visibility. We also see it as a way to make our artistic archive accessible to a younger generation.

WS: We're struggling to balance marketing with artistic integrity. While we need professional social media management, our priorities lie elsewhere: we are deeply involved in restoring our works from the 1990s and 2000s. Much of our material is stored in the ZKM depot. Our next major challenge will be finding the right team and location for this restoration work—and social media could help us build these connections.

WS: The evolution of these terms reflects our artistic path. At first, we saw the computer as a tool; then it became a medium in its own right. While Monika delved into complex graphic worlds, I focused on establishing a 3D modeling class for architecture and VR design at the Berlin University of the Arts. A pivotal moment was the discovery of the transformative nature of digital material.

Starting from the systemic interactivity of BETWEEN ZERO AND ONE, we focus our attention on the development of non-linear structures, i.e., building blocks of code that can be variably combined and programmed as audiovisual collages according to the participant’s activity, whether on-site or online. These are immersive environments because the viewer is constantly confronted with new experiences through performative action.

The term 'New Media Art' arose from the need to distinguish these interactive works from traditional media art, which focused primarily on image and video. Today, the term encompasses a whole spectrum—from net art to bio art to NFTs and AI art. Each of these forms brings its own methodology, be it generative, interactive, or performative.

MF: The founding of ART+COM in 1987 was a turning point. We gained access to the latest graphics and server technology by lobbying the industry to donate equipment. Every week, a different representative from Sun, Hewlett-Packard, Siemens, or Silicon Graphics (SGI) visited us because they trusted us to do extraordinary work. I was the only one who could operate the Siemens WS30 with its excellent text program for Heidelberger Druckmaschinen—apart from our hackers, who, in the name of world peace, tried to access the hidden places of international secret services at night. At that time, almost no one in Germany had access to email or the Internet, and we were just beginning to grasp the dimensions of so-called cyberspace. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, we wanted to shape the coming digitization from an artistic perspective rather than leave it solely to IT. Through participatory and performative interfaces, we aimed to confront people with a (digital) future they could help shape.

Later, when we founded MARS (Media Arts Research Studies) at the GMD—the National Research Center for Information Technology—our focus shifted even more toward artistic research and technical development, which we called "art and science." In projects such as LIQUID VIEWS, the MARS BAG (a playful contact and security system), the RESPONSIVE WORKBENCH, and the POINTSCREEN for touchless interaction, we developed the concept of the "performative interface." Heidegger's notion of "unconcealment" inspired us to make hidden connections visible and to encourage engagement with digital data. The LIQUID VIEWS interactive installation is based on a real-time wave algorithm. The POINTSCREEN contactless interface uses the U.S.-patented Ecco system with a proprietary microchip. The earlier MARS BAG technology adapts Theremin technology with a proprietary circuit that was distributed to the community. It was a mix of patenting and making knowledge public through open-source distribution, yielding amazing results. The RESPONSIVE WORKBENCH was provided as a demonstrator to BASF for molecular visualization and to Mercedes-Benz for virtual wind simulation of a car.

So far, so bad. Even though we had good lawyers for the loan contracts, the effect was that they simply copied the system. New media art has always been a seismograph for technological developments, but it was not paid for. Today it is different because new media artists can be sponsored directly by companies like Gucci. However, this is not a question of art but of taste—the taste of the sponsor, i.e., its consumers. Perhaps we, as artists, have a completely different taste.

WS: There's a growing acceptance of digital art in contemporary culture. More artists and curators are simply calling it "art." Technologies like AI, virtual reality, and blockchain have helped drive this shift and solidify digital art as a dynamic force within the art world. However, some skepticism remains, especially around issues of value, preservation, and curation. I would like to share an experience with ENERGY PASSAGES (2004), our performative public installation outside the House of Literature in Munich. The sculptor Magdalena Jetelová categorized the installation as art with her enthusiastic words: "Yes, Munich needs something like this and not the hundredth exhibition of the Blauer Reiter (Blue Rider)." She equated it with the large public sculptures she used to create. This assessment was made by an established artist in 2004. Those who deny the artistic character of electronic art are usually art critics, curators, and museum professionals.

MF: Throughout our careers, we have embraced new media art as a transformative thinking space. Our work has focused on creating environments where people can interact with data and understand its digital nature and implications. Through initiatives such as the ART+COM Institute, the MARS exploratory media lab, and the digital art platform NETZSPANNUNG.ORG, we have contributed to the discourse on digital art with interdisciplinary teams. Although we are less concerned with definitions such as "art" or "digital art" and more interested in the impact, we are confident that digital art will be recognized in the art historical canon, also through current exhibitions such as Reimagine Tomorrow or Electric Dreams.

WS: Digital art is still a niche. Today's accessible tools have led to a flood of digital creations—like "Sunday painting"—that can overshadow more substantial work. ZKM recently approached us about reconstructing HOME OF THE BRAIN. It is unclear whether this will be possible for us (technically and financially), but I would like to see how today's audience would respond. With today's AI capabilities, we could realize aspects that we originally envisioned but couldn't technically achieve at the time.

WS: The NFT phenomenon struck me as absurd at first. When I read about a Silicon Valley billionaire spending tens of thousands on an NFT of Nike sneakers that would never physically exist, I wondered: What's the point of owning something you can't even show off? It felt like a twisted version of "less is more." However, NFTs could revolutionize ownership and transparency, changing the way we deal with digital archives. The focus should shift from ownership to authorship and distribution. Many digital media art archives struggle with attribution, including the SIGGRAPH Archive.

By combining media art AI with language models, we could create a more streamlined system for accessing NFT collections. This would help media artists become more discoverable without getting lost in countless individual archives. I'm particularly inspired by artists like Frank Stella, who uses NFTs differently—creating tokens for his large-scale sculptures that include 3D fabrication downloads.

MF: The initial NFT boom was astounding: astronomical sums were being spent on intangibles. However, beyond speculation, I'm intrigued by the experimental possibilities of NFTs. We're considering exploring this technology for our BETWEEN ZERO AND ONE series as the next step, which we envision as 3D sculptures.

MF: This renewed interest in media art is encouraging. Peter Weibel and Siegfried Zielinski's 2018–2019 ZKM exhibition ART IN MOTION: 100 MASTERPIECES WITH AND THROUGH MEDIA was a landmark moment, tracing media art's evolution from photography and sound art to networked practices. While almost overwhelming in scope, ZKM's spaces provided the perfect context for newcomers to the field. Unfortunately, the planned catalog never materialized—a missed opportunity for documentation.

Today's wave of survey shows reflects both social changes and generational interests. Young curators, often pursuing doctoral research, are reviving historical works within contemporary contexts like AI and VR, making them accessible to new audiences. Meanwhile, older artists are eager to establish their legacies before AI art dominates the conversation.

WS: The V&A's DIGITAL ART book is particularly significant in an era where digital information can vanish so quickly—often only retrievable through the wayback machine. Books provide a permanence and visual overview that digital formats can't match. However, these narratives often have blind spots. Take the RADICAL SOFTWARE exhibition, for instance: its political correctness paradoxically excludes some truly radical contributions, including Monika's work—likely overlooked because she's part of an artist duo.

There’s another problem: a new book has just been published—ART OF THE 1980S: AS IF THE DIGITAL MATTERED (De Gruyter, 2024)—which once again focuses on American artists. Perhaps this focus is due to the larger market there for artists, books, and exhibitions.

Current exhibitions like ELECTRIC OP and DIGITAL WITNESS tend to prioritize image-based work. In the 1990s, new media art consciously distinguished itself from image-based media. What is still missing is a comprehensive history of the time-based, space-based, telematic, process-oriented, reactive, interactive, and self-organizing works that represent early dreams about the possibilities of the World Wide Web and human-machine interaction.

The challenge is preservation. Interactive works often require restoration due to aging technology, and many will likely end up being documented only on video. But there's a crucial difference between an artwork that "lives" and one that merely represents. As exciting as these current exhibitions are, they show only fragments of the full scope of digital art. Ironically, digital art was more integrated into contemporary art forms in the 1990s. The exhibition DEEP STORAGE: COLLECTING, STORING, AND ARCHIVING IN ART (1997–1999) exemplified this by including our work LIQUID VIEWS and two others by Lynn Hershman and George Legrady. The exhibition traveled from the Haus der Kunst in Munich to various prominent venues, ending at PS1 in New York.

MF: Current technologies like AI and text-to-image generators provide a perfect entry point for understanding the history of digital art. Just as today's AI interprets instructions (prompts) to create images, our early work focused on creating systems that responded to viewers and pioneered new forms of interactivity. Take ART+COM's TERRAVISION from 1993; it envisioned what would become Google Earth and showed how digital artists were imagining and shaping our technological future. Digital art isn't just about technical innovation; it's about exploring real questions of human communication and interaction in a globally connected world.

WS: While people today are familiar with AI-generated images thanks to mass media, there's often a gap between recognizing an output and understanding the process. When I mention that ENERGY PASSAGES was written in C++, I often get blank stares. However, digital art becomes immediately accessible when experienced through interaction—like touching your reflection in the virtual water mirror of Liquid Views, inspired by the Narcissus myth. Or consider Jeffrey Shaw's bike ride through a virtual city—people intuitively understand these works through direct engagement, even without grasping the technical background.

MF: This is why works like LIQUID VIEWS and RIGID WAVES became educational touchstones in the 1990s and 2000s, appearing in books and school curricula as gateway examples of digital art. We need more integration of art and computer science education in schools to build a deeper understanding. The goal isn't just to teach people about specific technologies but to help them understand how (digital) art has always been at the forefront of human-technology interaction.

We've always said that digital or new media artists in computer and science labs are the best at inventing and opening minds to inspiring ideas. Evaluations of our MARS Exploratory Media Lab at GMD/Fraunhofer have proven this time and time again.

WS: Looking at the evolution of digital media in society, it's remarkable how quickly foundational concepts like Cybersyn (1970–73) were forgotten. Cybersyn, an ambitious plan of the Allende government directed by Stafford Beer and Gui Bonsiepe, envisioned a collaborative digital platform for national economic planning, in sharp contrast to the MIT Architecture Machine Group's MEDIA ROOM, which focused on computer control rooted in military development. MIT's model, adopted by Xerox PARC and Apple, emphasized personal computing and drove the economic growth of the IT industry. However, Cybersyn's inclusive communication model, which facilitated multi-participant discussion and decision-making, remains relevant today for fostering collaborative decision-making in digital spaces.

A renewed focus on 1970s models can inform future digital frameworks, and the recent surge of interest in the history of digital art and media, led by scholars and retrospectives, speaks to this overdue review. While some artists explore questions about machine cognition or hallucination, we pursue a different concept: "intelligence augmentation" (IA), where the viewer's engagement with AI reveals the impact of their own choices, creating a dynamic space for thought that bridges human and artificial knowledge.

MF: While Cybersyn pioneered participatory digital spaces, we are advancing this approach for the AI age. Our THINKING SPACE combines Cybersyn's collaborative vision with the power of Intelligence Augmentation. In our THINKING SPACE, people's interactions are mirrored and analyzed through AI feedback, enabling a deeper understanding of personal decision-making processes. At a time when AI systems often appear as black boxes, our approach creates intentional transparency and spaces for reflection.

Our THINKING SPACE invites interaction between humans and AI, illuminating the hidden consequences of personal choices and actions in a symbiotic, reflective environment.