Bill Buxton: Computer Animation/Visual Effects Jury Member

Your company's animation and rendering program Maya was used in Final Fantasy, a film which, as some critics say, 'is revolutionary. Final Fantasy is a technical milestone, like the first talkies or 3-D movies ... It exists in a category of its own, the first citizen of the new world of cyberfilm.' What is so different in this new world of cyberfilm?

Buxton: There have been a few feature length films that were 100% CG before Final Fantasy: Toy Story, Bug's Life, and Ants, for example. But Final Fantasy was different in that it was the first CG feature that had human-like characters who were CG - true synthespians. More to the point, these digital actors broke new ground in character animation due to their life-like looks, movement and overall performance. I am sorry that this film did not do better at the box office, since I think that it was a better film (regardless of the technology used) that it generally got credit for. But it certainly set the bar to a new level. And, when we consider that including it and Shrek, there have only been 6 (I if my memory works) CG features, it is simply remarkable how far and fast things are progressing, in terms of marking this as a viable option for story-telling.

You are very much fascinated by 'interactive storytelling'. What exactly do you mean by that?

Buxton: I am on the board of the Canadian Film Centre, which was set up by the great director Norman Jewison. Working around Norman, one is constantly reminded that it is ALL about story. Story should always drive decisions. But what is equally reinforced is that there are different ways to tell stories, different stories are best told in particular ways, and ways of story telling can facilitate fresh ways to tell stories, or even bring about new families of story. For example, film is better suited to certain stories and ways of telling stories that a book, or live theatre. But it is also worse than them for other types of story or story telling.

For me, I am therefore always looking at different media in order to discover what its 'voice' is. What stories lend themselves to interactive approaches, and what is the nature of the interaction (which might just be asking questions of a story teller). Often we breathe new life into old stories by telling them different ways.

Again, from this perspective, I do not work in technology. I just look to find new ways to breathe.

A great part of your work is in the field of human/computer interface. These last years, the discourse about digital media has been dominated by the concept of convergence. You are arguing that from a user perspective the opposite of convergence should prevail - divergence. Why?

Buxton: Convergence is only important to plumbers, as it only happens in the 'pipes' that carry data. It has nothing to do with knowledge, information, wisdom or people, other than as a transport mechanism. People are different, have different skills and different needs. How could anyone believe that some 'one size fits all' solution would be a viable option, or one that would improve our quality of life? Yet, that is the basic concept of convergence: that all kinds of activities will converge onto your TV or PC. That is as wrong as it is insulting to human dignity and diversity. I argue that we will have succeeded as designers when we can deliver the right solution to the right person in the right form at the right time in the right place at the right price. The diversity of web browsers tomorrow will match the diversity of ink browsers (a.k.a. paper) today.

What are the big trends you see for the future in computer technology?

Buxton: There are a range, but I see three related things which help paint a picture of the future. First, a broadening of the range of display sizes, from very small (circa 1-2 cm) to very large (3 - 5 metres). With light emitting polymers, within about 7 years you will be able to get high res colour displays that are flexible and 6mm thick that cost about 10 euros a square metre.

Second, there will be the miniaturization of wireless, wearable devices, that will not make you look like a cyborg - watches, rings, necklaces .... things that are designed by goldsmiths/jewelers. They will work on their own, but also know where they are physically and socially (relative to physical and social space, and social space in terms of both other people and other devices).

Third, the coupling of these portable devices with technologies (such as large displays - public and private) will bring about a new society of appliances, and through their communal action, there will be an overall reduction in the complexity of the world, due to the 'net benefit.'

I dream, of course, since almost no research is being invested in anything meaningful, by way of interaction, but at least at age 53 I still can dream, since I know that I am right. It is just a question of when.

You have been member of a Prix Ars Electronica Jury several times: in the Musics (1988, 89) and the Interactive Art Juries (1990, 91). This time it's the Computer Animation/Visual Effects Jury. Have you followed the development of Prix Ars Electronica during the last years?

Buxton: While I (sadly) have never been at the actual Ars Electronica Festival, I have followed the Prix, largely due to the generosity of the organizers who have sent me the resulting books and other material. The body of work is outstanding, and the documentation is, in my opinion, an important archive.

We live in an era where nearly all jurisdictions are trying to create a culture which is more 'innovative'. But what they mean by this is one that makes more technological inventions that generate more money. Now I have nothing against innovation or money. But the means that most jurisdictions, including (especially Canada, where I live) lies somewhere between irresponsible and stupid. What do they do? Cut art, music, design and theatre out of the school programs, reduce funding for the social sciences, and fund engineers and computer scientists in the hope that this will bring about a new renaissance.

But I know something about history and the renaissance. I also know a lot of great scientists, including Nobel Prize winners. And the one thing that I notice is that the people who ARE the most innovative in technology generally have a level of proficiency in the arts that is way out of proportion with the general population. Could there be a relationship, I wonder? As we say in my country, 'Duh!'

Innovation is a cultural thing. The Prix Ars Electronica helps constantly reinforce that link. It was this link that prompted me to incorporate technology in my musical career, and it is what led me to every scientific contribution that I have made. It is rare, that when I see such commitment, as at Linz, I support it. It simply deserves it and has earned it.

Which are the criterias a work must fulfil so that you could consider it worth of a Golden Nica?

Buxton: Excellence. It is that simple. I want to be dazzled by someone's imagination coupled with spectacular technique, which illustrates by action their belief in, and commitment to, their own idea.




no comments yet