The Genesis of Computer Media at Poly

Introduction

        For decades, the history of science and the history of art were treated as parallel lines that never touched each other. However, the work from two distinct researchers at Poly in the mid-20th-century suggests a completely different narrative. The early computer-generated media produced by Judith Bregman and Michael A. Noll was not merely a byproduct of scientific calculations, but a deliberate interdisciplinary collision. By repurposing tools meant for ballistic trajectories and crystallography into “paint brushes” for aesthetic expression, these two pioneers established a computational hybridity that serves as the predecessor of the modern day Integrated Design & Media program at Tandon.        To explore this historical argument,  I want to dive into both Bregman’s and Noll’s work in the area of computer-generated media as parallel but converging case studies. While Bregman approached computation as a scientific visualization tool and Noll approached it as an artistic medium, both ultimately demonstrate that early computer media was not an accidental byproduct of engineering, but a deliberate rethinking of what computers could mean in a cultural context. By putting these sources together, I want to show that computer media emerged not from a single discipline, but from a shared experimental mindset that crossed the boundaries between art and science.

Judith Bregman’s Cinema

        Judith Bregman, a physicist and crystallographer at Poly, represents the utilitarian origin of computer media. While her primary goal was to visualize and educate complex scientific concepts, her use of the computer to generate movement created a new cinematic language. Crystallography is the experimental science of determining the arrangement of atoms in crystalline solids. Bregman’s interest in this area may have influenced her to think in terms of structure, repetition, and invisible systems, which are concepts that translate directly into the visual logic of her films. Rather than depicting reality as it appears to the eye, her work visualizes systems that can only be understood mathematically. In this sense, Bregman’s films are not representations of the real world, but translations of scientific knowledge into an artistic motion and form.

        Swinging Quanta, Copy 1, 1976; Judith Bregman Collection; RG 013; Box 2; Reel 7; Poly Archives at Bern Dibner Library of Science and Technology, New York University.

        The Packet of an Uncertain Gaussian, Copy 2, 1968; Judith Bregman Collection; RG 013; Box 2; Reel 10; Poly Archives at Bern Dibner Library of Science and Technology, New York University.

        In both films that Bregman worked on as a physicist, the “characters” being shown on the screen aren’t people, but probability waves and particles. In Swinging Quanta, quantum motion and oscillation is visualized, translating advanced mathematical concepts into visual images. In The Packet of an Uncertain Gaussian, the computer is used to visualize the wave-particle duality, something that is simply impossible to capture with a traditional film camera. With these films, Bregman translated the rigid math of the IBM scientific computer into fluid visual narratives. This wasn’t just scientific data output, it was a novel type of cinema designed to make the invisible visible.

        Bregman’s films can also be understood as an early form of what we might now call “data visualization as storytelling.” Rather than presenting quantum information as static graphs or equations, she translated them into time-based media, allowing viewers to experience scientific processes unfolding. This shift from static to dynamic representation is significant because it transforms the role of the viewer from someone who interprets abstract symbols to someone who perceives motion and pattern intuitively. Bregman was not just communicating science more effectively; she was redefining how knowledge itself could be represented through computation. As discussed in Oscillons and Cathode Rays, early computer art often emerged from “photographic hybrids” (McKim, 2021), where researchers used long-exposure photography and cathode rays tubes to capture the movement of physics, blurring the lines between empirical recording and aesthetic creation. Bregman’s work at Poly exemplifies this hybridity, where the requirements necessitated the birth of a new visual medium. She showed a perfect example of presenting science in a creative manner that could be appreciated as an art form.

Michael A. Noll: Experimentation with Computer Art

        If Bregman provided the scientific foundation, then Michael A. Noll, a Poly alumnus and a researcher at Bell Labs, provided the artistic intent. Noll is widely considered as one of the first prominent computer artists in the country, moving beyond visualization into the realm of perceptual experimentation.

Computer Composition With Lines, 1964; A. Michael Noll Papers; RG 047; Map-Case; Drawer 3; Poly Archives at Bern Dibner Library of Science and Technology, New York University.

        Mondrian, Piet. Composition with Lines. 1917; Kröller-Müller Museum, Otterlo, Netherlands.

        This piece by Noll famously mimicked a Piet Mondrian painting. Noll conducted a “Turing Test” for art, asking subjects if they preferred the painting painted by a human or the computer-generated iteration. This experiment challenged the notion that artistic “soul” was exclusive to the human hand. Utilizing IBM 7090 mainframes computer and Stromberg Carlson S-C 4020 plotter, Noll pushed computational technology to its creative limits, becoming a pioneer in the field of computer generated art.

        In Peripheral Vision, it is explained that the S-C 4020 was never intended for art; it was a business tool designed for recording data (Patterson, 2015). Noll creatively utilized this industrial tool to explore human perception. This repurposing of seemingly cold and corporate technology for subjective exploration is a cornerstone of the argument that engineering and art are inextricably linked.

        (Discuss more about Noll’s experimentations)

Question: Art, Science, or Both?

        In April 1965, Noll and his collaborator Béla Julesz hosted a landmark exhibition of computer-generated pictures at Howard Wise Gallery in New York City, marking one of the first exhibitions of digital art in the country. They aimed to demonstrate the potential of computers as artistic tools to a mainstream audience. However, some, including the New York Times, dismissed their work as “cold” and “mechanical”.

        Computers and the Visual Arts, 1994; A. Michael Noll Papers; RG 047; Box 4; Folder 10; Poly Archives at Bern Dibner Library of Science and Technology, New York University.

        The 1994 paper Computer and the Visual Arts by Noll provides retrospective insight into how Noll himself framed the relationship between computation and creativity. It is significant as a primary source because it demonstrates how early pioneers later interpreted their own work. In this case, Noll did not only interpret his work as technical innovation, but as a part of a broader cultural shift.

The tension of this era lay in the definition of “creativity” in the context of artistic expression. Critics argued that because the computer performed the work, the human was no longer the artist and therefore shouldn’t take credit for the work. Noll countered this by arguing that the computer was simply a partner that acted as a creative “medium” that could extend the human imagination beyond its physical limits. This debate was central to the landmark exhibition Cybernetic Serendipity, which argued that the computer was a tool for serendipitous discovery rather than just rigid calculation (Reichardt, 1968). Noll perfectly captured this point in his artworks, demonstrating a special type of creativity that wasn’t understood by everyone at the time. This also raises another question: is the skepticism towards computer-generated media during that era a direct reflection of broader societal anxieties about automation and the role of machines in human life? The criticism about computer art mirrors the mid-20th-century fears that computers would depersonalize labor and creativity. One could argue that this reception isn’t just about art but instead reflects cultural uncertainty about the increasing presence of computation in everyday life.

History of Plotting Machines

        Before the high-resolution screens we have today, computer media was physical. It involved pens, ink, and machines called “plotters”. Both Bregman and Noll relied on technologies that translated digital signals into physical output. Bregman’s films were generated using scientific computing systems that controlled visual output frame-by-frame, often recorded onto film using oscilloscopes or similar display technologies. On the other hand, Noll used devices like the Stromberg Carlson S-C 4020 microfilm plotter, which converted numerical data into drawn lines on film.

Photograph of the Stromberg Carlson SC-4020 at Bell Telephone Laboratories,

Inc. in Building 3 at the Murray Hill, NJ facility.

Understanding the "aesthetic of the line" requires an appreciation for the material history of early digital media, which is a significant representation of the “raw textures” unique to the era. Early computer art techniques were mostly linear because machines could only draw vectors. When the pen skipped or the paper jammed, it reminded the viewers of the physical presence and authenticity of the machine, similar to that of an artist. Much like a traditional artist’s brushstroke, these imperfections contributed to the unique identity of the early computer-generated films and images.

Legacy at Tandon: IDM

This section will explain how the 1960s work relates to the modern IDM program at Tandon.

Primary Source: IDM Student Gallery

• Reinforces the argument that our school isn’t just a place that teaches technology; it is continuing decades of tradition of treating the computer as a cultural artifact.
• Highlights the interdisciplinarity of the students’ creative expression. Each student utilizes different areas of engineering to create something both scientific and artistic.
• Draw similarities between Bregman’s and Noll’s work in modern galleries and how it evolved into IDM’s focus on creative expression.
• Shows a shift from limitation-driven creativity (early plotters and mainframes) to possibility-driven creativity (modern computing power), while maintaining the same core idea: computation as a medium for expression.

Conclusion

        The history of computer-generated media at Poly isn’t a story of machines getting faster; instead, it’s a story of humans getting more expressive and creative. From Bregman’s lattice to Noll’s algorithms, the Poly-Bell corridor proved that an engineer's desk and an artist’s easel are the same piece of furniture. By reclaiming this history, we see that the “integrated” in Integrated Design & Media has been there since the very beginning. This is concrete evidence that engineering, specifically in the area of computer science, and art are intertwined with each other, blending into something that should be appreciated as equally as artwork created by a paint brush. Finally, this history challenges the idea that technology and culture develop separately. Instead, it suggests that innovation happens most powerfully at their intersection when technical tools are reimagined as creative instruments. Through the IDM program, Tandon is actively fulfilling this idea by allowing students to explore the possibilities of technology in a creative context.

Questions for Reviewers

• Is including the section that discusses the history of the plotting machines necessary?
• How is the historical argument? Do the sections represent it in a coherent manner?
• Is the connection between historical sources and modern IDM framed as continuity, or does it feel like a jump?
• Any more primary and secondary sources that could be used?
• Would adding more external historical examples strengthen the argument, or make it too broad?
• How can I represent more of Bregman’s work in my argument?

References

Primary Sources

• Swinging Quanta, Copy 1, 1976; Judith Bregman Collection; RG 013; Box 2; Reel 7; Poly Archives at Bern Dibner Library of Science and Technology, New York University.
• The Packet of an Uncertain Gaussian, Copy 2, 1968; Judith Bregman Collection; RG 013; Box 2; Reel 10; Poly Archives at Bern Dibner Library of Science and Technology, New York University.
• Computer Composition With Lines, 1964; A. Michael Noll Papers; RG 047; Map-Case: Drawer 3; Poly Archives at Bern Dibner Library of Science and Technology, New York University.
• Mondrian, Piet. Composition with Lines. 1917; Kröller-Müller Museum, Otterlo, Netherlands.
• Computers and the Visual Arts, 1994; A. Michael Noll Papers; RG 047; Box 4; Folder 10; Poly Archives at Bern Dibner Library of Science and Technology, New York University.
• Noll, A. Michael. Early Microfilm Plotters at Bell Labs. 2015; A. Michael Noll, The Web Site; http://noll.uscannenberg.org/PDFpapers/40204360.pdf.

Secondary Sources

• Patterson, Zabet. Peripheral Vision: Bell Labs, the S-C 4020, and the Origins of Computer Art. The MIT Press, 2015.
• McKim, Joel. "Oscillons and Cathode Rays: Photographic Hybrids in Early Computer Art." Photographies, vol. 14, no. 3, 2021, pp. 459-79. Taylor & Francis Online, https://doi.org/10.1080/17540763.2021.1959387.
• Reichardt, Jasia. Cybernetic Serendipity: The Computer and the Arts. Studio International, 1968. Internet Archive, https://archive.org/details/cybernetic-serendipity.