Jerald: How did you get involved with Entangled Agencies and what your hopes are for the program and your time with it.

Isabella: I got involved because KP asked me to be part of the first module, and I accepted because I was very excited. The first module is titled Instructing and Instructed, so really seeing code as instruction. I like how that broadened the definition of what technology could mean, expanding it to coding as scripting, notation, and how it’s a transfer of one state to another.

I was very excited for this module because it will allow me to go into the fundamentals of what technology is in a critical manner. I hope the takeaway for people going through this module is that this will be their first engagement with technology.

Jerald: Could you describe a bit about your background and experience with computational art and related fields?

Isabella: I’m a visual artist. I’m very interested in the relationship between data, text, and environment. My background is in architecture, but I also studied web programming. In my practice, I engage with both disciplines. I often work with material processes and making techniques, while also employing computational and generative methods. I’m very interested in the space and translation that happens between these forms. That’s how I got into technology.

Jerald: Going back to the workshop, which you shared a bit about already, could you elaborate more on what you hope participants will walk away with?

Isabella: The format of the workshop will be analog exercises paired with simple introductory digital sketches in five days. It will be centered on the conceptual artist Sol LeWitt’s instruction-based wall art.

It’s open to anyone, especially beginners with no technology or coding experience. The first engagement with technology won’t be straight to the computer, but through understanding what text, prompts, and instruction are, and the generative and procedural methods behind those processes.

We’ll be looking into the physical and digital substrates of what a piece of code is — working with paper and pen, and creating generative art that goes beyond the computer itself.

Jerald: Could you expand more on what you shared about constructional or procedural art? Earlier or conventional forms often use materials like pen, paper, or drawing. When this moves to computational or electronic media, what do you think are the key differences, if any? Or are you trying to help participants see that it’s actually very similar?

Isabella: I think this comes from a lineage, a historical lineage of cybernetic thinking that predates what we understand as computers today. There’s a lot in instruction-based art — Vera Molnar, a generative artist who created drawings through IBM computers, and also instruction-based performance by the Fluxus group.

There’s a long lineage that led to a very exciting time in cybernetics, combining theory with art and architecture. To expand on conceptual or instruction-based art, it has this lineage. The workshop could offer a way to ground this way of thinking in computational processes and foundations.

Jerald: Do you think with current computational mediums for this kind of artwork, it differs significantly from earlier artists and works in that lineage?

Isabella: It’s hard to answer that in a straightforward way because there’s no single discipline. There’s no such thing as just “computational art.” It’s a technique that people across many practices use — artists, practitioners, dancers, choreographers. It straddles many disciplines.

I think there are still very exciting works happening now that borrow from those earlier ideas, from the cybernetic history.

Jerald: How is the nature of work — whether creative or other types — affected by viewing machines as collaborators rather than tools or replacements? Maybe you can speak to that, whether in your own art or what you envision for this workshop.

Isabella: I’m not sure how applicable this question is for my own practice, because even though I employ computational techniques, I don’t see myself as a technologist. A statement I always go back to — I might be misquoting Cedric Price — is: “Technology might be the answer, but what was the question?”

This is something I always think about in my practice. Technology is the tool or technique, and sometimes it doesn’t appear in my work. It might be part of my thinking process but doesn’t necessarily manifest as the work. I see it more as a process rather than the output.

Jerald: That’s really interesting. Thanks for sharing. We’re at the end of the interview questions, but for social media, could you give a quick plug about your workshop — why people would be interested, or what they can expect?

Isabella: The workshop is exciting because it’s designed for beginners with no coding background, but also relevant for experienced practitioners and technologists who are curious to revisit fundamental thinking and processes still rooted in critical computational thinking.