Cybernetic Jewelry: Ornament for the Information Age Published in "Visual Computer", (1988) 4: 27-34 ABSTRACT Although jewelry has historically been equated with hardware, the advent of the single-chip CMOS microcomputer allows a redefinition in terms of software. A radically different new kind of jewelry is pre- sented, based on LCD graphics controlled by an on board microcomputer. The revolutionary potentials of this new jewelry, along with its unique requirements and problems, are illustrated by examples from the author's personal experiences in developing this novel medium. KEY WORDS Jewelry, microcomputer, LCD graphics, software. INTRODUCTION We live in an age of rapid technological progress, where the impossible becomes routine and the unthinkable becomes possible. Even so, the fields of metalsmithing and jewelry making have been slow to incorpor- ate really advanced technologies. I believe that microelectronics and computers provide a natural (r)evolutionary path for jewelry in the late twentieth century, and that the first steps down that path have been taken. I hope this paper will help others to travel it as well. The word cybernetic refers to the study of human control functions and of electronic systems designed to replace them, i.e. computers. Cyber- netic jewelry, as I define it, denotes a type of electronic jewelry controlled by a software program running on a programmable computer which resides in the jewelry piece itself. This is in contrast with classical electronic jewelry, which has no such software component. I want to place cybernetic jewelry within a cultural and historical framework, showing how it relates to jewelry making and computer art, and to society as a whole. Rather than an isolated aberration, I shall present it as a natural and inevitable product of our contemporary civilization. I shall attempt to describe the unique nature of cyber- netic jewelry by comparing and contrasting it with "normal" and elec- tronic jewelry forms, and by illustrating some of the revolutionary potentials inherent in the concept. Finally, I shall present examples of current actual and possible imple- mentations of this technology, and offer some conjectures about future developements. What I am trying to achieve is an overview of the basic concepts involved, and a useful introduction to the new methodologies required. Persons interested can use the information here as a basis for their own explorations of the art-and-technology interface. RATIONALE FOR CYBERNETIC JEWELRY The metals/jewelry field has historically benefited from the infusion of new materials-working technologies from outside its purview, such as Stanley Lechtzin and Daniella Kerner's use of computer-controlled machining, vapor deposition and electroforming techniques. Tools and materials define ideas, and new tools can define new ideas. New ideas can change the world. Throughout history, artists have used the most advanced tools and meth- ods of their times to create works of lasting beauty and import. Cer- tainly, granulation must have been at the cutting edge of the Etruscan technological horizon and the Renaissance painters were among the first to embrace scientific perspective. This desire to "expand the enve- lope" of aesthetic expression is deep-seated, and is part of the drive to explore new frontiers, whether in space or in cultural evolution. Jewelry, like other art forms, is an embodiment and reflection of the culture we live in. Ours is becoming a technology-based, information- oriented society, in which data is the most important product. Rapid change is axiomatic and we are evolving new aesthetic sensibilities to help us integrate this flood of experiences. The TV generation has grown up accustomed to an avalanche of images and to the interconnectedness of events and places; the MTV generation is growing up accustomed to multi-channel input and to the equivalence of sight and sound. Our attention is simultaneously being attenuated in span and broadened in bandwidth, creating an ability and a need to ac- quire more information in a shorter time. At least some people creat- ing conceptually serious jewelry need to develope an aesthetic which addresses these issues. I believe that cybernetic and, to a lesser degree, electronic jewelry provide the foundation for such an aes- thetic. If we can say that sculpture has provided the paradigm for art jewelry as currently constituted, then video provides the paradigm for this jewelry for the information age. At first glance, computer graphics technology would seem an unlikely basis for a new jewelry aesthetic, but on closer examination we find that most objections are of a technical nature. There is no fundamen- tal problem, except that until recently it has been impossible. Recent developements in hardware have made it feasible to place somewhat lim- ited, but still interesting, computer graphics systems into wearable jewelry pieces, so the task and the challenge now is to develope the potential of these systems. Looking at it from the computer side of this issue, we can see a sim- ilar convergence. Computer art has grown tremendously from the early days when it was limited to plotter outputs and Cibachrome prints of video screen images. Now computer-mediated art runs the entire spec- trum from super-real film and video images to robot-like sculptures and rooms that react to their occupants. Current miniaturization and low power technologies make it possible to apply these same ideas in the unique environment afforded by wearable systems. Computer art has some qualities which are unique or amplified due to the nature of the medium. We tend to think of computer output of any kind as having a high degree of logical structure. While this is definitely true in many or most instances, computers can also produce a degree of randomness and disorder difficult for human neurons to match. Interactivity with the environment is another forte of computer art, as is instantaneous mutability of image. These qualities provide the raw material from which we can fashion our new information age jewelry aesthetic. To don the jeweler's hat once more, jewelers and metalsmiths are, by their nature and training, accustomed to the kind of fanatical atten- tion to detail required to develope computer hardware and software. I believe the gulf between these two worlds is not nearly so wide as appearances would indicate. Let us now look at what I propose as the bridge. DEFINITION OF CYBERNETIC JEWELRY Since prehistory it has been possible to characterize virtually all jewelry in terms of hardware of some kind. We have seen jewelry objects made in every metal imaginable; in cast plastic and folded paper; in ivory, slate and wood. Lately, we have seen electronic jewels made of integrated circuits, powered by batteries and driving liquid crystal displays and light-emitting diodes. What all these various kinds of jewelry have in common is that the aesthetic entity is defined by configurations of hardware, and changing the visual aspect of that entity requires reconfiguring that hardware in some way. This recon- figuration can involve substitution of materials, rearrangement of parts, alteration of surface texture, etc. In the case of electronic jewelry, radical change can be effected by something as simple as push- ing a switch to a different position, but this is nevertheless an alteration of hardware, namely the rearrangement of parts. Recent developements in microcomputer technology allow for a radical new possibility: cybernetic, or software-intensive, jewelry. In this scheme, a significant part of the aesthetic entity is defined by a software program running on the jewel's internal microcomputer and out- put to an appropriate display device. When we view a computer-generated video image, the aesthetic entity which we respond to is not the video monitor on which the image ap- pears, or even the computer which is connected to the monitor. In- stead, the aesthetic entity is a software program, i.e. a logical arrangement of coded instructions circulating through the computer's circuitry and instructing it to perform specific functions; the perfor- mance of these functions results in the video image. The hardware in this case serves only as a matrix or substrate to contain the software; any monitor will work for output and, within certain constraints, any computer will do for running the software. It is the logical sequence of instructions, the software, which is the unique determinant of the perceived aesthetic entity; a different set of these instructions would produce a different image. If we take this concept and change the context from video installation to wearable art, then we arrive at the concept of cybernetic jewelry. Cybernetic jewels all contain programmable computers on which the soft- ware runs, and some kind of output device which changes its configura- tion in accordance with the logical structure of the software. I choose to use liquid crystal displays (LCDs) as output devices, although there are other alternatives. The primary feature which distinguishes cybernetic jewelry from all other jewelry forms is this software component of the aesthetic entity. Total identification of the jewel with the software would require a jewelry system capable of displaying images of near-video resolution; I call this idealized goal "monitor aesthetics". The hardware in such a case would serve an essentially functional role of fastening the com- puter system to the body, and would otherwise be as visually neutral as the video monitor in the example above. Reality lags behind potential, however. Although it is theoretically possible with current technology to generate video-quality images in a jewelry system, it would be extremely expensive and difficult. The visual output which I am cap- able of with my systems is of a much more modest nature, but the basic principles are still the same. If we consider the aesthetic entity which comprises the jewel to be determined at least to some degree by software, rather than hardware considerations, then such a jewelry piece can assume some rather rad- ical and revolutionary properties. Most obviously, if a software pro- gram is determining how a jewel appears, then the appearance of that jewel can be altered by loading a different program into the jewel's computer memory, without changing the hardware aspect in any way. Alternatively, if the software is written in a modular form, it is pos- sible to achieve totally different effects by directing the computer to execute at different locations in memory. I have used this strategem often in my first generation of cybernetic jewels. The interactive nature of computer technology makes it fairly simple to use data input from external sources, such as switches, keyboards or sensors, to mod- ify the execution of the program, and thus the visual appearance of the jewel. Visual output in such a system could be determined by brain waves and barometric pressure, for instance, combining to alter program execution. Thus, we see that the application of computer graphics technology to electronic jewelry systems allows a unique redefinition of what con- stitutes the jewel. This new definition points the way to an informa- tion age jewelry aesthetic, where software becomes the primary medium. The first precursors of information age jewelry began to appear about fifteen years ago, when advances in semiconductor technology allowed people to begin placing electronic circuits into jewelry objects. These electronic jewels were, and are, just as hardware-bound as other jew- elry forms, but they had some significant differences as well. Most importantly, they allowed jewelry artists to work in the time dimen- sion, as well as the three dimensions of space. Electronic technology made it relatively easy to create jewels which presented a constantly changing face to the world. Another radical potential of this new tech- nology was the ability to use external inputs to alter the manner in which the jewel was changing. My initiation to electronics came in 1974, when I became convinced that computer-generated video was a logical path for jewelry evolution. The necessary microcomputer and LCD video technology did not exist at that time, however, so I had to content myself for years with creating ani- mated LCD graphics generated by hardware circuits. Even at this rela- tively crude level, the ability to deal with images moving and changing in time was a challenging and fascinating experience. The benefits of technology do not come without a price, however. The entire electronics industry is predicated on the economy of scale, on the amortization of developement costs over very large production runs. This is completely antithetical to the notion of the lone artist pro- ducing unique artifacts, so conflict must inevitably arise when these two value systems collide. One very tangible way in which this issue affects electronic jewelry is in the matter of component size and parts count. When making electronic or cybernetic jewelry, one needs to generate electronic signals of a very specific nature to control the output device. The generation of these electronic signals is performed by integrated circuits, or chips. In making normal electronic jewelry, the nature of the signal is deter- mined by the kinds of chips chosen and the way they are interconnected, i.e. "hard-wired logic". Problems arise because, depending on the com- plexity of the desired signal, it can take a lot of discrete chips to produce it, and though we think of these chips as being quite small, which they are, they come in bulky packages for the purpose of simpli- fied connections. The limited amount of space available in a jewelry object can be easily exceeded when it is necessary to employ a large number of these packaged chips. There are a couple of classic solutions to this difficulty; both are rather expensive for an artist interested in producing unique pieces. It is possible, though often difficult, to obtain the required inte- grated circuits in their raw, unpackaged form, but it requires very specialized equipment to handle and interconnect them. Such work must, in fact, be performed under high magnification and using ultrasonic wire bonding techniques. The other solution is to have the desired cir- cuit placed on a custom or semi-custom chip by an outside contractor. This method results in the smallest, most elegant solution, but also the most expensive; the first chip supplied might cost $2500.00 to $50,000.00, depending on complexity and the technology chosen, and the rest might cost $5.00 per piece in 10,000 quantities. Both of these methods result in one circuit design, hard-wired to perform one func- tion; unless the artist plans to duplicate this circuit in many jewelry pieces, it is not likely to be worth the effort or money invested. What this means in practical terms is that there are severe economic, as well as technological, constraints on the amount of complexity which can be incorporated into classical electronic jewelry. Cybernetic jewelry provides a way of side-stepping this issue. The microcomputer, which lies at the heart of every cybernetic jewel, is a tremendously sophisticated integrated circuit. It is capable, without using additional circuitry, of generating very complex patterns in an LCD panel. Unfortunately, the microcomputer itself comes in a rather bulky package, but at least it requires no additional chips. The big payoff comes, however, when it is desired to produce a different kind of output signal: instead of designing a new circuit made of a number of individual chips, it is necessary only to write a new program and load it into the computer's memory. The hardware need not change at all. PROCESSES AND APPLICATIONS I shall now present some examples from my own experience of creating cybernetic jewelry, illustrating the interaction between technological and aesthetic considerations. The decision to employ microcomputers in jewelry requires the artist to adapt to a new way of working, and to tailor his/her aesthetic vision to the capabilities of the medium. Inevitably, as with any medium, much time and effort will be required just to find what those capabil- ities are. Due to the complex nature of microcomputer technology, I cannot overemphasize the importance of finding qualified people to form a developement team; I usually work with one or two engineers, when I am able. Time spent "reinventing the wheel" is time wasted, but often economics force such waste. My goal in developing my first generation of cybernetic jewelry was to try to achieve a reasonable level of visual complexity, while keeping the hardware and software relatively simple. The first task was to determine what kind of output device would display the patterns gener- ated by the programs. My solution to this was to design a liquid crys- tal display consisting of a disk divided into 16 pie segments (Fig. 1); each of these segments would be driven directly by one I/O line of the MCU. The choice of a 16 segment display was governed by the fact that two I/O ports equal 16 lines, so it would be simple to perform the logical manipulation required to drive an LCD. LCDs require alternat- ing, rather than direct current, or they will fail very quickly. In hardware-driven LCD circuits this alternating current is provided by the use of special chips on the drive lines; the same effect can be elegantly achieved with a computer by simply complementing the I/O ports at the desired frequency. The disk format for the segments was completely an aesthetic decision, allowing continuous, seamless, rotary motion of the display. There are limitations as well as opportunities. The elegant, software generated LCD driver presented above depends totally on the correct functioning of the MCU. If the battery voltage falls too low, for example, the computer goes into "never-never land" and the software oscillators fail, destroying the LCD. Seen in this light, battery drain becomes a critical issue. One very effective way to keep battery drain low is to run the MCU at the slowest practical speed. Since timing is controlled by an external crystal oscillator, the best way to do this is to use a 32 Kilohertz crystal from a digital watch circuit; this crystal has the added advan- tage of being physically very small. Of course, if external drivers are used for the LCD, then battery drain is not so critical. These extra circuits extract a substantial penalty in size, however, which I have so far not been willing to pay. The larger the electronic system becomes, the more constraint it places on the size and shape of the case, which can become quite ungainly for a jewelry object. Probably the severest limitation of all is the small amount of memory contained on the single-chip MCUs. For instance, the MC1468705G2 which I use contains only room for 2106 bytes of information. This is enough to program some fairly interesting sequences into an output device, but the computer code will have to be compact and efficient. This means assembly language. A lot of artists, myself included, abhor the kind of nit picking specificity required to program at the assembly language level. There is a way around this problem, however. A clever computer programmer can use the macro function of a good cross-assembler to define macros as modules having specific effects desired by the artist. A framework for organizing these modules can then be programmed, and the result is essentially a custom "language" in which the "instructions" correspond to manipulations of the output device. Using a modular software system of this kind would be a lot more intuitive for most jewelry artists. The software system I am using is also modular at a higher level. All my programs are organized as groups of macros, and each group is a self-contained entity which produces a particular sequence of patterns in the LCD. One very radical result of such modular organization is that the visual quality of the jewel can be instantaneously recon- figured by going to a different group of macros and executing the instructions contained there. The interrupt-request switch is used to cycle from one group to another, allowing the wearer to change the look of the jewel to suit the mood or whim of the moment. Software systems for cybernetic jewels vary in the amount of "intelli- gence" involved. At one extreme, "dumb" systems simply store predeter- mined patterns in memory and pick them out in the required order; at the other pole, output configurations are determined completely by algorithms, or rules, which calculate the patterns to be displayed. Rule-generated patterns require much less memory to store, but it is sometimes difficult to specify exact output configurations, a task at which pattern-reading systems excel. The "language" which I use, DSKTRN, has features of both types. Using DSKTRN, I am able to load specific patterns one at a time, or load patterns and perform opera- tions, such as rotate or complement, on them. My preconceived ideas influenced the structure of the "language" I use, and that structure then vitally affects the kinds of aesthetic entities I am able to con- struct with it. Another factor determining the nature of possible aesthetic entities is the resolution of the output device, i.e. the number of elements avail- able to create patterns. For reasons given, I have chosen a 16 segment round display for this initial foray into cybernetic jewelry, and the results are intriguing, but not mind boggling. For my next generation, I shall employ instead a dot-matrix display, with a grid measuring 16 x 16 pixels. This will enable a very crude sort of video, and even though the jewels may be the size of bricks to hold all the chips required, I think the quantum leap in visual capabilities may well be worth it. Examples of my first generation of cybernetic jewels are shown in (Figs. 2 through 4). In these pieces, the software causes continuously changing patterns in the 16-segment disk LCD; typically each program is written in two to four modules, which run for one to two minutes before repeating. These modules can be addressed with the interrupt-request switch and are designed to give the jewel a very different appearance, depending on which module is running. (Figs. 5 and 6) show a recent jewel in which the LCD image of a face is under computer control. The software is written so that the parts of the face appear randomly, but at no time does the entire image appear. This forces the viewer to hold the pattern in memory in order to perceive the image, an effect which would be difficult to attain with non-cybernetic jewelry. THE FUTURE It is, of course, impossible to predict future developements, but we can extrapolate based on current trends and anticipated breakthroughs. Probably the most important trend for cybernetic jewelers will be the incorporation of ever increasing amounts of non-volatile and volatile memory on the MCU chips. This increased memory space will allow for greatly increased sophistication of software. As memory size approaches the 8K mark, it should be possible to program jewels in inefficient, but easier, high level languages, such as BASIC or Forth. With a really dramatic breakthrough in memory capacity, we might see the possibility of employing sophisticated image-generating algorithms, such as fractal and recursive procedures. Another path of MCU evolution will see the incorporation of more device drivers and peripheral interfaces onto the chip. One very desirable outcome of such developement would be provision of on-chip multiplexed LCD drive circuitry. Also desirable would be the inclusion of cir- cuitry to transform analog sensor data into digital form suitable for computer processing. Output devices and external device drivers will grow in complexity, as well. High on any wish list for cybernetic jewelers is a driver which will produce true video and a panel which will display it. At the far reaches of our conjecturing, we may anticipate such things as the application of artificial intelligence principles and non- invasive nerve signal receptors to create a "bionic paradigm", which will blur the distinction between the jewel and its wearer/operator. It is important to think about such things, because the future happens faster and faster, and we as artists must be able to interpret and moderate the changes when they come. CONCLUSION After all this, perhaps the question most jewelry artists will ask is, "Is it worth all the hassle?". The answer to that is a very personal one which depends on several factors. Perhaps most important is whether the artist takes seriously the notion of technology trans- forming culture, and if so, whether he/she believes that art can play an important role in a technology-oriented society. A major factor, which could cause many people to decide against even trying this new aesthetic road, is the aversion to using computers evinced by persons unfamiliar with them, and even some who are familiar. The truth is, I am not so crazy about computers myself. They are in many ways a hassle to use, but I also think that their benefits far outweigh any liabilities. By tackling the problem in the smallest pieces possible, and by making liberal use of specialist consultants, I think that it is within the reach of many jewelry artists to create works far beyond anything being done today. The same technologies which have taken us literally to new worlds, can also point the way to new worlds of aesthetic expression. The sky is no longer the limit: go for it! BIBLIOGRAPHY Bylander EG, (1979) Electronic Displays. McGraw-Hill, New York Kallard Thomas, editor (1973) Liquid Crystal Devices. Optosonic Press, New York (1984) Single-chip Microcomputer Data, second printing. Motorala Inc., Austin TX (1983) M6805 HMOS, M146805 CMOS Family Microcomputer/Microprocessor User's Manual, 2nd Edition. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJ (1983) M1468705 EVM Evaluation Module User's Manual. Motorola Inc, Phoenix AZ (1983) MC1468705G2 Advance Information. Motorola Inc, Austin TX LCD Technical Manual SI-100. Seiko Instruments USA Inc., Torrance CA 6805 Macro Cross-assembler User's Manual, 2500 AD Software Inc., Aurora CO ILLUSTRATIONS (Fig. 1) Front plane electrode pattern for 16-segment disk LCD. (Fig. 2) "Comet Zero", cybernetic neckpiece, 1985, 3.5"x4.5"x 0.5"; titanium, acrylic, rubber, 1468705G2 micro, LCD, DSKTRN1 software (Fig. 3) "Cyberscape Zero", cybernetic neckpiece, 1985, 3.5"x4.5"x0.5", titanium, acrylic, rubber, 1468705G2 micro, LCD, DSKTRN4 software (Fig. 4) Same as (Fig. 1) at a different time, illustrating the dynamic nature of the LCD patterns. (Fig. 5) "Visage Mnemonique", cybernetic neckpiece, 1987, 3.5"x3.5" x0.5", titanium, acrylic, rubber, 1468705G2 micro, LCD, RNDFC1 software (Fig. 6) Same as (Fig 5) at a different time, illustrating the dynamic nature of the LCD patterns.