Alberto Novello (Jestern) interview

By David Fodel

Alberto Novello, also known by his artistic alias JesterN, is a creative force whose practice delves into the intricate connections between light, sound, and technology. His artistic journey is a testament to his relentless exploration of the boundaries between the analog and the digital, the past and the present, the known and the unknown.

At the heart of JesterN's practice lies a fascination with repurposing found or decontextualized analog devices. These devices, such as oscilloscopes, early game consoles, analog video mixers, and lasers, serve as both tools and muses for JesterN. He is drawn to their intrinsic limitations and unique "personalities," from the fluid movement of beam projectors to the vivid colors and infinite resolution of analog displays. By breathing new life into these forgotten relics of technology, JesterN invites audiences to reconsider the sociopolitical impact of technological advancement, sparking contemplation on the value of the "old" in an increasingly digitized world.

JesterN's artistic activity spans a diverse array of mediums and venues, from performances and talks to papers and compositions. His work has graced esteemed institutions and festivals around the globe, including the Centre Pompidou in Paris, the Museo Reina Sofia in Madrid, and the Venice Biennale. Through his performances and installations, JesterN immerses audiences in sonic and visual landscapes that challenge perceptions and provoke introspection.

Beyond his artistic endeavors, JesterN boasts a rich academic background and a wealth of technical expertise. With degrees in Nuclear Physics and Electronic Music, as well as a Ph.D. in audio technologies, JesterN's interdisciplinary approach to art and science is evident in his work. He has lent his talents to companies like Texas Instruments and Philips Research, crafting software for cutting-edge audio applications.

The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.

David Fodel: You've said your work explores what ‘old’ means, and what value the ‘new’ really adds. Do you feel that contemporary art in general values the new and novel over the old and traditional? How has this had an impact on your operations as an artist working with ‘obsolete’ tech?

Alberto Novello (JesterN): I am somehow a double outsider in contemporary society; on one hand I am immersed into environments that privilege the old: I am professor in a conservatory (the name says it all) and I was born in one of the countries that are most recognized and burdened by their own grand history (Italy). Very often this gravitation towards the past results in lazy repetition of the same patterns, curatorial practices and aesthetics and leading to recurring narrow-mindedness.

On the other hand, in the more globalized sphere, I feel the constant hype towards new technologies.

Unfortunately, I am more and more skeptical that our societal jump towards new technologies is motivated by real acquisition of insight/ ease of living. It seems more of a desperate attempt to find quick solutions to deeper problems, escaping self-analysis, or even worse, an agenda pushed by smart sellers, being the army or a handful of technocratic corporations.

As a result, my move is ambivalent depending on the interlocutor; when I face nostalgic musicians, I tend to show the need to face the present without hiding into a past that is comfortable but anachronistic, the need to encourage experimentation in the young generation striving for new solutions and creativity. When I face tech enthusiasts, I remind them of the obvious limitations and risks of new technologies.

I really think we produce more technology than we can digest and that we should take more time to understand the impact of what we already have and find better ways to use it.

About the newest technologies, especially AI, I am curious and observant, but so far, I still haven't seen any output that really surprised me more than what humans can already do. It's faster and easier but doesn't impress me so far. We probably still have as humans to digest it and find a creative application for it more than a replacement for us.

I still enjoy exploring the less crowded parts of the art field, where there are less defined aesthetic rules, and I don't have to elbow with the mainstream: using old tools from the 70s. As a bonus, my tools are cheap, I feel I am not contributing to producing new tools that will go to waste, but I'm (very slowly) recycling and this forces me to learn how to repair electronic tools and study electronics, which I enjoy.

DF: As a follow-on, with your background in science, and its emphasis on repeatability of experiments, how does that bode for in-depth explorations of technology-based art? Contemporary art seems to favor one-offs to a degree, abandoning techniques and approaches before fully exhausting possibilities because "it's already been done" sorts of attitudes. Would you agree? How can science and the arts reconcile that?

AN(J): I take from science the methodology of adding little steps from what is known from before: I am deeply indebted to the video art pioneers for example the Vasulkas, but also Xenakis for composition, Don Buchla for designing electronics, but also myself, with the work I did last month. I see the process like building a wall: everyone puts some bricks during his lifetime. I found it already built, and I can observe looking down where it came from, while I have an idea of where it should be going. I'm contributing to that, some little bricks every day.

I also try to experiment with new techniques while exploring what hasn't been explored in the past. It requires studying the history of the field and being creative. Sometimes I dwell in a technique for a while until I feel I own it, sometimes I go back to it questioning the basic assumptions. This happens in science too, when Einstein questioned Newton's dynamic theory our laws of physics started to have a new sense. Art, science, and religion are all for me a way to describe our experience of the universe. For me there's no difference, one can group all as human culture, they share similar aspects. Teachers often explain science as a linear process, improving itself, but it doesn't. It's mostly made of irrational discoveries, mistakes, and even cheating sometimes. Very similar to what the art world is because humanness is what permeates and drives both fields of knowledge.

DF: Do you ascribe to the notion of open-source, free, and freely shared software tools as a way of expanding the practice in your field? Or are your tools essentially your 'brand' and held closely as a differentiator in a highly competitive field?

AN(J): I am somewhat in the middle. I strongly believe in sharing. Spreading ideas is how society evolves. Without circulation of new ideas, a society dies. Even from a strictly selfish point of view, sharing still provides better interactions, social environment, gratification and even, in my opinion, income. I don't like competition as an ideal, I’d rather believe in drive.

However, we live in a non-ideal world: one can't completely give away everything for free. We have limited resources, energy, and time. In practice I think I have the right to exploit my new ideas until the point where I feel I can pass them on. I always do eventually, and usually rather quickly.

As I said: spreading ideas is our most important form of communication. One important factor for me is how and to whom you pass your ideas. I tend to give partially solved solutions to younger artists that ask me for information about my work: it's also their task to connect the dots. I think it's a fair trade, I give a potential solution but one has to also put his/her part of work. It's a useful exercise that helps to understand the job, preparing generations for new discoveries. This is how most bits of knowledge arrived to me.

DF: What can someone who takes one of your workshops expect to learn? What do they come away with that is tangible?

AN(J): One learns to work with lasers in an alternative, I believe freer, way than with the mainstream digital software, using audio signals to create shapes. This approach forces us to understand the math of signals, optics, and some electronics. Ultimately it requires the participant to understand how to shape sound and light simultaneously, developing a personal aesthetic and balance in between these two worlds.

On a more metaphysical level, I also hope to pass more of an attitude of not being afraid to think out of the box, and to try different paths. Different paths lead to different aesthetics, and in the larger point of view, to different solutions to problems.

DF: Similarly, what do you hope to achieve with your performances? Are they ‘demonstrations’ of technology, or is there something else going on?

AN(J): Technology is one part of it. Mainly it interests people and attracts them to my work. Very often it is a starting point. By exposing them to my work I hope they see that we can achieve new aesthetic results using old tools. This creates a kind of absurd temporal tunnel: we cannot create these results using today's technology, but we could not create them fifty years ago because our aesthetics had not reached this point. For example, we had no glitch / noise music as such.

This feels sometimes like an attempt to create an alternate past/present. It brings speculation and interest and stirs conversations about possible other technologies and a healthy relativistic approach to it: to understand we don't have the best and only technology, but just one of the possibilities.

Another aspect is the part that I call visual listening. Nowadays we are constantly immersed in sound to the point that people don't listen anymore. They hear but don't listen. We are though attracted to images on screens, projections, etc. The ubiquitous light festivals are a manifestation of this. By translating sound into light, I hope to give a new attention to the details of sound through the eyes. People can listen to the light and observe the sound. It's a true non-arbitrary synesthesia: a multimodal stimulation that often also involves the haptic field as well, with sound vibrations perceived by our skin and body.

On a more philosophical level I think I would be content with allowing people to wander with their imagination. My installations and performances are contemplative works: I don't expect anybody to understand anything nor interact. We live in a society that bombards us with simulations and distractions. If I could distract people from their distractions, even for a few minutes, I think I would have made a good contribution. I think when the mind travels something reconnects, maybe new neural paths are reinforced, and maybe there is a chance for new ideas to be born. I experience this while I create my works at home. I enjoy being disconnected.

DF: Are your explorations of ‘old tech’ an attempt to uncover territory left unexplored by previous ‘users’ or applications, or a commentary on ‘obsoleteness’ (or both)? Can you elaborate on what you have discovered thus far?

AN(J): I think the theoretical framework of Media Archaeology best explains my approach. After the first commercial hype period every technology becomes cheap and boring. For me that's when it becomes interesting. It requires creativity to find alternative applications for it that were not exploited in the first, usually most obvious approaches. We see it every day: high resolution projectors, powerful computers, multichannel audio rooms, all tools that rely on brute force, money influential connection and resources, not necessarily creativity.

I like to reconsider old tools, see what they can say in silence, what each of them is good for and try to let them shine. In that sense I avoid competition for example with digital software, that can do everything, but because of this reason tends to distract. I use tools that have lots of freedom: infinite resolution, absence of frame rate, fluid beam movement, vivid colors and are also restrained to line aesthetics. I see these limitations as boosters for my creativity.

There is always so much to explore. These old tools have big personalities and often some extreme signal (too fast, too slow, or too noisy or strong) can trigger beautiful artefacts.

On a practical level I had a few nice personal discoveries: that red laser light erases the UV trace on photosensitive materials, that I can use the same 3d geometrical model to generate two light sources and superpose them to achieve more depth in my image: combining colored laser image with the oscilloscope image (I use this in my new performance INspirals) and of course the above-mentioned perpetual phenomenon of visual listening.

Alberto Novello will be performing as part of the Lafayette Electronic Arts Festival [LEAF] on April 20, 2024 at the Center for Musical Arts in Lafayette.

Please also join us for a workshop at DU on Monday, April 22, 2024. More information on the Denver Digerati events page.