One purpose behind WAVEFRONT was to provide an alternative to HOLOSPHERE, the New York based publication which (at that time) typically offered technical tips, press-release type information, and newsletter-type reviews of events and exhibitions.  We felt the holography community needed more in the form of investigative journalism and aesthetic debate. We put a call out for contributors and, after a few issues, received a number of international responses, with interesting and varied points of view.

My two long essays on "Art and Holography" - Part One,   and the concluding,   Part Two,   are contained in our first two issues.

These early essays were written in an 'academic' style to lay some groundwork for discussion on aesthetics and cultural analysis of holographic art. They included such 'rarified' ideas as semiotics, linguistic and cultural theory, and likely perplexed many of the readers. These first essays were followed by a treatise on Avant-Garde for Holography by way of Nemesis, which involved (and cited) SURREALIST and DADA examples in an attempt to implicate holographic art practice within a the more general practice of 'fine art'. My culmination of this 'critical trajectory' was a 'bizarre' slide and academic presentation at a 80's SPIE conference (the 'display holography' section which I chaired) and featured a paper on Marcel Duchamp's The Bride Stripped Bare (By Her Bachelors, Even). This paper is in the SPIE archives.

Though I might be somewhat biased (as authors are known to be), I think the issues I raised in these 1980's essays are valid, if not more so, today. Then, the criticisms of art styles and indulgences were scarce, aesthetic theories largely non-existent. Today, as then, I see a lot of kitch, generic forms and ideas, and imitations of earlier work. And a resistance (let's call it for what it is: a 'conceit') against criticism and aesthetic evaluations of content. There is still good work out there (a lot more than I know about), but over the intervening years there have been but a few aesthetic theorists (Andrew Pepper, Brigitte Burgmer) willing to take on 'holographic art'.

At  WAVEFRONT,  we did not set out to create controversy, but in an environment of professional etiquette (where no one will say what they 'really mean' except to leverage an art or business deal), and the conceits surrounding reputation and power,  we found ourselves continually embroiled in it.  Our controversial 'nature', as will be noted further on, was both our strength and our weakness.

After the first several issues, Bernd Simson went on to other things, to manage his business; and the production team was joined by Carolyn McLuskie (a talented journalist, as managing editor) and Derrick Carter (an equally talented designer).  We had a number of contributing editors who submitted writings from various locales, but in addition to Bernd, Carolyn McLuskie, and Derrick Carter, only Walter Clarke, Linda Law, Tulla Lightfoot, Ed Dietrich, and Melissa Crenshaw made regular contributions. But contributions from all concerned were appreciated. (Contributors-articles are listed in the various issues available on-line through Holonet and LOCAL LISTING.) Technical support in setting up publication was provided by Jerry Barenholtz.

Our publication was feisty, combatative, and uncompromising.  If you want confirmation of it, compare the various issues with their counter parts in Holosphere.  Our directness and capacity to publish 'critical' articles tended to upset and offend some in the community.  Some artists, who received unfavorable review of their work, harbored ill feelings long afterwards. (In retrospect, I would say that 'Holosphere', with its penchant for milk-toast reviews (like the un-critical reprinting press-releases) with artists' names always highlighted, spoiled both the artist community and a number of technical (generic subject) holographers who fancied themselves 'artists', and saw it confirmed in the public-relations atmosphere of   Holosphere.)

Certainly the lack of critical dialogue between artist and curator, critic and the public was influenced by the enthusiasm and the novelty of this imaging medium in the 70's and 80's.  Contexts (theories) of critical and aesthetic reference were difficult to come by and most established art institutions viewed holography as simply a technical curiosity.  When shows, featuring the most trivial of subject matter were circulated, it did little to convince the 'art world' that this enterprise had something 'serious to say'.  This was particularly true in the case of Hilton Kramer's (an established art critic of the Clement Greenberg school) famous broadside review in the New York Times (1975) which dismissed the first retrospective New York exhibition as being infantile and without "the slightest trace of esthetic intelligence." For ten years afterwards, I can't recall any assertive reply in print to Kramer's remarks and many of the shows in the 70's reflected the circus-like atmosphere (the "nursery" as Kramer called it).

Due to our (Vancouver) geographical and institutional isolation, we didn't have to worry about 'playing the social game': there was no 'scene' or 'school' to protect, no museum to run, no theories to defend.  We could be bold, and sometimes our boldness added to our difficulties.  When we published an investigative article by Carolyn McLuskie on patents and infringements, titled "Patents Divide Holography Community" - (HTML)   in a later issue   (Vol. 2, No. 2 Spring 1987)- (PDF file),   this resulted in all kinds of corporate paranoia and suspicions (and of course, this affected advertising).

The patents article was an extensively researched piece about 'the mess' of claims and counter-claims that had arisen in the numerous developments based on the original inventions by Leith and Upatnieks.  It was dangerous stuff to even open this subject, since we relied on corporate advertising to support our publication.  People were capable of drawing the strangest inferences.  And even one of our prime advertisers, thinking that some of the criticism was somehow directed at him, threatened to pull all ads.

WAVEFRONT tended to be a bit reckless (and most certainly 'cavalier') in its critical intensity.  There is a tough balance between positive criticism and negative fallout.  Whenever one mentions a particular name or work, the artist's ego is predictably involved.  In a climate of generalizations the act of invoking particulars sometimes produces unpredictable results.

When we published an article on a exhibition at the Holos Gallery, titled "The Rise of Commercialism and Kitch " ,   criticizing the exhibited works of Cherry/Gorglione , it promted responses of outrage from this highly-established S.F. holo-couple.   The fallout from this review continued for a decade.  Closer to home, a negative review of a William Molteni retrospective exhibition at Interference Gallery in Toronto, "Historical Placements", Vol. 2, No. 2, - Spring 1987 - HTML ,   produced an angry outburst by the curator Michael Sowdon. When we published a informed review by pioneer Canadian holographer David Hlynsky,   "Making Sense of Time and Space" - HTML ,   -   in Vol. 2, No. 3 - Summer 1987 - (PDF file),   criticizing aspects of the mega-exhibition "Images in Time and Space" we lost any potential for further AST (the governing body for the show) advertising and the planned co-production of a catalog for the show collapsed.  When Michael Snow's EXPO '86 show was criticized, in a article titled "A Workmanlike Use of the Medium" - HTML   -   in Vol. 2, No. 1 - Fall 1986 - (PDF file) ,   we lost the chance for a critically needed Canada Council grant   to offset the huge financial burden that I personally bore as publisher. 'Playing the game' (i.e. being 'non controversial', but 'amenable') has always been the rule of 'social back scratching' in the commerce of the arts, and it has been anathema to any form of honest journalism.

After these difficulties, and unable to personally cover all the costs (as I had) any further, I was forced to stop publication.

The magazine, in its brief years,  had stimulated discussion, featured in depth research on issues, interviews, offended some,  and perhaps we had a positive influence in invigorating a re-thinking of the arts and crafts of holography.

In the Special   'Holo-Recession Issue' - (Summer 1992) - (PDF file)   (which was produced on 'no budget' and with the partial collaboration of Melissa Crenshaw and others) we tackled the demise of the New York Museum of Holography and the "Images in Time and Space" show. 

Response to our queries about the problems at the N.Y. Museum of Holographycame back in the form of 'no comment' or a guarded (press release) statement from the Museum and Stephen Benton.   With 'Images in Time and Space', the response was different.  Deborah Dustin and others produced a wealth of information, Sunny Bains added editorial suggestions, and this input resulted in a well-researched article, "Lost In Time and Space" ,  that was highly critical of Dr. William McGowan's conduct with the administration and finances of the exhibition.  It raised questions concerning the seemingly improper 'appropriation' by Dr. McGowan of a once-public and government-sponsored exhibition and corporate-donated collection.  Dr. McGowan theatened to "sue for libel", yet none of the facts in the article were ever disputed (in any court of law or public forum), nor were the circumstances concerning fiscal irresponsibility ever corrected.

There have been no further issues beyond the 1992 Special Issue - (PDF file), and no futher articles except the ones published on this site.

Many of the problems the magazine raised have come back to haunt the holographic 'scene'; opportunist players have moved on to greener (digital) fields. Scandals have been swept under 'the carpet' of polite discourse. The art of holography is still misunderstood, at times ridiculed by a general public that has only seen mass-produced shit, kitch, and bad installations.  The Images in Time and Space exhibition is 'somewhere' (parts in South America, parts in storage, parts lost forever.)  Holographers are becoming less courageous as the poverty cycle affects them more and more at middle age.  The infrastructure of much of holography, that is not tied to 'security' embossed holograms and embossed wallpaper, has collapsed.  And a lot of the original entrepeneurs have moved on to 'digital domains' presumably mining new medias 'for what they are worth.'

In retrospect, one thing is certain: WAVEFRONT produced not only a difference in how holography as art and technology was understood, it produced a series of informative, courageous, and historical articles.  Importantly, it featured a number of fascinating interviews with pioneering holographers:  Rudie Berkhout,   Michael Sowdon,   Anait Stephens,   Sally Weber,   and Margaret Benyon.

  The magazine's coverage included New York as well as Los Angeles scenes,   and the publication (and writers) received a number of congratulations, and awards to Derrick Carter for its 'patents in ice' cover (left).  

(Volume 2, No. 2 - Spring 1987) - (PDF file)

During the magazine's existence, support came from art, science, and industry sectors, in the form of advertising and contributions.   It also received  anonymous donations (thank you Posy Jackson, Anait, and others...!), letters of congratulations..... and a lament when it disappeared from the scene.

Today, if one scans the internet, there is a general lack of critical dialogue about the art of holography. New entrepreneurs have have arrived on the scene 'to make a living'. " GOOD VIBRATIONS!" are needed, these merchants declare. "None of that NEGATIVE critical stuff!"

Holography 'SHOPS' have been renamed 'GALLERIES', and in some cases a 'ROYAL HOLOGRAPHIC ART GALLERY'. The distinctions between art and generic-display holography are further blurred by marketing strategies that valorize 'everything' (that sells) and subordinate history and precedent to style. Most people I talk with don't even know what a 'art' hologram is anymore!  What they have seen have been some generic embossed images, some crappy little trinkets, and THAT'S what they believe the medium is, has been, and will be.

Have times changed? Come along with 'Alice' as she explores DISPLAY HOLOGRAPHY and the questions 'IS IT SCIENCE? IS IT ART?, on her way to the most 'ROYAL HOLOGRAPHIC ART GALLERY'. Have times changed?

You be the judge.

If you remember WAVEFRONT as anything, remember it for its courage to take on difficult subjects and to do this without compromising editorial integrity in favor of false and self-serving 'good etiquette'...  

The current video documentary project "WEST-COAST ARTISTS IN LIGHT" (supported by the Shearwater Foundation) is a project that continues the documentation and exploration of art and holography. And it is being conducted with the same dedication as was found in WAVEFRONT.

Al Razutis, Los Angeles, 1996-98

-- With appreciation to URS FRIES (Holonet)
for first collecting and re-publishing various texts of WAVEFRONT on HOLONET

WAVEFONT 2000 - On-Line:

[TOP OF PAGE]