CHAPTER III — ORGANISM
Jared S. Tarbell
Conversation I of III
When does a pattern become alive?
The third chapter of EMERGENCE opens with Jared Tarbell, whose practice explores what happens when simple computational systems begin to surprise their creator. Rather than treating emergence as a problem to be solved, Tarbell approaches it as an ongoing process of discovery, where unexpected behaviours, continuous transformation, and even collapse reveal the conditions from which life might emerge.
In a new conversation with Kate Vass, Tarbell reflects on emergence as continuous transformation, why surprise matters more than prediction, and whether sufficiently rich computational systems could one day become indistinguishable from life.
CHAPTER III — ORGANISM — CONVERSATION I of III
"Biological life has a kind of thirst for life."
Kate Vass: When we first presented your work in Game of Life (2020), the exhibition asked how simple rules could generate unexpected complexity. Six years later, EMERGENCE asks whether those same interactions might eventually give rise to life, intelligence and society. Looking back, where do you think the real threshold of emergence lies?
Jared S. Tarbell: The real threshold of emergence seems to be shifting. With a greater personal understanding of the mechanisms of the phenomena, the mystery is decanting to ever finer solutions. The same interactions that produce a glider gun or a branching substrate also produce the conditions under which more elaborate forms of organization become possible. Whether those forms ever tip into genuine life or intelligence is the open question the new exhibition is asking. The gap between intricate patterns and something that feels alive keeps narrowing, but never seems to close. I don’t believe emergence explains everything. There are still spiritual, mysterious elements in the Universe that computation has not, and perhaps cannot, dissolve. I don’t claim to know the answer. I only know that the mystery remains interesting enough to keep writing the next rule set.
KV: Throughout your practice, simple interactions repeatedly generate forms that appear organised, adaptive and almost alive. What continues to fascinate you about systems that organise themselves without central control?
JST: I’ve spent my life developing my skill as a computer programmer. Early in the learning process, I was delighted to watch a machine perform my instructions with absolute precision and speed. However, the predictability of computation quickly made the process incredibly boring. I found myself thinking sarcastically “Oh great, the list of records was sorted exactly as it should be.” Discovering emergent phenomena suddenly brought my programs to life. I love being surprised by the patterns and behaviors that I could not have predicted, even with full knowledge of the underlying rules. I continue to be fascinated with systems that organize themselves because it helps me believe that the same is possible in my own life. As above, so below.
KV: Many of your systems exist in a delicate balance between order and instability. Do you think emergence is most interesting when a system reaches equilibrium, or when it remains in continuous transformation?
JST: I think emergence is most interesting at the points of transformation. Emergence that reaches a clean equilibrium feels like a solved equation. Emergence that remains in continuous transformation feels like life. Like a piano composition, sometimes the most beautiful moments are the spaces between the notes. Two other interesting states of emergence are genesis and collapse. Lately I am particularly interested in collapse. How does an emergent system arrive at it’s end? Can it end? What does that look like, as it is almost always a unique surprising event.
KV: Your work often suggests that complexity can arise from interaction alone, without any predefined image or outcome. As an artist, do you feel you are designing these systems, or discovering behaviours that already exist within them?
JST: I believe I am both designing these systems and discovering the behaviors that exist within them. My work is informed by classic algorithms in computer science. I’m also inspired by the methods and discoveries of my peers. A program is a collection of algorithms woven together in interesting ways. I borrow, lie, cheat, and steal algorithms. Still – the final programs are my own, finely crafting the semantics to develop a system that I then can explore. More than half my time with most projects is spent exploring the parameter space, looking for the most interesting expression of the system.
KV: Nature doesn't distinguish between physics and biology, life emerges from the same physical laws that govern everything else. Do you think computation is following a similar trajectory, where sufficiently rich interactions could eventually become indistinguishable from life?
JST: Yes, sufficiently rich computational interactions are indistinguishable from life – almost. There is one quality of life that doesn’t seem to be presenting in computation and that is resilience. Biological life has a kind of thirst for life. Organisms push through great adversity to continue to exist, often improving themselves through the process. Computer programs are so fragile – the slightest trauma, deletion, or corruption brings the whole house of cards down. There are very few, if any, self-repairing computers. Will we get to self-repairing code and machines that adapt and improve themselves through challenges? Yes, I think, and soon. Look out.
Next: Chapter Organism III Part II
—19th August