The following interview was conducted by the French journalist Chéhérazade Daouni for Capcampus and first publicated on Capcampus.com on May 27, 2008

Capcampus.com Paris, 05.27.08, 11:00 GMT

Born in Germany, Günther Höser studied art at the University of Hanover and social sciences in Hamburg and Nice. He began his career as a researcher and teacher, before leaving academia for the business world. In 1994, he founded a language engineering company - WHP - in Sophia Antipolis. Over the years, Günther has never lost his passion for art and science. In 2006, he transferred his thriving business to a group of investors and now has more time to paint. In his own words, he practices "SWaP Art", which he has made his registered trademark - old habits die hard! He agreed to share his love for this new art form with Capcampus and answer all our questions.

Chéhérazade Daouni : Günther, you are an unusual artist. We can see this not only in your career path but also in your art, as you create paintings from the sound of the human voice. Where did this idea come from?

Günther Höser : I have always painted, although more conventionally with oils or acrylics on canvas. While studying social sciences, I also took drawing classes at art schools. It was somewhat 'undercover' because my parents were against it. Later, when I pursued an academic career and then joined the private sector, I had little time or inclination for painting. It was only after I left my company that I started painting again. However, all these years I have been a keen observer of all the creative forms I have come across.

That break actually helped me. It certainly freed me from the intellectual constraints that limit artistic creation in general and painting in particular. I was able to explore new media, because if there is one area that has stubbornly resisted the computer revolution, it is the visual arts. You would be hard pressed [in 2008] to find a single exhibition or even a book on 'computer art'. Go to the bookshop in the very fashionable Centre Beaubourg. Of the several thousand books on sale, there are probably four or five on "new media" and not a single book on "computer art".

It is not the fault of the head librarian at the Centre Beaubourg. Even if he searched hard, as he probably does, he would be unlikely to find books on these subjects. If you speak English, you will find about a dozen books on Amazon (out of the 500,000 the site offers [in 2008]) with the words "computer art" in the title. Most of these talk only about the fun part that appeals to the general public, and as far as I know none of them deal with the computer as a tool for painting, like brushes or pigments.

It is not surprising that when most people hear the words "sound, art and computer" in the same sentence, they think of the "visuals" you have on your iPod or Windows Media Player, with colour patterns and shapes randomly generated by the interaction of sound with a computer program.

There aren't many artists who use computers to create, or at least have integrated them into certain stages of their work. For some years I have been interested in how computers can contribute to the art of painting. But the idea of using the graphic potential of the spectrographic image of sound came from my wife. She saw me experimenting for months with various computer programs, and one morning she asked me why I had never used spectrographic images, those devices for viewing waves that are well known to both scientists and sound engineers.

It opened the door to the realm of sound and I began to see and look at it differently. It seems that some blind people can 'see' sound, and I sometimes feel capable of doing so. But it's something I've only recently discovered. The further I go down this path, the more I discover of an extraordinary world.

CD : What exactly is SWaP Art?

GH : SWAP is an acronym for "Spectrographic Wave Pprocessing". We call such creations SWaP Art because it all starts with the spectrographic processing of waves. The term 'SWaP Art' does not exist outside of my work... well, not yet. If you google the term you will get 4,000 entries, but generally the word swap is the verb form with its common meaning of 'to exchange'. This expression also applies to my work, as I 'swap' technology for art. We registered SWaP Art as a commercial trademark and as an artistic process, but only to prevent someone else from doing it later and causing us trouble. I don't mind if someone else uses the term.

Actually, I think the term SWaP art can be misleading because it overemphasises the computer part, which is of course indispensable for processing the sound information, but not for the creative part, which remains entirely human.

CD : What are the main steps required to achieve the final result?

GH : It may seem quite complex. I won't go into the recording part, which is of course very important, because the recording conditions, such as the place, the people or the type of message, all have an influence on the final result. Once I'm in my studio, I eliminate any interference to isolate the voice and optimise the sound parameters I want to use. I would like to emphasise that from the beginning and throughout the process, the choices I make are entirely subjective and as important to the final result as the voice recording itself. This is a human creative process where the computer is only a tool or a catalyst.

I then save the recording as an electronic file. This file is processed using spectrographic programmes and a series of appropriate filters. At this stage, when the sound is converted into a raw image, the possibilities are as numerous as they are crucial. I have all the information at my fingertips, but for the spectrographic process I select only a few of the parameters. This is important because the more information you add, the more banal and generic your work becomes. It is a bit like painting the night sky, which is the broadest representation of our universe, as opposed to painting the portrait of a person sitting in front of you. Again, it is a very subjective choice that determines what I end up with. I decide on a project from the outset and make my choices in the working phase on the basis of that project.

Once I have optimised the spectrographic output, I work on the raw graphic file using various professional programs, applying filters I have developed or had developed to my specifications. At the end of this "computer" phase, the image is still raw, although some attractive graphic elements are beginning to emerge. Then the conventional work of the painter begins. Sometimes I continue to work on the graphics on the computer and sometimes I start to paint on canvas. For some of the paintings I use an architect's drafting table and specially adapted or created stencils to achieve a regularity.

I can see your next question coming, one I've been asked several times: "What is the relationship between the original voice recording and the finished painting?" My answer is: "It is the same relationship as between a subject and a painting, the same relationship as for any conventional portraitist. Sometimes it is a close resemblance, almost photographic, and sometimes it is my interpretation that no longer resembles the recording, as in some of my works based on recordings made in the streets of Monaco." All painters work in this way. After all, my paintings are not the product of a computer programme.

CD : What do you see as the difference between SWaP art and computer art?

GH : Is there a definition of computer art? Someone wrote in Wikipedia that "computer art is any art in which computers have played a role in the production or display of the artwork". This is a broad definition, since even the display of the original Lascaux cave paintings is now only on the computer. The computer is no longer excluded from the production or distribution of any product.

However, when the computer is used as a tool by the painter in the same way as a paintbrush, the term computer art takes on more meaning. My definition is even more restrictive - for me, computer art is any work in which the computer is at the heart of the creative process, or even the only tool. In this sense, I'm not practicing computer arts, because it is not a computer program, but the painter, i.e. myself, who chooses freely throughout the creative process and actually paints the work. I recently told a fellow painter that I felt I had more in common with Renaissance painters than with my contemporary colleagues. It is true that I share many of the ideals of the great artists of that flourishing period. For me, the computer is just a tool that gives me access to something that would otherwise be inaccessible. I do not worship technology, I am simply a pragmatic user.

I particularly disapprove of the blind attitude and ignorance of contemporary artists towards technology. Some renowned painters among those practising 'narrative figuration' use video projectors, compressors and spray guns to paint their huge canvases, but scoff at the idea of using a computer to create. Well, it is true that in 1802 people were afraid to get on a train because it seemed that travelling long distances at 20 km/h was bad for your health!

CD : Does the richness of the voice completely change the result of the painting?

GH : Absolutely! You have to be very experienced to notice it in the early stages of sound processing, or you have to have very sophisticated software to detect it. But then, let's face it, when you process sound electronically, you can simulate any degree of richness you want. In theory - and a good engineer can do this in practice - your voice can be reproduced perfectly. If sound engineers analyse your vocabulary and the expressions you normally use, they can make you say anything they want.

I do not want to recreate on canvas a person who is entirely a figment of my imagination. Some do, but personally I have not reached that level of sublimation that gives me the ability to impose my view on others. I see myself as a privileged observer, placed in the front row, who wants to tell what he sees - something that makes a person special. For this I have my technique and my choices. I prefer to concentrate on the beauty of the voice, the hidden beauty in people. Our culture puts too much emphasis on the dark side of life and explores it to the extreme. We are beginning to see that it leads us nowhere. I am convinced that beauty can take us further. But this choice is a personal one, and I understand those who criticise it.

CD :Do you want to transmit any message in your work? If so, what is it?

GH : If there were one, it would be this: human beings and the world of human beings are magnificent, as beautiful as they are terrifying. In the light of this fact, we all have to make our choices, as this parable illustrates perfectly: If some people see poo in the middle of the road, they take a stick and poke at it, while others take a wide leap over it, looking ahead to see what's coming next. I belong to the latter group; I prefer to look at the beauty in front of me.

CD : Are you planning any more artistic experiments?

GH : Several, but I have only just begun to explore the voice, although I have experimented with a similar concept that also combines science and art to bring out other aspects of the human being - the microcosm. I have been using images produced by electronic microscopes. The process is similar. But it is a door to another world. In fact, the combination of science and art is not my invention. The great art schools of the Renaissance combined scientific studies, the latest technologies and art almost 500 years ago. It was only in the 19th century that the fine arts fell into obscurantism.

CD : Any last words for our readers?

GH : This is an infinite world in which humanity is barely in the starting blocks of its voyage of discovery. 400,000 years after our appearance on the surface of this planet, we are still more or less at the same point: at the beginning of an incredible journey. We need to open our minds to the beauty around us and to all that we share, that binds us together, in order to move forward! I am aware that this sounds terribly pompous and idealistic. But believing that everything worthwhile lies ahead of us is a form of wisdom.

CD : Thank you for answering our interview with as much passion as we can see in your paintings! We hope to see you soon with more amazing work!