Experience in Interactive Art The Impact o Interactivity Interactivity on Art Art Experience
Jakub Grosz 2011 Prague College School o Art & Design BA Fine Art Experimental Media
2
Contents Introduction
4
Interactive Art
5
Interactivity Interactivi ty as Medium
5
Viewer, User or Participant?
7
Play,, Explor Play Exploration ation and Creative Learning
7
Art, Science and Technology
8
Interactive Installations
9
Categorisation o Interactive Art Installations
9
Interactive Spaces and Sculptures
10
Interactive Media Installations
13
Interactive Worlds
15
Conclusion
17
List o Reerences:
18
List o Figures:
19
Bibligraphy:
20
3
Introduction ‘Experience is the result, the sign, and the reward o that interaction o organism and environment which, when it is carried to the ull, is a transormation o interaction into participation and communication’ (Dewey, 1934, p. 22).
Expression and experience are, rom my point o view, the critical substance, which orms anything that can be considered art. Expression carries idea, personal eelings, intention and meaning as well as representation and context, while experience embodies emotion, consciousness, imagination and perception. How does interactivity orm experience in Interactive Art? In interactive art installations we are no longer just spectators, but our actions and their consequences are the very essence o an art piece and can be seen as part o the artist’s expression. Can such an active relationship between audience, audienc e, artwork, and artist result in a new orm orm o art ar t experience? experience? Interactive Art, although only occasionally appearing during the 20 th Century, entered the art world in the late 1960s and exploded as phenomenon during the 1990s with advent o personal computers. The only way to evaluate its role in the theory and history o art is to discuss it rom several dierent perspectives. My intention is to analyse interactivity interact ivity as a medium in its own right as well as experienc e xperience e in interactive art orms, and so come up with ideas and concepts that can help to understand the greater impact o interactivity interact ivity in art. ar t. I will begin by ocusing on the nature o interactivity itsel itse l as well as in the context context o interactive installation art, together with a brie presentation o the technology used. I will also discuss issues o play, exploration and creative learning in relation to Interactive Art. In the second part, I will introduce a new method o categorizing interactive installations. I will apply this method to concrete artworks in order to uncover certain aspects and eatures that orm experience in computer-based interactive installation art.
4
Interactive Art Interactivity as Medium What is interactivity? What makes computer-based Interactive Art installations interactive or the audience? The term has been used in so many elds and concepts, that one can become conused about its real meaning. In a recent study, philosopher Aaron Smuts analysed dierent denitions o interactivity and, as a result, introduced a new denition o interactivity as well as a new perspective on how to look at interactive systems. Smuts (2009, pp. 53-73) nds a paradigm o interaction in conversation. He argues that the degree and type o responsiveness o interaction can be used to measure and determine whether something is interactive. He urther ur ther explains that interactivity interactivit y - instead o being the property o an object - must be consi considered dered as a relation relational al aspect; in order or something to be interactive, its responsiveness should neither be completely controllable nor completely random. Even though Smuts’ concept may be well applicable or interactivity in a wide range o elds, taking it into account account in Interactive Art needs ur ther justication. justication. A large number o interaces or interactive installations are designed in a way that is closer to complete responsiveness. Through various interaces, users make choices. They navigate themselves, themselv es, manipulate and rearrange various media, real and virtual objects, or any other elements o interactive installations. But generally i there is no malunction o the system, it is ully controllable. In such cases it is necessary to analyse the elements they interact with. In human conversation, the content o responses is usually not ully predictable. The situation in interactive installations can be to some extent considered similar, because the artist’s expression through the elements incorporated in the installation can not (in most cases) be predicted either. Participants trigger an action or navigate using the interace, but what exactly happens next is usually a unique experience or each participant or viewer. However, the above-mentioned act doesn’t mean that all art installations incorporating input rom participants can be dened as interactive. A critical approach must be taken in their evaluation. Smuts (2009, p. 56) noted that ‘to think that DVD chapter selection or TV channel changing is interactive is to mistake control over the 5
presentation o an artwork with interactivity’. In light o this, a clear distinction between real Interactive Art and controllable installations can be made. Some installations may be simply unsuccessul interactive artworks and even though an audience can enjoy such works or either aesthetic or personal reasons, such installations may not be considered as works o Interactive Art, but rather experimental interaces. Besides ully controllable installations, there are also interactive installations that incorporate the special balance between random and
Fig.1, David Rokeby - Very Nervous System (Rokeby, 1993).
complete responsiveness as an essential building block. The installation Very Nervous
System, developed by David Rokeby [g.1], allows a participant to use his own body as a kind o musical instrument. Dierent movements result in more or less harmonic music, but absolute control remains unachievable (MediaArtTube, 2010). Although there are many other aspects o interactive artwork that need to be considered i one is trying to evaluate it, the balance o responsiveness o the system together with the unpredictability o uture events and occurrences resulting in experienced interactivity interactivity seems to be important. Events where responsiveness responsiveness is random rather than controllable may also be treated positively, because it is in some sense a part o communication rom an artwork and artist directed towards the participant. It is also possible to relate such events and the balance o interactivity to the level o abstraction o the artwork. And what is more, i one tries to nd the essence o Interactive Interactive Art, it could be hidden exactly here. The American philosopher John Dewey (1934, p. 14) stated in his writings about experience in art, ‘Since the artist cares in a peculiar way or the phase o experience in which union is achieved, he does not shun moments o resistance and tension. He rather cultivates them, not or their own sake but because o their potentialities, bringing to living consciousness an experience that is unied and total’. In relation to this, it is important to mention that unlike other art orms, where the artist’s expression is embodied in a nished object or image, a perormance, composition o words, or any other ‘graspable’ means, Interactive Art builds besides such means on a direct relationship achieved through interactivity, which becomes medium itsel. 6
Moreover, ‘expression’ is interconnected directly with the experience o participants, creating creati ng a certain loop or paradox. The actual ac tual experience o a participant, resulting resulting rom the expression o the artist as well as his own actions, is in very special and unique way turned back into the artist’s expression. In Interactive Art, any interace is only a tool to initiate and bridge a relationship between participant and artist through his artwork. Interactivity is the medium. Viewer, User or Participant? The existence o interactive installation art is dependent upon the participant in very concrete way. According to Rush (2005, p. 222), ‘There is no art in this arena without the public’. Although the works o artists creating non-interactive art also need to be viewed and experienced in order to qualiy them artworks, the situation in Interactive Art is dierent. Interactive Art only ully exists when it is experienced by a par ticipan ticipantt in a physical relationship with the artwork. Only at that moment and at that moment only does it achieve its purpose. Observing someone interacting with an interactive installation does not mean that Interactive Art is being observed. The experienced relationship through interactivity creates the meaning and artistic qualities o the installation, rather than any understanding o principles involved through observation. In relation to this, it is important to establish proper terminology as there is general conusion in most o the texts about interactive installations as well as Interactive Art. People interacting with artworks are sometimes called viewers, in other cases users or participants. The term ‘viewer’ does not describe anything other other than a person who is merely observing something. The term ‘user’ has the same problem, only observation is replaced by usage. From what has been mentioned above about their role in connection with the essence o Interactive Art, the term ‘participant’ ‘participant ’ seems to be the most appropriate description, as participation par ticipation is closer than other terms to the relational aspect o Interactive Art. Play, Exploration and Creative Learning Interactivity in art provides an audience with new experiences, not only through the special relationship relationship between participant, artwork, and artist (as has been mentioned above), but also through play, exploration and creative learning. Rush (2005, pp. 222-224) 7
commented that ‘Interactive artists like Americans Ken Feingold, Perry Hoberman, … the Japanese Masaki Fujihata, the Germans Bernd Lintermann and Torsten Belschner, to name a ew, positively encourage viewers to create their own narratives or associations with their interactive interactive works’. works’. Rush (2005, p. 227) 2 27) urther ur ther states ‘The artist ar tist has now become a acilitator o the art experience with the interactive artwork becoming, in a sense, an extension o education, a hands-on type o creative learning’. This can be considered a signicant change rom the experience o non-interactive art, where a viewer creates his meaning o an artwork through sensual perception like vision and hearing, mainly as a mental process. However, play and exploration in Interactive Art do not intend to entertain the viewer in the way video games do, but to invite him to experience himsel as a creative being in mutual dialogue with the artist, using interactive principles to create meaning that is unique and intimate. Play constitutes the urge to discover, it attracts the participant to learn not only about what the artwork is about, but who he is in the world and the ideas the artist is expressing. Moreover, the possibility to play with composition, to choose the path o exploration, gives participants o Interactive Art the creative power, which has previouly been the exclusive domain o artists. In relation to this, it is important to mention several examples o interactive installations, where the idea o play and creativity is especially present. However, I personally consider these principles, in any imaginable imagin able orm, universal or all Interactive Art. According to art historian Söke Dinkla
Fig.2, Myron Kru eger - Videoplace (Krueger, 1974).
(1994) in the installation Videoplace [g.2], developed by Myron Krueger since 1974, users are allowed to ‘play with constantly changing versions o themselves’. Another example can be seen in the installation The Watch Detail , created in 1990 by Bill Seaman. This piece allows participants to interactively explore a large amount o media related to time and to manipulate this media by means o superimpositions, re-orientation, navigation and selection (William Seaman, 2010).
8
Art, Science and Technology Responsiveness between participant and artwork is in many cases created using custom built computer-based interaces, incorporating various sensors and high-tech equipment. Devices like motion, heat and touch sensors, as well as inra-red and thermal cameras, touch screens, bioeedback medical sensors like EEG and EMG (to name but a ew), provide inormation in real-time, processed in various computer applications to generate eedback. Such eedback can take many orms, such as sound and video projection, mechanical output using robotics, air or liquid pressure to operate physical objects, control o lights, or any other imaginable conditions and aspects designed by artists. It is important to mention that that the eedback can be triggered as a one time event, or it can be a continuous stream o responses. In some cases it may also be a combination o both. Although participants have many possibilities as to what to do with content, through interactions like choice, manipulation, modulation, change and navigation, the content and design o the structures involved in the installations are mainly the domain o the artist. It is the artist’s expression and intention that shape the installation - not only the content, but (as has been mentioned above), the principles o interactivity as well. Here it is apparent that artist should create both content and interactivity as one unied piece. Otherwise, there is a danger that however great the content that is presented, the interaction is only a tool to access it, and the interactive installation inst allation becomes a multimedia multimed ia installation, where the potentialities and essence o interactivity stay either unused or misused.
Interactive Installations Categorisation of Interactive Art Installations Since the 1960s, a large number o interactive installations have been developed by artists, in some cases together with scientists and engineers. All o these installations are unique art works in many aspects. Form, structure, content and the expression o the artists shape these installations on one side, while the individual experiences o participants participan ts complete the artworks on the other side. Everything Every thing imaginable imaginable lies between, like in any work o art. Some installations had only a short lie, presented once or limited 9
time. Others had or have been developed over years and even decades, like already mentioned, Myron Krueger’s installation Videoplace, which he started to work on in 1972 and continued until the 1990s (MediaArtTube, 2008). In light o this, the categorization o interactive installation artworks may seem impossible due to their complexity. However, certain aspects o these artworks can be selected as key eatures and can help to uncover basic characteristics or urther study in this still-new orm o art. Based on my research in Interactive Art, I have distinguished three major types o interactive installations. The rst category is Interactive Spaces and Sculptures, where the main characteristic lies in the relation to three-dimensional physical space and objects. The second category is Interactive Media Installations, which cover a wide range o installations using as the primary content videos, images, texts and audio material. Finally, the third category is Interactive Worlds, which embody not only Virtual Reality installations, but also other works using computer-generated data in complex systems, that may be classied as alternative realities. Despite the act that interactivity can be considered as a medium in all works qualied as Interactive Art, and that it would seem that the type o interaction could help to categorise these artworks, it would mean emphasising technique above the nature and meaning o interactive artworks as well as issues o representation. In act, the type o interaction tells us much less about the installations than the categories described. However, the categorization mentioned above can not be at all considered nal and applicable to all computer-based interactive installations, as there are works which t into more than one category, as well as works that do not t into any o them. Interactive Spaces and Sculptures One o the main characteristics o either interactive spaces or interactive sculptures is their three-dimensional physical existence. In both cases they can be described as real architecture with interactive eatures or systems. Such eatures may have many orms, ranging rom visible object-based interaces to invisible interaces resulting in the responsiveness o an entire room, or in extreme cases o an entire building. Despite the physical presence o those structures, there is no meaning in such installations (and thereore no art as intended by artist), unless they are interactively explored and experienced by participants. 10
Responsive spaces and interactive sculptures were among the irst examples o Interactive Art. Although there is no computer technology involved and the type o interactivi interactivity ty is very dierent rom works created ater the 1960s, an early example o interactive sculpture can be ound in the work o Marcel Duchamp [g.3]. According to Rush (2005, p. 222), his concept that the viewer completes the artwork is especially present in his installation Rotary Glass Plates (Precision Optics), which he created together with Man Ray in 1920. For this
Fig.3, Marcel Duchamp - Rotay Glass Plates (Yale University Art Gallery, 1920).
piece the viewer is required to turn on the machine and stand one meter away. In the context o the time this installation was presented, it probably did have an interesting impact on viewers, who had a chance to experience the piece, mainly because they could initiate dynamic motion and experience an optical illusion. However, the rst interactive spaces were created almost 50 years later. Dinkla (1994) states ‘With the American Myron Krueger the development o computercontrolled cont rolled Interactive Art started’. Dinkla urther explains that in 1969 Krueger started to create spaces where visitors’ actions were ollowed by eects. In the same
Fig.4, Myron Krueger - Plan o Glowlow project (http://artelectronicmedia.com/artwork/glowlow, no date).
year, Krueger teamed up with inventor o a video image processor Dan Sandlin, sculptor Jerry Erdman, and scientist Richard Venezsky, to develop a computer-based art project
Glowow [g.4] (Hieronymi, 2004). Artist Andrew Hieronymi described the installation as ollows: In a dark empty room, our transparent tubes were attached to the gallery walls. The tubes had phosphorescent particles in water with each tube containing a dierent colored pigment. The room was completely dark, and the lighted tubes provided the only visual reerence. They were arranged to distort the visitor’s perception as they caused the room to appear wider in the center than at each end. As the visitors walked down the length o the room they elt that they were going downhill with respect to their own position based on the direction o the tube. (Hieronymi, 2004) From this description it is possible to understand the intention to change a participant’s perception o the space, to modiy an environment in real-time in such a way 11
that he perceives dierent conditions than are real by shaping the only visible arteacts in the space through light in respect to his position. The experience o such an environment must be very powerul or the audience, not only because visual perception takes over other senses, but also because it orms an overall perception o space. Viewers were likely ghting in their consciousness, whether they were really going downhill or they were just on level ground, which was supported by the awareness o the location o parts o their body, their proprioception.
Fig.5, Robert Whitman and Billy Klüver Pepsi Pavilion in Expo ‘70 Japan (Burrows, 1970).
In the 1970 Expo Exhibition in Osaka, Artist Robert Whitman and scientist Billy Klüver led a large American-Japanese team o artists and engineers to create a massive multimedia installation in the dome-shaped pavilion commissioned by the Pepsi Cola Company [g.5] (Zakros Interarts, no date). Billy Klüver described the concept o the installation as ollows: The initial condition o the artist who designed the Pepsi Cola Pavilion was, that the quality o the experience o the visitor should involve choice, responsibility, reedom and participation. The visitor would be encouraged as an individual to explore the environment and compose his own experience. (Packer, 2003) Multidisciplinary works incorporated in the pavilion and surroundings included a real-time spatially distributed sound system, laser defection system, og system responding to weather conditions, interactive kinetic sculptures, projections, light and mirror installations as well as responsive foor sound systems and perormance areas (Zakros Interarts, no date). An example o interactive sculpture can be ound in the work o American artist Ken Feingold. His installation, Childhood/ Hot and Cold Wars (The
appearance o Nature) [g.6], created in 1993, involves a
Fig.6, Ken Feingold - Childhood / Hot & Cold Wars (The App earance o Nature) (Feingold, 1993).
globe placed on a table wrapped around a grandather clock. When a viewer rotates the globe, hundreds o TV images rom the 1950s and 1960s are projected rom within 12
the clock onto the clock ace according to the speed o rotation (Rush, 2005, p. 226). This time-based installation builds on physical objects interactively combined with moving images to create unity in representation, allowing participants to explore not only the content o the images, but the sculpture itsel according their own rhythm. Although, the concept is seemingly simple, the experience o the participant may have been quite complex, as memories o those who had lived in the 1950s and 1960s may have been recalled in response to their actions. The our examples mentioned above give an insight into how installations, described as interactive spaces and sculptures, can orm individual experiences. On the one hand, there is sensation coming rom unique expressive changes o the structure and properties o the space or object in response to a participant’ participant’ss action. On the other hand, other sensations may come rom the responsiveness o media incorporated as essential part o the otherwise static physical architectural structure. These installations play directly with participant’s perception o the space in dialogue with their proprioception, or in other words, perception o their body. Interactive Media Installations Video, digital imagery, photography, literature, and audio materials are the main media involved in creating experience in interactive media installations. Static and linear structures are turned into dynamic non-linear orms, compositions and collages; not only as expressions by artists, but also as creative collaborations by participants, who explore, edit, choose and manipulate the media acilitated within the installations to make their own narratives, meaning and experience. However, it is important to mention here that the artistic qualities o media incorporated in these artworks play as important a role as the interactivity itsel. Visual perception is still dominant in orming the overall experience, and all details must be considered and unied or the result to become a work o art. A good example o an installation where participants participants interact with media can be ound in the work o Artist Bill Seaman. According to Rush (2005, p. 224), the installation
Passage Set / One pulls Pivots at the Tip o the Tongue [g.7], created in 1995, allows viewers to press on highlighted text elds on three projections, which results in changes to the projected composition o texts and images. Rush urther states ‘Seaman’s installation allows or sequential reading, much like viewing a painting or reading a poem’. With no 13
input rom audience this installation is static projection o imagery and text with a special atmosphere. But once the participant lays hands on it, the artwork comes alive, providing a dynamic visual experience combined with creative composition o poetic text. Seaman composed the media and the installation itsel, but shares the
Fig.7, Bill Seaman - Passage Set/ One pulls Pivots at the Tip o the Tongue (http://www.duke.edu/web/art/newsbyte/2010/0412.html, no date).
composition o meaning and experience with the participants. Unique work with video ootage is present in the interactive installation created by Camille Utterback between 2000 and 2002 [g.8]. ‘In the Liquid Time Series installation, a participant’s physical motion in the installation space ragments time in a pre-recorded video clip’ (Utterback, 2011). Utterback urther explains that one’s body, existing in one place at time, creates a space with the coexistence o multiple times and perspectives, producing imagery described as video cubism. Not many interactive installations allow more than one participant to compose mutual experience. The Liquid Time Series gives this possibility, and in very special way, because it uses video ootage rom crowded streets and places. The more participants that interact with the installation, the more changes occur on the projection involving people in motion. Although it is impossible to adequately decode experience with such installation, I assume that one orm o the experience can be individua individuall sel-projection into the visualized dynamic space-time, as the responsiveness o the system allows its manipulation and rhythmic composition. Interactive media installations invite
Fig.8, Camille Utterback - The Liquid Time Series (Utterback, 2011).
participants to explore their own creativity within the rame o the installation. Constantly changing and manipulated visual or sound projections responding to a participant’s perormance dynamically shape perception. In this eld, perception o change means change o perception. This process results in unique creative experience. 14
Interactive Worlds The idea to create or depict complex alternative worlds has been present in many art orms rom Salvator Dali’s surrealistic paintings, George Orwell’s novel 1984, and
The Matrix movie by the Wachowski brothers to name a ew. However, Interactive Art dealing with this subject-matter shits the experience o alternative worlds rom visual, linear narrative and mental dimensions to new dimensions o interactive exploration. What is more, in many cases it is supported by total immersion into these physically nonexistent realities. Despite the act that artists who literally build interactive worlds oten incorporate media like photographs, videos and audio materials, these materials are not what primarily constitutes these worlds. Complex properties, conditions and structures designed by artists are among the oundations which orm alternative interactive realities, together with interaces that translate actions and intentions between reality and virtuality. To orm these oundations, artists usually employ sophisticated computer algorithms, articial intelligence principles, two-dimensional and three-dimensional vector geometry, real-time rendering engines or computer-generated imagery, as well as many other means and solutions to express their vision o the world they want to share with an audience. Although Virtual Reality installations are the dominant type o interactive worlds, there are other artworks that can qualiy as representatives o this category. The installation Galápagos [ig.9], developed by Karl Sims in 1995, involves ‘twelve monitors with a computer-generated
Fig.9, Karl Sims - Creatures rom the ins tallation Galápagos (Sims, 1997).
three-dimensional ‘creature’ visible on each are arranged in a semi-circle, with a ootpad attached to each monitor. The viewer chooses a monitor, steps on the pad, and all other screens go blank. Random mutations o the chosen creature appear on the monitor and continue transormation into new generations o genetic images’ (Rush, 2005, p. 230). In spite o the limited interactivity (as viewers can only initiate the growth o the virtual organisms), the complexity o the system and use o algorithmic generative principles 15
results in new unique world as well as a unique experience or each (in this case) ‘initiator’ rather than participant. However, alternative worlds with continuous interactivity and immersive experience are the domain o Virtual Reality installations. Virtual Reality not only allows participants to navigate in threedimensional expressive worlds, but also gives participants the option to perorm actions inside the virtual environment. An example o such installation can be ound
Fig.10, Maurice Benayoun - World Skin, Vir tual Reality Installation (Benayoun, 1997).
in work o Maurice Benayoun. The main points rom his presentation (V2unstable, 2010) o one o his projects ollow: The interactive installation World Skin [g.10] was created in 1997 or the CAVE projection system, due to the act act that Virtual Reality goggles would not allow the intended collective experience. Visitors equipped with special photo cameras and stereoscopic glasses navigate inside an innite landscape lled with photos rom the Second World War and the Bosnian War. When they take photos, the captured virtual surace, the skin o the world, is erased, but not entirely. Ghosts remain, and the actual photograph is printed or them. Benayoun is interested in creating situations and asks ‘What happens when we are put in the situations, situations , that we are not supposed to experience?’ expe rience?’ (V2unstable, 2010). 2010). Elements like group exploration, memories both rom reality as well as gained within the installation, the horrors o war, and interactive principles which this installation builds upon may, among others, inorm the experience o this artwork. These very dierent examples o interactive worlds show that complex alternative realities build upon an initial idea, which, however, carries various conditions and unctionalities o such worlds. Individual experiences may be ormed by the curiosity to uncover piece by piece the ideas and possibilities o the new world, in order to create one’s own understanding. In the case o immersive Virtual Reality, participants do not even project themselves into the virtual worlds, because they are literally inside.
16
Conclusion The dialogue between participant and interactive artwork representing the artist’s expression is what constitutes Interactive Art. In this dialogue, uture events should not be ully predictable and the degree o responsiveness o the system can be related to the level o abstraction o the installation. Events with random responsiveness are, in some sense, a communication rom the artwork to the participant. Such events should be treated as positive elements due to their potential o creating tension, which supports more suggestive personal experience. In Interactive Art, interactivity itsel is the medium, creating an amazing loop, where the participant’s experience o the artist’s expression and his own actions is turned back into the artist’s expression. This idea is supported by the act that Interactive Art only exists and achieves its purpose when it is experienced by the participant in a direct physical relationship. Any interace is only a tool to initiate and bridge this relationship. The ar tist acilitates acilitates the experience by creating the means o interaction as well as the meaning embodied within the artwork. This is done in order to establish the relationship with the participant, who responds by actively developing his individual understanding and experience through exploration, play and creative learning. The participant is not only learning to understand what the artwork is expressing, but also who he is inside the given idea. From my point o view, three strong categories o interactive installation art can be distinguished in order to uncover how interactivity orms experience in dierent interactive interact ive artworks. art works. In the rst category, Interactive Spaces and Sculptures, perception o the physical space and objects together with perception o the body create an experience o exploring three-dimensional structures. The second category, Interactive Media Installations, invites participants to work with various media by means o composing, manipulating and interactively exploring them, in order to creatively experiment with their own constantly changing perception. In Interactive Worlds, the last category, complex properties and conditions o alternative realities in response to a participant’s actions are perceived together, orming an overall perception o the virtual world that wants to be explored and understood.
17
List of Referenc References: es: Dewey, J. (1934) Art as Experience. Reprint, London: Penguin Books Ltd., 2005. Smuts, A. (2009) ‘What is Interactivity’, Journal o Aesthetic Aesthetic Education, 43(4), pp. 53-73, http://www.jstor.org .jstor.org/pss/25656247 /pss/25656247 (Accessed: 26 December JSTOR [Online]. Available at: http://www 2010). MediaArtTube (2010) David Rokeby - Very Nervous System , Interactive Environment 1986-. Available at: http://www http://www.youtube.co .youtube.com/watch?v=FsR7 m/watch?v=FsR7EQgG7N0 EQgG7N0 (Accessed: 5 January 2011). Rush, M. (2005) New Media in Art . 2nd edn. London: Thames Thames & Hudson Ltd. Dinkla, S. (1994) The History o the Interace in Interactive Art . Available at: http://www http://www.. keneingold.com/dinkla_history keneingold.c om/dinkla_history.html .html (Accessed: 29 December 2010). Seaman, W. (2010) Bill Seaman / Recombinant Poetics. Available at: http://projects http://projects.. visualstudies.duke.edu/billseaman/workSpcW visualstudies.duke.edu/bi llseaman/workSpcWatch01.php atch01.php (Accessed: 5 January 2011). MediaArtTube (2008) Myron Krueger - Videoplace, Responsive Environment Environment , 1972-1990s. Available at: http://www http://www.youtube.co .youtube.com/watch?v=dmmx m/watch?v=dmmxVA5 VA5xhuo xhuo (Accesse (Accessed: d: 6 January 2011). Hieronymi, A. (2004) Interactive Environments. Environments. UCLA D|MA. Winter 04. Available at: http://classes.dma.ucla.edu/Winter04/ http://classes .dma.ucla.edu/Winter04/256/projects/andrew/r 256/projects/andrew/report.html eport.html (Accessed: 27 December 2010). Packer, R. (2003) The Pavilion - Into the 21st Century . Available at: http://www.zakros.com/ projects/pavilion/video_pavilion_pr projects/pavilion /video_pavilion_promo.html omo.html (Accessed: 23 December 2010). Zakros Interarts (no date) The Pavilion - Into the 21st Century . Available at: http://www http://www.. zakros.com/projects/pavilion/original_n zakros.com/projects/pa vilion/original_new.htm ew.htmll (Accessed: 28 December 2010). Utterback, C. (2011) Liquid Time Series 2000 – 2002. Available at: http://camill http://camilleutterback. eutterback. com/projects/liquid-time-series/ com/projects/liqu id-time-series/ (Accessed: 10 January 2011). V2unstable (2010) Maurice Benayoun presents: ‘World Skin’ during the ‘Tools or http://www.youtube.com/ .youtube.com/watch?v=cT watch?v=cTkOWQGxtsU kOWQGxtsU Propaganda’ Propagan da’ test_lab. Available at: http://www (Accessed: (Accesse d: 6 January Januar y 2011).
18
List of Figures: [g.1] Rokeby, D. (1993) David Rokeby in Very Nervous System in the street in Potsdam in 1993 [Online]. Available at: http://homepag http://homepage.mac.com/davidr e.mac.com/davidrokeby/vns.ht okeby/vns.html ml (Accessed: 5 February 2011). [g.2] Krueger, M. (1974) Myron Krueger, Videoplace, 1974 [Online]. Available at: http://www http://www.. medienkunstnetz.de/works/videoplace/im medienkunstnetz.de/ works/videoplace/images/1/ ages/1/ (Accessed: 16 December 2010). [g.3] Yale University Art Gallery (1920) Rotay Glass Plates [Online]. Available at: http://www http://www.. dada-companion.com/duchamp/lms.ph dada-companion.com/ duchamp/lms.php p (Accessed: 7 February 2010). [g.4] http://artelectronicmedia.com/artwork/glowfow http://artelectronic media.com/artwork/glowfow (no date) (Accessed: 6 February 2011). [g.5] Burrows, L. (1970) Expo ‘70 Japan [Online]. Available at: http://images http://images.google.com/ .google.com/ hosted/lie/l?imgurl=0994ed5d3704c4d3 hosted/lie/l ?imgurl=0994ed5d3704c4d3 (Accessed: (Accessed: 5 January 2011). [g.6] Feingold, Feingo ld, K. (1993) Childhood / Hot & Cold Wars (The Appearance o Nature) [Online]. Available at: http://www http://www.keneingold.c .keneingold.com/catalog_htm om/catalog_html/childhood.ht l/childhood.html ml (Accessed: 29 December 2010). [g.7] http://www.duke.edu/web/art/newsb http://www .duke.edu/web/art/newsbyte/2010/0412.html yte/2010/0412.html (no date) (Accessed: 7 February 2011). [g.8] Utterback, C. (2011) Liquid Time – New York at The Kitchen [Online]. Available at: http:// camilleutterback.com/projects/liquid-time-series/ camilleutterback.com/ projects/liquid-time-series/ (Accessed: 10 January 2011). [g.9] Sims, K. (1997) Galápagos images [Online]. Available at: http://www http://www.karlsims.com/ .karlsims.com/ galapagos/galapagos-images.html galapagos/galapagos-image s.html (Accessed: 6 February 2011). [g.10] Benayoun, M. (1997) World Skin - Maurice Benayoun Virtual Reality Installation - 1997 “A Photo Saari in the Land o War” [Online]. Available at: http://common http://commons.wikimedia.org/ s.wikimedia.org/ wiki/File:WORLD_SKIN_(2).JPG wiki/File:WO RLD_SKIN_(2).JPG (Accessed: 6 February 2010).
19
Bibligraphy: Dewey, J. (1934) Art as Experience. Reprint, London: Penguin Books Ltd., 2005. Smuts, A. (2009) ‘What is Interactivity’, Journal o Aesthetic Aesthetic Education, 43(4), pp. 53-73, http://www.jstor.org .jstor.org/pss/25656247 /pss/25656247 (Accessed: 26 December JSTOR [Online]. Available at: http://www 2010). MediaArtTube (2010) David Rokeby - Very Nervous System , Interactive Environment 1986-. Available at: http://www http://www.youtube.co .youtube.com/watch?v=FsR7 m/watch?v=FsR7EQgG7N0 EQgG7N0 (Accessed: 5 January 2011). Rush, M. (2005) New Media in Art . 2nd edn. London: Thames Thames & Hudson Ltd. Dinkla, S. (1994) The History o the Interace in Interactive Art . Available at: http://www http://www.. keneingold.com/dinkla_history keneingold.c om/dinkla_history.html .html (Accessed: 29 December 2010). Seaman, W. (2010) Bill Seaman / Recombinant Poetics. Available at: http://projects http://projects.. visualstudies.duke.edu/billseaman/workSpcW visualstudies.duke.edu/bi llseaman/workSpcWatch01.php atch01.php (Accessed: 5 January 2011). MediaArtTube (2008) Myron Krueger - Videoplace, Responsive Environment Environment , 1972-1990s. Available at: http://www http://www.youtube.co .youtube.com/watch?v=dmmx m/watch?v=dmmxVA5 VA5xhuo xhuo (Accesse (Accessed: d: 6 January 2011). Hieronymi, A. (2004) Interactive Environments. Environments. UCLA D|MA. Winter 04. Available at: http://classes.dma.ucla.edu/Winter04/ http://classes .dma.ucla.edu/Winter04/256/projects/andrew/r 256/projects/andrew/report.html eport.html (Accessed: 27 December 2010). Packer, R. (2003) The Pavilion - Into the 21st Century . Available at: http://www.zakros.com/ projects/pavilion/video_pavilion_pr projects/pavilion /video_pavilion_promo.html omo.html (Accessed: 23 December 2010). Zakros Interarts (no date) The Pavilion - Into the 21st Century . Available at: http://www http://www.. zakros.com/projects/pavilion/original_n zakros.com/projects/pa vilion/original_new.htm ew.htmll (Accessed: 28 December 2010). Utterback, C. (2011) Liquid Time Series 2000 – 2002. Available at: http://camill http://camilleutterback. eutterback. com/projects/liquid-time-series/ com/projects/liqu id-time-series/ (Accessed: 10 January 2011). V2unstable (2010) Maurice Benayoun presents: ‘World Skin’ during the ‘Tools or http://www.youtube.com/ .youtube.com/watch?v=cT watch?v=cTkOWQGxtsU kOWQGxtsU Propaganda’ Propagan da’ test_lab. Available at: http://www (Accessed: (Accesse d: 6 January Januar y 2011).
Perception. 50Anniversary edn. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Arnhem, R. (1974 (1974)) Art and Visual Perception University o Caliornia Press, 2004. Virilio, P. P. (1994) (19 94) The Vision Machine. Translated by Julie Rose. London: British Film Institue.
20
Colpani, M. (2010) New Media Shaping o Perception o Space and Perception o the Body. Master thesis. University o Amsterdam [Online]. Available at: http://mastersomedia. hum.uva.nl/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/mcolp hum.uva.nl/wp-conten t/uploads/2010/09/mcolpani-5812682-master-the ani-5812682-master-thesis.pd sis.pd (Accessed: (Accesse d: 12 November 2010). Benayoun, M. (no date) World Skin, a Photo Saari in the Land o War . Available at: http:// www.benayoun.com/pro www.bena youn.com/projet.php?id=16 jet.php?id=16 (Accessed: 12 November 2010). Jung H., Lee K., Bakaev M., Kim J., Cheng H. (2007) Think Aloud Exhibition or Interactive Media Artworks [Online]. Available at: http://www http://www.sd.polyu.edu.hk/iasdr/p .sd.polyu.edu.hk/iasdr/proceeding/ roceeding/ papers/A%20Study%20on%20Perception%20o%20A papers/A%20Study%20on%20P erception%20o%20Audiences%20in%20Interacti udiences%20in%20Interactive%20 ve%20 Media%20Art%20(Using%20the%20Think%20Aloud%20T Media%20Art%20(Using%20the%20Thin k%20Aloud%20Technique).pd echnique).pd (Accessed: 16 December 2010). Gonzales A., Finley T., T., Duncan S. (2008) Interactive Art : Efects on User Identity and User http://www.chi2008.org/altch .chi2008.org/altchisystem/submissi isystem/submissions/ ons/ Satisaction [Online]. Available at: http://www submission_alg49_1.pd (Accessed: (Accessed: 29 December 2010). Jungmann M., Lutz R., Villar N., Husbands P., Fitzpatrick G. (no date) Exploring the Boundaries between Perception and Action in an Interactive System [Online]. Available at: http://www http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/c .cogs.susx.ac.uk/courses/creative-systems/p ourses/creative-systems/papers/manuela/ apers/manuela/ manuela_ jungmannEnactiveO6.pd jungmannEnactiv eO6.pd (Accessed: (Accessed: 16 December 2010). Mueller L., Edmonds E. (2006) Living Laboratories: Making and Curating Interactive Art [Online]. Available at: http://www http://www.siggraph.org/artdesign/ .siggraph.org/artdesign/gallery/S06/paper2.pd gallery/S06/paper2.pd (Accessed: (Accesse d: 28 December 2010).
21
