Post on 04-Apr-2018
7/30/2019 Experience in Interactive Art
1/21
7/30/2019 Experience in Interactive Art
2/21
2
Experience in Interactive ArtThe Impact o Interactivity on Art Experience
Jakub Grosz 2011 Prague College School o Art & Design BA Fine Art Experimental Media
7/30/2019 Experience in Interactive Art
3/21
3
Contents
Introduction 4
Interactive Art 5
Interactivity as Medium 5
Viewer, User or Participant? 7
Play, Exploration 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
7/30/2019 Experience in Interactive Art
4/21
4
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 artists expression. Can such an active relationship between
audience, artwork, and artist result in a new orm o art experience?
Interactive Art, although only occasionally appearing during the 20th 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 as a medium in its own right as well as experience in interactive art orms, and
so come up with ideas and concepts that can help to understand the greater impact o
interactivity in art.
I will begin by ocusing on the nature o interactivity itsel as well as in the 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.
7/30/2019 Experience in Interactive Art
5/21
5
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 explains that interactivity - instead
o being the property o an object - must be considered as a relational 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 in Interactive Art needs urther 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, 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
artists 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 doesnt 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
7/30/2019 Experience in Interactive Art
6/21
6
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
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 seems to be important. Events where 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 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
artists 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.
Fig.1, David Rokeby - Very Nervous System (Rokeby, 1993).
7/30/2019 Experience in Interactive Art
7/21
7
Moreover, expression is interconnected directly with the experience o participants,
creating a certain loop or paradox. The actual experience o a participant, resulting rom
the expression o the artist as well as his own actions, is in very special and unique way
turned back into the artists 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 participant 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 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 seems to be the most appropriate
description, as participation 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 between participant, artwork, and artist (as has been mentioned
above), but also through play, exploration and creative learning. Rush (2005, pp. 222-224)
7/30/2019 Experience in Interactive Art
8/21
8
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 works. Rush (2005, p. 227) urther states The artist 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 orm, universal or all Interactive
Art. According to art historian Ske Dinkla
(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).
Fig.2, Myron Krueger - Videoplace (Krueger, 1974).
7/30/2019 Experience in Interactive Art
9/21
9
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 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 artists 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 becomes a multimedia
installation, where the potentialities and essence o interactivity stay either unused or
misused.
Interactive InstallationsCategorisation 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 complete the artworks on the other side. Everything imaginable lies between,
like in any work o art. Some installations had only a short lie, presented once or limited
7/30/2019 Experience in Interactive Art
10/21
10
time. Others had or have been developed over years and even decades, like already
mentioned, Myron Kruegers 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.
7/30/2019 Experience in Interactive Art
11/21
11
Responsive spaces and interactive sculptures
were among the irst examples o Interactive Art.
Although there is no computer technology involved
and the type o interactivity 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
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 computer-
controlled Interactive Art started. Dinkla urther explains
that in 1969 Krueger started to create spaces where
visitors actions were ollowed by eects. In the same
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 visitors
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
participants perception o the space, to modiy an environment in real-time in such a way
Fig.4, Myron Krueger - Plan o Glowlow project
(http://artelectronicmedia.com/artwork/glowlow,
no date).
Fig.3, Marcel Duchamp - Rotay Glass Plates
(Yale University Art Gallery, 1920).
7/30/2019 Experience in Interactive Art
12/21
12
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.
In the 1970 Expo Exhibition in Osaka, Artist Robert Whitman and scientist Billy
Klver 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 Klver 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 toexplore 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
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
Fig.5, Robert Whitman and Billy Klver -
Pepsi Pavilion in Expo 70 Japan (Burrows, 1970).
Fig.6, Ken Feingold - Childhood / Hot & Cold Wars
(The Appearance o Nature) (Feingold, 1993).
7/30/2019 Experience in Interactive Art
13/21
13
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 participants 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 participants 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 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 Seamans installation
allows or sequential reading, much like viewing a painting or reading a poem. With no
7/30/2019 Experience in Interactive Art
14/21
14
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
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 participants physical motion in the installation space ragments time in a pre-recorded
video clip (Utterback, 2011). Utterback urther explains that ones 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 individual sel-projection
into the visualized dynamic space-time, as
the responsiveness o the system allows its
manipulation and rhythmic composition.
Interactive media installations invite
participants to explore their own creativity within the rame o the installation. Constantly
changing and manipulated visual or sound projections responding to a participants
perormance dynamically shape perception. In this eld, perception o change means
change o perception. This process results in unique creative experience.
Fig.8, Camille Utterback - The Liquid Time Series (Utterback, 2011).
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).
7/30/2019 Experience in Interactive Art
15/21
15
Interactive Worlds
The idea to create or depict complex alternative worlds has been present in
many art orms rom Salvator Dalis surrealistic paintings, George Orwells novel 1984, and
The Matrixmovie 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 non-
existent 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 Galpagos [ig.9], developed
by Karl Sims in 1995, involves twelve
monitors with a computer-generated
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
Fig.9, Karl Sims - Creatures rom the installation Galpagos (Sims, 1997).
7/30/2019 Experience in Interactive Art
16/21
16
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 three-
dimensional expressive worlds, but also
gives participants the option to perorm
actions inside the virtual environment. An
example o such installation can be ound
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 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, that we are not supposed to experience?
(V2unstable, 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
ones own understanding. In the case o immersive Virtual Reality, participants do not
even project themselves into the virtual worlds, because they are literally inside.
Fig.10, Maurice Benayoun - World Skin, Virtual Reality Installation
(Benayoun, 1997).
7/30/2019 Experience in Interactive Art
17/21
17
ConclusionThe dialogue between participant and interactive artwork representing the
artists 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 participants experience o the artists expression and his own actions is turned
back into the artists 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 artist 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 artworks. 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 participants
actions are perceived together, orming an overall perception o the virtual world that
wants to be explored and understood.
7/30/2019 Experience in Interactive Art
18/21
18
List of References:
Dewey, J. (1934)Art as Experience. Reprint, London: Penguin Books Ltd., 2005.
Smuts, A. (2009) What is Interactivity,Journal o Aesthetic Education, 43(4), pp. 53-73,
JSTOR [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/pss/25656247 (Accessed: 26 December
2010).
MediaArtTube (2010) David Rokeby - Very Nervous System, Interactive Environment 1986-.
Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsR7EQgG7N0 (Accessed: 5 January
2011).
Rush, M. (2005) New Media in Art. 2nd edn. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd.
Dinkla, S. (1994) The History o the Interace in Interactive Art. Available at: http://www.
keneingold.com/dinkla_history.html (Accessed: 29 December 2010).
Seaman, W. (2010) Bill Seaman / Recombinant Poetics. Available at: http://projects.
visualstudies.duke.edu/billseaman/workSpcWatch01.php (Accessed: 5 January 2011).
MediaArtTube (2008) Myron Krueger - Videoplace, Responsive Environment, 1972-1990s.
Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmmxVA5xhuo (Accessed: 6 January
2011).
Hieronymi, A. (2004) Interactive Environments. UCLA D|MA. Winter 04. Available at:
http://classes.dma.ucla.edu/Winter04/256/projects/andrew/report.html (Accessed: 27
December 2010).
Packer, R. (2003) The Pavilion - Into the 21st Century. Available at: http://www.zakros.com/
projects/pavilion/video_pavilion_promo.html (Accessed: 23 December 2010).
Zakros Interarts (no date) The Pavilion - Into the 21st Century. Available at: http://www.
zakros.com/projects/pavilion/original_new.html (Accessed: 28 December 2010).
Utterback, C. (2011) Liquid Time Series 2000 2002. Available at: http://camilleutterback.com/projects/liquid-time-series/ (Accessed: 10 January 2011).
V2unstable (2010) Maurice Benayoun presents: World Skin during the Tools or
Propaganda test_lab. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTkOWQGxtsU
(Accessed: 6 January 2011).
7/30/2019 Experience in Interactive Art
19/21
19
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://homepage.mac.com/davidrokeby/vns.html (Accessed: 5
February 2011).
[g.2]
Krueger, M. (1974) Myron Krueger, Videoplace, 1974 [Online]. Available at: http://www.
medienkunstnetz.de/works/videoplace/images/1/ (Accessed: 16 December 2010).
[g.3]
Yale University Art Gallery (1920) Rotay Glass Plates [Online]. Available at: http://www.
dada-companion.com/duchamp/lms.php (Accessed: 7 February 2010).
[g.4]
http://artelectronicmedia.com/artwork/glowfow (no date) (Accessed: 6 February 2011).
[g.5]
Burrows, L. (1970) Expo 70 Japan [Online]. Available at: http://images.google.com/
hosted/lie/l?imgurl=0994ed5d3704c4d3 (Accessed: 5 January 2011).
[g.6]
Feingold, K. (1993) Childhood / Hot & Cold Wars (The Appearance o Nature) [Online].Available at: http://www.keneingold.com/catalog_html/childhood.html (Accessed: 29
December 2010).
[g.7]
http://www.duke.edu/web/art/newsbyte/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/ (Accessed: 10 January 2011).
[g.9]
Sims, K. (1997) Galpagos images [Online]. Available at: http://www.karlsims.com/
galapagos/galapagos-images.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://commons.wikimedia.org/
wiki/File:WORLD_SKIN_(2).JPG (Accessed: 6 February 2010).
7/30/2019 Experience in Interactive Art
20/21
20
Bibligraphy:
Dewey, J. (1934)Art as Experience. Reprint, London: Penguin Books Ltd., 2005.
Smuts, A. (2009) What is Interactivity,Journal o Aesthetic Education, 43(4), pp. 53-73,
JSTOR [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/pss/25656247 (Accessed: 26 December
2010).
MediaArtTube (2010) David Rokeby - Very Nervous System, Interactive Environment 1986-.
Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsR7EQgG7N0 (Accessed: 5 January
2011).
Rush, M. (2005) New Media in Art. 2nd edn. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd.
Dinkla, S. (1994) The History o the Interace in Interactive Art. Available at: http://www.
keneingold.com/dinkla_history.html (Accessed: 29 December 2010).
Seaman, W. (2010) Bill Seaman / Recombinant Poetics. Available at: http://projects.
visualstudies.duke.edu/billseaman/workSpcWatch01.php (Accessed: 5 January 2011).
MediaArtTube (2008) Myron Krueger - Videoplace, Responsive Environment, 1972-1990s.
Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmmxVA5xhuo (Accessed: 6 January
2011).
Hieronymi, A. (2004) Interactive Environments. UCLA D|MA. Winter 04. Available at:
http://classes.dma.ucla.edu/Winter04/256/projects/andrew/report.html (Accessed: 27
December 2010).
Packer, R. (2003) The Pavilion - Into the 21st Century. Available at: http://www.zakros.com/
projects/pavilion/video_pavilion_promo.html (Accessed: 23 December 2010).
Zakros Interarts (no date) The Pavilion - Into the 21st Century. Available at: http://www.
zakros.com/projects/pavilion/original_new.html (Accessed: 28 December 2010).
Utterback, C. (2011) Liquid Time Series 2000 2002. Available at: http://camilleutterback.com/projects/liquid-time-series/ (Accessed: 10 January 2011).
V2unstable (2010) Maurice Benayoun presents: World Skin during the Tools or
Propaganda test_lab. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTkOWQGxtsU
(Accessed: 6 January 2011).
Arnhem, R. (1974)Art and Visual Perception. 50Anniversary edn. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University o Caliornia Press, 2004.
Virilio, P. (1994) The Vision Machine. Translated by Julie Rose. London: British Film Institue.
7/30/2019 Experience in Interactive Art
21/21
21
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/mcolpani-5812682-master-thesis.pd
(Accessed: 12 November 2010).
Benayoun, M. (no date) World Skin, a Photo Saari in the Land o War. Available at: http://
www.benayoun.com/projet.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.sd.polyu.edu.hk/iasdr/proceeding/
papers/A%20Study%20on%20Perception%20o%20Audiences%20in%20Interactive%20
Media%20Art%20(Using%20the%20Think%20Aloud%20Technique).pd (Accessed: 16
December 2010).
Gonzales A., Finley T., Duncan S. (2008) Interactive Art : Efects on User Identity and User
Satisaction [Online]. Available at: http://www.chi2008.org/altchisystem/submissions/submission_alg49_1.pd (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.cogs.susx.ac.uk/courses/creative-systems/papers/manuela/ manuela_
jungmannEnactiveO6.pd (Accessed: 16 December 2010).
Mueller L., Edmonds E. (2006) Living Laboratories: Making and Curating Interactive Art
[Online]. Available at: http://www.siggraph.org/artdesign/gallery/S06/paper2.pd
(Accessed: 28 December 2010).