Experience in Interactive Art

7/30/2019 Experience in Interactive Art

1/21


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


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


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.


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


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).


7/21

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)


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).


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


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.


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).


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).


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


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).


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).


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).


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.


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).


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).


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.


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).

Experience in Interactive Art

Documents

Transcript of Experience in Interactive Art