Jukka
Ylitalo
Human-Sign Interaction
-Anatomy of Interactive Audiovisual Machine and Its Expressive
Possibilities
Abstract:
In this paper I outline a set of different aesthetics
components that together form the artistic potentials of interactive media.
I claim that
interactive media as platform for art has a potential that is unique and
inherently interesting and that this is not in conflict with the idea of
computer media remediating older media formats and their rhetorical techniques.
I also present a
chart of interactivity, in which I will try to articulate a theoretical model
and a conceptual framework similar to the idea of HCI (Human Computer Interaction) as a discipline but with an emphasis more on the poetics of
interactive media. The chart is a
description of a metastructure of the possibilities of interactive art. With it
I attempt to clarify some concepts used in context of interactive media. My aim
is to create a description that can be useful "checklist" for both
criticism and for creative artistic production.
I will comment on the
concept of interactivity and interactive art. I argue that a more suitable concept for theorizing
and conceptualizing practical aesthetic and problem solving issues in the
context of interactive art would be to replace the concept of HCI with a
concept of HSI which as an acronym refers to "Human sign interaction".
I will also comment
on the question of interactivity as an aesthetic category and argue that this
aesthetic category is probably most inseparable from ethical categories in
comparison to other art forms.
_______
In
this paper, I am going to outline a set of different aesthetics components that
together form the artistic potentials of interactive media.
I
am trying to combine seemingly disparate points of view, namely: technical,
practical and philosophical, hoping then to formulate preliminary outlines for
design philosophy of interactive media.
In
his essay on interactive artist David Rokeby, Erkki Huhtamo notes that the
concept of interactivity is loaded with suspicious connotations. He states:
"'interactive' has become a label, a sticker which seems more sexy, more
potent, more creative, in a word: a better purchase." (Huhtamo 1998) He
states that in the 1990's interactivity become "the sweetheart of
mainstream media" and even art world showed "some signs of succumbing
to the epidemic". (ibd.)
It
is common that new technology has often stirred up sometimes unjustified
expectations and excitements. We call this phenomena "hype". After
the hype is over one might note that the real substance was not to be found, as
if technological novelty was a smokescreen that provided illusion of something
more exciting than earlier applications of technical and artistic traditions.
In
attempt to outline a "chart" of the artistic components of
interactive media, I'm trying to find the "middle way" between
"hype" and the counter reaction where one suspects that since
enthusiasm around concept of interactivity was much of "hype", it
must hold as a promise in itself just nothing but "hype".
Bolter
and Grusin claim in their book Remediation that computer media remediates older media formats and their
rhetorical techniques: "we call the representation of one medium in
another remediation" (Bolter & Grusin 2001, 44) My classification is
based on that premise. This however does not mean that interactive media as a
potential expressive tool would not have something inherently interesting. (1)
There
is much debate also on the question whether or not so called "interactive
media" is more interactive than "traditional" (so called
non-interactive) media. It has been argued that the reader of any kind of text
is always interactive since the reader "constructs" or adds something
to the interpretation. This debate is out of the scope of this essay. I try to
take a practical point of view as a working definition for interactive media.
For me interactive media content/art is a work where interaction does not
happen only inside the interpretation but has a physical quality where the
participant does something physical and the interactive media responds to that
with some recognizable response for the physical senses (this response being
usually audiovisual text).
In
this essay I will present a "chart of interactivity". By outlining
this chart I hope to expand some new viewpoints in the ways we conceptualize
interactive media. I am also attempting to articulate a conceptual framework a
bit similar to the idea of HCI as a discipline but here the emphasis is more on
the poetics of interactive media than in the productivity, efficiency and job
satisfaction issues.
First,
I will comment on the concept of interactivity and interactive art. Then I will
present the chart and the explanations of its components. I will argue that a more suitable
concept for theorizing and conceptualizing practical aesthetic and problem
solving issues in the context of interactive media would be to replace the
concept of HCI (Human computer interaction) with a concept of HSI which as an
acronym refers to "Human sign interaction".
Finally
I will comment on the question of interactivity as an aesthetic category and
argue that aesthetic category in this context is probably most inseparable from
ethical categories in comparison to other art forms.
Concept
of interactive art
For us to define
what is interactive art we need to define two concepts: art and interactivity.
Defining the concept of art and engaging fully in the debates surrounding that
subject is out of scope of this paper. However, I would like to make some notes
on the subject as a working hypothesis.
Erkki
Huhtamo has embedded in an exhibition catalog text (curated by him in 1993) an
implicit definition for interactive art: "creative discourse which
critically probes, and even anticipates technological breakthroughs,
alternative models for using interactive systems." (Huhtamo 1993, 3) I
think this characterization is very fitting because it describes what many
interactive media artists have actually done and are still doing. Obviously
this characterization is limited and I am not presenting it as an all-embracing definition.
That
"definition" is nevertheless illustrative because it is descriptive
of the status of interactive art especially in 1990's. I believe that the role
of interactive art presented in that "definition", is still somewhat
coloring the idea of what interactive art can or could be. I attempt in this
presentation of the chart to expand that idea and emphasize the potential
beyond mere innovative, creative and unprejudiced experimentation (or misuse)
of technology.
I
think there is much validity in those activities but I believe that interactive
media as a platform for arts has more to offer, and it has much more to offer
not because it is new technology but because it can remediate "older"
media and their expressive possibilities. It seems sometimes that because
interactive media is "new" it would be not "cool" or 'good taste'
to "stain" this impression of novelty with "old" expressive
forms. I think such biases can also be a block on a creative artist as much as
blocking everything new can be a block on the creativity. (2)
What
is interactive media art? To give a definition that is 99% a tautology: interactive
media art (when computers are employed) is art of computerized
interrelationships. To state this shorter: interactive art is art of
interrelationships. Does this almost "tautological" definition have
any value? If we think about the concept of interrelationships we do not have
to think about just computer generated interactions but interrelationships in
general. At this point, my question is: How can we use interactive technology
to express interrelationships? Also, to what extent should we? What are the
limits and possibilities of technology on that regard?
Concept
of artistic interaction
As
noted above "interactivity" has been a buzzword signifying something
new and exciting in our technological culture. Even if the hype is nomore so
intense, I believe there is still some residue of a sense of "exciting
novelty" in the concept of interactivity. And yet interactivity was and is
very everyday even before and beyond computers. To state the trivial: our very
existence is interactive in nature. We breath, we speak, we eat etc. We are
interacting with food and air, etc. Where there is action and reaction, force
and counter-force, cause and effect there is interaction. We also interact
within: with our memories, emotions, thoughts and desires. One could paraphrase
Descartes: "I am interactive, therefore I am", just like Pierre
Moegeling does. (Huhtamo 1995, 88)
Coming
back to the question of interactive art, a question raises: does one need a
computer for making artistic interactions? Obviously not. But I guess one could
say that computer is the best machine for defining a fixed model of interaction that can be distributed just
like images and sounds can be distributed (in e.g. cd, dvd, internet formats)
How
can we tell if an interaction is an artistic one, whether it has artistic
value? I do not raise this question here for the purpose of entering into
endless debates of art philosophy but rather to give indication that as an
aesthetic category this is quite new question. We have already a certain set of
traditions and more or less established notions as to what makes a (series of)
picture(s) or a collection of sound to be art (even though this is not always
very clear either). But in the case of interactive art, what is it that makes
of an interrelationship (interaction, cause and effect sequence) to be taken as
art? If we can distract ourselves for a moment form the disturbing awareness
that in contemporary culture anything can be called art if it suits artistic
purposes, and hence distract our minds from the almost oppressive idea that the
whole question is thus pointless, if we can for a moment imagine that art as a
concept has some even marginally fixable identity and value, then what is
artistic interaction?
Myron
Krueger, an early pioneer on applying interactive technology for something that
could be called artistic, proposed in his book Artificial Reality II that
interactive art should create a new category of beauty. (Krueger 1991, 17) He
went in his thesis so far as to say that the most important content of
interactive art should be the interaction itself. This raises the question as
to whether you can abstract the interaction itself from the context of
interacting elements. In other words, is there something in the interaction
that can be abstracted from the two or more elements that interact with each
other, or is interaction always something that can only be intelligible by our
recognition of the two parties that interact.
Obviously
with computers we can extract the
algorithm that dictates the logic of interaction. We can look at the
algorithmic logic and there we have the abstraction. Is this the new category
of beauty Krueger is looking for? The code itself might not be beautiful to our
eyes but could the idea of interaction that it describes be something
beautiful? Of course this idea can be experienced only when it is applied in
practice in some interactive application that can be tested. To put this
question into more specific or concrete terms: Can a digitally mechanized
definition of a set of logical operations have aesthetic value by itself? (This
question pushes the horizon of this thematic a bit too abstract for my
purposes. Maybe it also thus demonstrates the difficulty of defining concepts
concerning interactivity and aesthetics.) In what follows, I will concentrate
more on the interrelations and the sum whole of different components of
interactive media.
The
chart of interactive media and its artistic elements
In
this chart, I propose a description of a meta-structure of the possibilities of
interactive art and especially in interactive installation art. It is an
attempt for clarifying some concepts used in context of interactive media and
art. My aim is to create a description that can be useful "checklist"
for both criticism and for creative artistic production. This chart is also an
attempt to outline some conceptual starting points for design science in
interactive media (art).
Digital
interactive media offers a myriad variety of possible platforms and genres.
McLuhanian statement "media is the message" holds true in many
contemporary interactive applications that apply new interactive technologies.
With this chart, I seek to
establish some ways to determine what is this "message" of the media.
Computer
as media
I
build the structure of the "chart" on the obvious basis of computer's
tripartite structure: input, processing and output. This however does not mean
that this structure should be taken as universal meta-structure for interactive
art. My position is that all of
the elements in this chart are in principle "equal". It remains also
an artistic (or maybe in this case a meta artistic) decision whether or not to
stress one element more than another.
Corresponding these three concepts (input, processing and output), I
will use terms sensing, processing and response (Rowe 1993) This is the obvious
functional structure of computer media: data comes in, it is processed and a
response is generated. In what follows, I will look at these three part
individually from the point of view of potential artistic applications.
Sensing
Using the term
sensing instead of the term "input" generates a specific set of
associations. Input as a term is more technical. Sensing associates with the
human senses and suggests to the possibility of simulating human senses. (3)
Philosophically sensing is a problematic term because computers can not make
"sense" of what is "perceived" in the manner humans do.
To
ascribe computer technology with metaphors that are familiar to us as
describing human capabilities can be confusing, just like using computer
science metaphors to describe human behavior and capabilities can be confusing.
Even if the "sensing" devices attachable to the computer are
primitive in comparison to human cognitive capabilities, the metaphor of
"sensing" makes sense when we are consciously attempting to create
illusion of "sensing" and possibly an illusion of a intelligent agent
that can perceive and react according to the input data. (4)
In
my point of view however the sensing component of interactive media is
important more by virtue of what possibilities of action it provides for
participant than how the simulation of human senses could be rendered. In other
words the sensing devices define the range of "sensible" action. Here
the word sensible has its double meaning: what data can be technically
transmitted ("perceived" by computer) defines what action it makes sense for the participant to engage in
the interaction.)
Standard
sensing devices like mouse and keyboard would usually be called control devices
because they require explicit action by the user and their function is to
"stroke, point, click and select". But we can think mouse and
keyboard also with the metaphor of "sensing". They are only more
limited than say a multi-modal collection of a camera, microphone, touch
sensors etc.
My
central argument is that sensing devices are a kind of a "bottleneck"
of interaction. They define the nature of data that is transmitted into
computer. Hence they also define what is relevant action of the user
(participant) in the interaction. This being the case they very much define the
whole underlying character of the interactive experience.
Mouse
and keyboard define the user as a virtual user since the "sensible"
action that has significance is actually virtual and taking place in the
Graphical User Interface on the screen. When we use mouse and keyboard, it is
usually only by virtue of what happens in the screen or what one hears from the
speakers that has relevant meaning for the participant.
Mouse
and keyboard also "slice" the user's body. David Rokeby puts this
quite succinctly: "A standard GUI interface is a mirror that reflects back
a severely misshapen human being with large hands, huge forefinger, one immense
eye and moderate sized ears. The rest of the body is simply the location of
backaches, neck strain and repetitive stress injuries." (Rokeby 1998)
Only
fingers, wrist, eyes and ears are relevant parts of the body in most of the
experiences provided by standard interface solutions. Rest of the body is
residue whose role is to suffer from neglect. The way interface is organized is
not only an ergonomic issue but also representational. In the context of interactive
art, the design of "sensing-interface" is also the basic parameter
that defines the framework and nature of experience for the participant.
In
the Chart actual action (A(A)) refers to the participants actual physical
action. Choosing and applying the sensing device contributes much to the design
of the experience because it designs the framework of "sensible
action". David Rokeby's Very Nervous System is a classical example of an
interactive art installation that engages the whole body. (5) Essential about this "actual
action" is that if it has a meaning in itself regardless of the virtual
response or its virtual metaphor, it makes the experience of interaction much richer. When using mouse and
keyboard the actual action is in itself usually meaningless: it is often
unhealthy repetitive movements that are liable to cause repetitive stress
injuries.
Hence
choosing and applying sensing devices is central technical and artistic choice
that significantly defines the nature of interaction. One could also argue that
the engineering decision becomes in this regard one with the artistic decision.
One
can see that the choice of sensing technology (or control device) in
interactive systems is simultaneously ergonomic, and artistic decision. It also
defines the framework the design of experience.
In
the chart I illustrate sensing with attached abbreviation s, Sc, V. These refer to the technical implementation of sensors (s),
virtual metaphor of the sensing (or control) device (V) and the sculptural
metaphor of the sensing device (Sc).
(s)
Technical implementation of sensors
The
technical solution of sensing device is very much standardized in personal
computer market. Custom solutions require almost specialized knowledge of
various techniques for bypassing the standard (mouse and keyboard) interface
implementation. Video camera and microphone are easy to interface but require
special software when applied as sensing devices. In principle any kind of
existing sensor technology can be attached into computer. There is also some
sensor digitizing solutions in the market for artistic use. (6)
(V)
Virtual metaphor of sensing
Virtual
metaphor of sensing is a vague concept. It is always already a
"response" and at the same time it is virtual extension of the user
(and thus it is the virtual metaphor of sensing). Most obvious example of
virtual metaphor is the arrow pointer of the mouse on the screen.
(Sc)
Sculptural metaphor of sensing
Sculptural
metaphor refers to the physical design aspect of the sensing device. Sensing
device can be embedded and thus the sculptural metaphor would be invisible or
irrelevant. I think one of the most impressive artistic examples of sculptural
metaphor was created by Agnes HegedŸs in her piece Handsight.(7) She had two
elements that were identified as metaphors for eye balls. A smaller eye ball
(3d-mouse pointer) could be entered into the bigger eyeball. This bigger
"eye ball" was also containing a virtual scene and it was associated
with an traditional in-the bottle scene ("passion jar").
I
am calling this physical design aspect as "sculptural metaphor" since
the aim of this chart is to connect the different artistic elements of
interactive art with the traditions of art. One central idea of this chart is
to examine the possibilities of interactive art as a potential synthesis of
"traditional" arts that also transcends the traditions just like
cinema transcended the idea of being just a sum of story, music, drama, acting
and audiovisual recording.
Sculptural
metaphor as one potential element of interactive art has thus a relationship to
the whole history of sculpture art. Obviously this "sculptural
"element can potentially and alternatively refer to the aesthetics and
functionality of industrial design of consumer products. Since the physical interface can be
increasingly embedded, possible reference points are also architecture and
installation art.
This
sculptural aspect is often not exploited. Standard mouse and keyboard locate
the experience inside virtual environment where the defining characteristics of
interaction are created by virtual metaphors. When using embedded sensors like
video-camera, it is also possible to dispense with both sculptural and virtual
metaphor. Only action and response remains. David Rokeby's interactive art
classic Very nervous system is an example of this. Of course we could argue that in the case of Very nervous system, the auditive response is
simultaneously auditive virtual metaphor of the user. That's why I would
distinguish between the virtual metaphor of sensing and virtual metaphor of the
response. Although the "virtual metaphor of response" is actually
usually all there is to the response or better yet: it is the response (virtual
in this case would be equal to the concept of digital representation)
Let's
look at the next item in the chart.
Processing
Processing
refers to the algorithm and software. It defines the interaction logic. It
defines the interrelationship between the "sensed action" and
response. It can be argued that this aspect of computer based art is in most
intense development. As I referred above Myron Krueger might also argue that this element is
the most essential part of the interactive art, since it contains the
interaction in its abstracted form.
However
I argue that interactive art as an art form should be seen as the potential sum
total of all the different elements that I present in the chart. I see all of
the elements as potentially equal and organically interrelated.
This
position is of course only one philosophy and is subject to alternative
"meta-artistic" decisions. Having said that I still believe that the
algorithm is the element that is genuinely new and what actually makes
interactive art a new form of art. It also renders possible creation of a new
level of artistic self-expression: interrelationships. Algorithm essentially
defines the interrelationship between the participant's actions and response.
Interrelationships are cause and effects sequences.
What
kind of an aesthetic category is the category of cause and effect sequences (or
cause and effects logics)? We can abstract in all human interaction various
causes and effects. Narrativity is essentially a sequence of humanly sensible
and organized causes and effects. Natural laws are causes and effects. But in
an algorithm the causes and effects can be defined virtually arbitrarily. What
does it mean when artistic goal is to create logics of cause and effects? The
participant is subject to these logics. Are some causes and effects
aesthetically more valuable than others? I would argue that this is actually as
much an ethical question as it is an aesthetic one. It is an aesthetic question
if we are to hold that interrelationship could be a category of beauty like
Krueger is hinting. It is an ethical one as far as our understanding of causes
and effects of human action inform our understanding of ethics.
Response
Response is
traditionally audiovisual. I attached this element symmetrically (with respect
to sensing) having sculptural metaphor (Sc), virtual metaphor (V) and response
technology (r) aspects. The symmetry is a bit redundant since virtual metaphor
of response might seems to be just a synonym for response. One could argue that
response is virtual if we define audiovisual representation virtual. It is
physical if we talk about audio waves and photons as physical phenomena.
I
am not going to get into the metaphysical issues that seem to haunt the clear
cut and systematically defined concepts. But audiovisual response operates in
the same "meet-space" as the virtual metaphor of the sensing device.
Thus one might be permitted to say it is the virtual metaphor of the response,
and it is thus the representation of the response, because if by analogy we
would call it metaphor we would say it is the metaphor of the algorithm that creates
it. But in the case of algorithmically controlled video material that
audiovisual material could not really be called a metaphor of itself. In
realtime algorithmic rendering one might say so. These questions seem to lead
us to the fundamental questions of "digital metaphysics". That
is not the goal of this
paper.
The
sculptural metaphor, however, is relevant and potentially interesting aesthetic
element. Here are present similar artistic possibilities as there is in the
sculptural metaphor of sensing. In this context the work of Tony Oursler is an interesting example of
altering the screen framework of audiovisual presentation. (8) (A(r)) Actual response
would be the physical response in haptic or robotic applications. The concept
of actuality here refers to the physicality of robotics. Ken Feingold's Head is
illustrative example of interactive work that has "actual response".
(9)
Intention
and Meaning
Let's
look at cognitive side of the participant in this chart. Intention, actual
action and meaning are the elements that refer to the experience of
participant. Intention refers here to the question of motivation: why should I
interact with some particular interactive piece? There has to be some impulse
that motivates action. Where does that motivation come from? How can it be
ignited? Currently one important factor might be the technological novelty and
the curiosity it engenders. In
games the motivation might be addictive and escapist immersion into a fantasy
world. All of the elements presented in this chart contribute to the motivation
in unique ways.
Of
course we could take this question into a more general level as well: what
motivates our actions and decisions in general? Does those more general
motivations also play part in the interactive art? I believe that could
potentially be so. From this hypothesis one might conclude that interactive art
is not only potentially design of causes, effects and experiences but also
design of motivations. In this case the ethical issue is even more profound
than in the simulations of causes and effects. Questions concerning motivation,
intention and participation are also deeply social issues.
On
the other side is the element of meaning. Obviously all of the elements
contribute to the meaning of the piece and meaning feeds back to the intention
and action (be it actual or virtual or both). Interactive process is a feedback
loop and this chart is only an abstraction of one sequence. In interactive feedback loop the
attributes of the elements presented in this chart might also be constantly
changing.
One
of the basic aims of this chart is to also point out that all of these elements
(save perhaps processing) refer potentially to the whole history of various
traditional art forms or cultural practices. One might argue that interactive
art was born with an emphasis on technological self-referentiality. But I think
that is only one aesthetic aspect of the possibilities of interactive art and
for interactive art to grow into maturity I think it should embrace the
cultural tradition of arts that can
contribute to it. HegedŸs' Handsight is excellent example of this.
Actual
action refers to the whole range of human corporal expressivity from non-verbal
communication to theatre and dance.
It is obvious that the expressivity experienced in the interactive
situation is not limited to what the computer can sense. What the computer can sense might in
some cases also be irrelevant, more important being what the participant
experiences.
Sculptural
metaphor as an expressive category refers to the history of sculpture and also
the history of design of user products and gadgets from primitive tools to
sophisticated space rockets.
Response
as expressive category refers to the history and expressive possibilities of
audiovisual media from theatre to cinema, video and new media. There is also no
reason why response material could not use any of the possible existing genres
(different genres existing in cinema, video, television, press, literature,
painting, music), combine them and create new ones.
SPR=HSI
For
the poetics or art and design science of interactive media art, I would propose
a disciplinary concept of HSI (Human sign interaction). Sign refers here to the
process of signification and meaning. For me interactive art is more about
interacting with signifying processes than with computers. Computer is only a means in the
interaction.
This
same idea has been recognized in HCI studies as well. As one pioneer of HCI
research puts it: "The name 'human-computer interaction" is in some
ways a misnomer. The fact that the person is trying to do something [with
computer] means it's really 'human-work interaction' with the computer as an
intermediary. .. the focus isn't on interacting with the computer, but interacting
through the computer." (Winograd 1994, 53).
Thus
I would term the triad composite of sensing-processing-response as the
interface between participant and meaning. In the chart "Sensing-processing-response" (SPR)
describes a Human Sign Interface (HSI) which is an intermediary that defines
interaction between human action and signs. My thesis in the nutshell is using
the above acronym: SPR=HSI.
Just
like HCI, HSI would be a cross disciplinary approach involving aesthetics, (contemporary) art
practices, narratology, semiotics, language of audio-visuality, drama,
ergonomics, computer science (algorithms), engineering, electronics, product
design, HCI issues etc., to mention a few of the possible contributing
disciplines.
Ethics
and the category of interrelationships
As
already hinted above the creation of interactive work is also a creation of
causes and effects. One could argue that our understanding of causes and
effects are the most essential way we learn what is right and wrong. If we did
not have a faculty to comprehend causes and effects there would be no ethics.
In western philosophical ethics two most influential traditions are called
consequentialism and deontology. Especially in consequentialism the idea is
that consequences of action inform us whether or not the action is good or bad.
In
deontology emphasis is more on the intuition and sense of duty that would
inform ethical judgments. But also in Kant's formulation of categorical
imperative there is an idea of interaction. (Kant's categorical imperative:
"Act only on the maxim which you can at the same time will to be a
universal law." (Frankena 1973, 30)) What is interesting is that it speaks
about the idea of acting only in the manner that can be imagined as being a
general rule. There is a partial analogy to the digital interactive technology:
algorithms are "general rules". They can be digitally copied over and
over again. The formulation of
categorical imperative is also quite close to another very
"interactive" maxim - that of the "golden rule".
Conclusions:
In
this paper I have attempted to outline preliminary design philosophy for
computer based interactive art. I have presented a chart of interactivity as a
meta-model of artistic expressive elements that (can potentially) contribute to
interactive art. I have discussed the elements of this chart and presented the
idea that artistic applications of interactive technology could be
conceptualized as Human-Sign-interaction and that this concept could be seen as
an organizing concept for a discipline of design science for interactive art. I
also presented an idea that interactivity and ethics are conceptually very
close to each other.
For
me the most essential question around this thematic, is how to bridge the gap
between the rich tradition of western and (non western) culture and art and the
artistic expressibility of new media that seems to at times lament the
condition of being "so new form of expression", as if it had no
traditions and everything were to be invented anew. I believe that contemporary
art, be it interactive media art or some other form can be build on traditions
and it can also transcend the tradition.
I
try to find some discursive strategies out of this bias of not seeing the
continuity of traditions. I believe that interactive art can take the best
practices of the traditional arts and combine them (possibly as I presented in
the chart) and transcend the tradition coming up with something even more
exciting than the best of the traditional arts.
Endnotes:
(1) I am not claiming that interactive art does not have inherently something
more interesting that other art forms. It would be as awkward as to say that
photography has inherently something more interesting as an art form than
painting.
(2) Quite obviously to call some earlier
expressive media forms "old"
and digital media exclusively "new" is quite problematic. But
one might hypothetically/rhetorically call speech, writing, painting, photography,
cinema, video etc. "old" media. Distinction between "old"
and "new" is certainly arbitrary and the chart I am presenting
attempts to blur this distinction even further because in it I seek to
articulate interactive media as a composite media that remediates
"old" media.
(3) In principle all five physical human senses:
seeing (computer vision), hearing (speech recognition), touching, olfaction and
taste could be technically reproduced within certain limitations).
(4) I think the most interesting aspect of this
kind of illusionism or practice of the
"suspension of disbelief" is the question of how far can it
go. This is the traditional question of the Turing test. But computer that
passes the Turing test does not yet prove that we should replace human
interrelationships with computer generated interrelationships.
(5) Description and documentation of "Very Nervous System" can be found in David Rokeby
home page http://homepage.mac.com/davidrokeby/vns.html
(6) There is a number sensor digitizing
application products in market for media artists: to name a few: Atomic Pro,
I-cube, Teleo. One alternative for more engineering minded is to build one with
a microcontroller (f.ex. Basic Stamp).
(7) Information and images on Agnes HegedŸs' Handsight in the net (24.8.04):
http://csw.art.pl/new/99/7e_agndl.html
http://www.aec.at/de/archives/festival_archive/festival_documentations/1992/hegep.html
(8)
For the works of Tony Oursler look for example:
http://csw.art.pl/new/99/ousler_e.html
(9) Information on the works of Ken Feingold look :
http://www.kenfeingold.com/
Literature:
Bolter, J.D.
& Grusin R. 2001. Remediation, Understanding New Media. Cambridge &
London: MIT Press.
Frankena,
William K. 1973. Ethics. Eaglewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Huhtamo, Erkki
1993. "The Computer in the Garden - the garden in the Computer, Some
Reflections on art, technology and interactivity". In: Interaktiivinen
puutarha Galleria Otso nŠyttelyluettelo. Espoo: Galleria Otso.
Huhtamo,
Erkki 1995. Taidetta koneesta : media, taide, teknologia. Turku: Turun yliopiston
tŠydennyskoulutuskeskus.
Huhtamo,
Erkki 1998. "Silicon remembers Ideology or David Rokeby's meta-interactive
art" (from the catalog for "The Giver of Names" exhibit at the
McDonald-Stewart Art Centre) . Also: http://homepage.mac.com/davidrokeby/erkki.html
Krueger, Myron W. 1991: Artificial Reality II. Massachusetts
- Paris, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Preece, Jenny
1994. Human-Computer Interaction. Wokingham - Tapei: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company.
Rokeby,
David 1998. "The Construction of Experience : Interface as Content".
In Digital Illusion: Entertaining the Future with High Technology," Clark
Dodsworth, Jr., Contributing Editor.
Addison-Wesley Publishing Compa. Also published 5.6.2004 in web: http://homepage.mac.com/davidrokeby/experience.html
Rowe, Robert 1993: Interactive Music Systems, Machine
Listening and Composing. London, The MIT Press.
Winograd, Terry 1994."Interview with Terry Winograd". In: Preece, Jenny 1994. Human-Computer Interaction. Wokingham - Tapei: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.