Jukka Ylitalo


Human-Sign Interaction

-Anatomy of Interactive Audiovisual Machine and Its Expressive Possibilities



     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.




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 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 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.





                  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".




                  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.







(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):




(8) For the works of Tony Oursler look for example:



(9)  Information on  the works of Ken Feingold look :





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.