My response would be that design is a discipline that treats certain
aspects of the market/public/audience as given, and thus necessarily
attempts to instrumentalise people to a certain degree (e.g.
conceiving the "take-away" in advance). The assumptions that are made
about subjective aesthetic experience would be anathema to many
contemporary artists. Though I think there are a lot of self-
consciously "new media" artists - especially those in the tradition
advocated by Patrick Lichty earlier this year in his complaints
against the Automatic Update show - working with assumptions about
subjectivity which are similarly constrained, if not as market-driven.
On the other hand, a more art-driven approach would likely foreground
open a radical gap where affect or meaning is not "taken away" but is
generated precisely in this gap between what we might expect to "take
away" and our affective response in the presence of the work. For me
there is always something fundamentally utopian and naive in this,
usually not in a negative way, but simply that this impossible
alterity allows a range of potential scripts for interaction that
Fundamental Components for Interaction can't really account for.
I don't like to conflate these disciplinary histories through generic
discussions of creativity or "new media". There's a reason why
artists tend not to manage the museums they rely on (and love to
hate), which is partly to do with the difference between art
production and experience design. Of course, some people straddle
these camps/languages, and the dynamics of power and control between
artist, curator, interpreter, producer/manager, funder are always on
the move; but I think they're more settled and structured than the
ideology of the "new" media sometimes suggests.
Regards,
Danny
--
http://www.dannybutt.net
On 8/10/2007, at 6:40 AM, Sally Jane Norman wrote:
> Hmmm
>
> wondering how work that is as generic as this might be picked up on
> by more specifically arts-driven thinking (as opposed to champions
> of the "experience economy" and "creative industries"). Indeed the
> timing issue is key - different stakeholders with their
> respectively different kinds of engagement may (probably do)
> require/ be deployed across different time frames.
>
> I'm quizzical about the equation whereby "the more authorship is
> shared, the more it allows for many stakeholders to appropriate the
> piece" etc etc. Does voting within a democratic system make you an
> author of that system's collectively validated decisions? How do
> you ensure that top-down definitions and mechanisms of authorship
> (and of the categories it corresponds to) don't deride
> stakeholders, abusively vouching for their (lame/ constrained)
> participation? It seems to me that many instances of what might be
> called "shared authorship" (notably by people who profit from them)
> leave others feeling sidelined, disenfranchised and non-
> responsible. Apologies for raising an issue that may be too complex
> for the framework you're developing, but it strikes me as being
> very real. And leaves me querying the reality of the framework, or
> at least of its applicability beyond a tidily categorisable world
> whereas art that interests me tends precisely to broil the
> categories. Of course this requires trying to identify them in
> order to broil them. Chickens and scrambled eggs.
>
> Thanks likewise for the contribution - there's lots in there and
> lots out there.
>
> best
> sjn
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Curating digital art - www.crumbweb.org on behalf of Beryl
> Graham
> Sent: Sun 07/10/2007 6:08 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Exchange Pieces
>
>
>
> Dear List,
>
> Thanks Melissa and Kelsey - this looks really useful - in particular,
> the way that you break down "who can potentially be involved", and
> whether this is is "process" or "outcome". As we discussed on the
> list
> a while ago in relation to Bourriaud's 'Relational Aesthetics',
> some of
> the things that those from fine art seem to find particularly
> problematic is in identifying who exactly is relating to what, whether
> participation is in making or reading, and of course the huge
> challenges to artistic 'authorship' that this entails.
>
> I see that your references come from design and architecture fields,
> and some posts so far on this theme have referred to exhibition
> design,
> and to architectures (see Verina Gfader's post). I think that this
> will
> come up at the Urban Screens conference too, and I'll be posting from
> there. Does the List think that the knowledge or methods from
> architecture and design are equally important?
>
> So, I have a particular question related to your identification of
> "timing" as an important factor in interaction - could you say a bit
> more about timing? I'm asking because I think that this is a
> particular
> issue for video curators moving into new media art - how the timing is
> different - Caroline Langill also mentioned factors of time in her
> comments on 'e-art' at the Museum of Fine Arts in Montreal.
>
> Thanks again, it's very interesting work!
>
> yours,
>
> Beryl
>
>
>
> On 6 Oct 2007, at 00:12, hello wrote:
>
>> Hello Crumbsters,
>>
>> We are Melissa Mongiat and Kelsey Snook, part of Milk And Tales, a
>> group of designers who work on interactive environments. We have been
>> following this past month's discussions on CRUMB and thought some of
>> our research on interactive environments may be of interest.
>>
>> We conducted a one-year research project called Exchange Pieces:
>> Tools
>> and Strategies for Engagement. It focuses on the quality of
>> engagement
>> that a piece or the making process can generate. This can also be of
>> use when gathering a set of pieces together, in making sure the
>> visitor experience as a whole is engaging.
>>
>> We have drawn out a framework to help map out a plan for successful
>> exchanges. It first lays out 4 broad categories of players - maker,
>> client, audience, environment - identifying who can potentially be
>> involved, and then sets out the different project stages to look at
>> how these players can be engaged both in the process and the outcome
>> of a project.
>>
>> Once the framework map is built to outline the players and exchange
>> opportunities, Fundamental Components for Interaction serve as a
>> checklist for developing strategies to encourage engagement, as well
>> as specific tools to make it happen within a project context. They
>> help ensure a relevant take-away for all the players.
>>
>> A brief summary:
>>
>> * INVITATION and INCENTIVE play on motivation, and the role of the
>> designer is to help the players envision the experience take-out. In
>> presenting incentives, the designer needs to manage expectations and
>> provide an interesting reward to keep people engaged.
>>
>> * The SENSE OF IMPACT deals with awareness in the engagement. Players
>> need to know they are active agents, that they are changing a
>> narrative. The design of the interaction must comprise a response to
>> the act of participation and this response must be understood as
>> such.
>> These feedback mechanisms are therefore key to sustaining the
>> engagement.
>>
>> * From seconds to months or years, consideration of TIMING addresses
>> both the immediacy of feedback mechanisms and sustaining momentum
>> over
>> different periods of time.
>>
>> * Planning CONTACT in an interaction affects the level of engagement.
>> A multi-sensory approach enhances the level of engagement and can
>> make
>> the experience more memorable.
>>
>> * OPENNESS is a crucial part of planning an interaction, the exchange
>> pieces presented were each open to change. Designers provide the
>> medium for the players to create their own stories within the grand
>> narrative of a project.
>>
>> * RULES affect the overall structure of the exchange and will
>> directly
>> impact the level of authorship given to participants. They facilitate
>> lines of communication and help to establish clear roles for the
>> players.
>>
>> * AUTHORSHIP is the subject of a negotiation between the players. The
>> more authorship is shared, the more it allows for many
>> stakeholders to
>> appropriate the piece, making it more customisable, and fostering a
>> sense of belonging, empowerment, and responsibility.
>>
>> * INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGIES can make the environment become an active,
>> responsive player. They serve as a great platform for contributions,
>> but must be studied within all the FCoI to insure quality of
>> engagement.
>>
>> For more information you may have a look at the short paper presented
>> at Include 07:
>> http://www.hhrc.rca.ac.uk/kt/include/2007/proceedings/paper.php?
>> ID=1_149
>> or don't hesitate to ask us questions!
>>
>> Your feedback would also be very much appreciated,
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>> Melissa and Kelsey
>>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Beryl Graham, Professor of New Media Art
> School of Arts, Design, Media and Culture, University of Sunderland
> Ashburne House,
> Ryhope Road
> Sunderland
> SR2 7EE
> Tel: +44 191 515 2896 [log in to unmask]
>
> CRUMB web resource for new media art curators
> http://www.crumbweb.org <http://www.crumbweb.org/>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Beryl Graham, Professor of New Media Art
> School of Arts, Design, Media and Culture, University of Sunderland
> Ashburne House,
> Ryhope Road
> Sunderland
> SR2 7EE
> Tel: +44 191 515 2896 [log in to unmask]
>
> CRUMB web resource for new media art curators
> http://www.crumbweb.org <http://www.crumbweb.org/>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Beryl Graham, Professor of New Media Art
> School of Arts, Design, Media and Culture, University of Sunderland
> Ashburne House,
> Ryhope Road
> Sunderland
> SR2 7EE
> Tel: +44 191 515 2896 [log in to unmask]
>
> CRUMB web resource for new media art curators
> http://www.crumbweb.org <http://www.crumbweb.org/>
|