Dear all,
I wish you all a splendid
New Year and hope you have had a lovely Christmas.
The list theme “Curating
responsive art from bodily input” will continue throughout January. For those
who have forgotten what it is about I have pasted the original post further down below. I
would like to invite those respondents who have not introduced themselves to
the list yet to do so, so that we all know what a great list of experts we have
to discuss this topic.
In the meantime I wanted to respond to some of Brigitta Zic’s great
suggestions in one of the last posts on this topic, and apologize for not having answered sooner. Thanks Brigitta, for the term 'passive interaction' which you describe as follows:>Integral to my research interest however is the modality of> interaction I term as 'passive interaction' (earlier: active interaction)> which operates through cognitively inclusive bodily actions as emotion,> gesture and quality of the motion. Through this new-modality of interaction> which is also introduced as cognitive-driven interaction, a more effective> way of interaction might be produced. As such, the cognitive-feedback loop> is a bodily passive interaction which interconnects technologies of> affective computing (face/temperature analysis, eye-tracking) with instant> affection technologies (audiovisual affect, mechanical affect: hot or cold> stream etc.) to subject the participant to intentional decisions to operate> the system. > I think this is a very useful distinction. If I understand this right, you refer to the body's subconscious physiological response which is reflected in their heartrate, EEG, EMG, etc, captured by the system. As these are then reflected in audiovisual content created by the artist or designer of the interactive system, the viewer is challenged to gain more control over these otherwise immediate responses. I wonder if in this process of the participants learning to operate the system, the interaction becomes conscious and thus becomes active even it started as passive? I have been looking for a word for the whole of the system of this 'new' form of aesthetic experience which differs from interactive art, but is not purely responsive either. You suggest term cognitive feedback loop. How would you place this is the context of art, would you call it cognitive feedback art? I wonder if this would do enough justice to the body itself, or if indeed we have then lost it (the body) somehow?Further on in your mail when you apply it to your artwork Mind Cupola, you say that it was crucial to apply particular biofeedback technology which was non-contact:> Applying the concept of the cognitive-feedback loop, the Mind Cupola's> participant is subjected to an immersive experience in the art work (Mind> Cupola). The system measures the emotional and behavioural reactions of the> participant and acts to guide them towards an optimal experience, which is> an immersive state in a condition of 'equilibrium'. It is anticipated that> the desire to enter this condition and the mastering of the interaction> produces new levels of immersion and cognition.> > Since the immersive states for the aesthetic experience is crucial it was> important to apply a particular biofeedback technology which is non-contact.> The physical invisibility of the technology (even though the spectator can> see cameras) is intended to reinforce a cognitive impenetrability to the> experience so that the process of mastering the interface fully centred on> the aesthetically visible interfaces.I think I am looking for a similar immersive state and aesthetic experience. But my solution in my first real biofeedback artwork entitled 'Emotion Lights' is on the contrary to look specifically for contact, this is on the one hand to get the physiological data but on the other hand also to firmly root the person/viewer in the experience of the artwork. I did not want to wire up anyone with electrodes, so have had to adapt sensors so they work from grip. In the Emotion Lights heart rate and gsr are obtained through holding a sculptural shape, and the data is analysed live to generate light and sound patterns. The light emerges from the shape and the sound is immersive in the space. This artwork only works if the viewer firmly grips the artwork. In the future I would like to extend this work to incorporate EEG and facial expression.Another much more physically responsive piece is ADB (after deep blue) by Nicholas Stedman,<http://nickstedman.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/adb-after-deep-blue/>, a robotic artwork which tries to get as close to your skin as possible.> Even through I understand that it is crucial to experience these art works> it would be great if the discussion would produce reflections on the art> works introduced here (as a virtual exhibition maybe) with regards to> contact/non-contact technology, quality of experience, quality of> biofeedback, how these art works might provide a contribution to the> discussion of the to body/mind problem or to introduce new qualities in> human/machine interaction.I think this is a great idea. I invite you all to let us know where and when your biofeedback artworks are (and will be) exhibited so we can perhaps go and see some of them and report back to this list. Do also describe the mapping if you made the work yourself. And if you have recently experienced others responsive artworks please also let us know! I am planning my trips for the year and hope to include at least Australia, New York, Pittsburgh (NIME09), and Belfast (ISEA09) but this list has members all over the world so please don't exclude anything because of Location!Many thanks in advance,Adinda van 't Klooster--------------------
Theme of the Month December '08/January '09
Curating responsive art from bodily input
This list has discussed the challenges of curating artwork that is
physically interactive or locative (Nov 2001; Apr 2004), but has not so far
discussed those works which respond to biofeedback such as heartbeat, breathing
or galvanic skin response. With one of next year's ISEA's sub themes being 'tracking
emotions', it seems a good time to discuss how the nature of art using bodily
input needs particular consideration.
Physiological data is used to track emotions that are pre-conscious. But
what does it achieve beyond science/therapy to provide a human with feedback on
their pre-conscious bodily responses in the context of art?
Do artworks which use biofeedback use different criteria in evaluating
their success, when compared to interactive artworks which use a more conscious
way of interaction?
If emotions are tracked via biofeedback, how can art go beyond the
simplistic or purely scientific?
How does it affect an audience differently when they are wired up or
tracked from a distance? How do curators deal with these issues, and the sheer
variety of audience response?
references:
http://www.isea2009.org/wordpress/?cat=5
http://icmc2008.net/theme/show/35
http://nime2008.casapaganini.org/
http://files.georgekhut.com/georgekhut/files/texts/exegesis-front-and-part-1.pdf
List of Respondents include:
Jamie Allen
Artist and Lecturer in Digital Media at the Culture Lab, Newcastle
University. His work in digital design, music, performance and public art
creates physical relationships between people and with media.
http://heavyside.net/
Miguel Angel Ortiz-Perez
Musician and Phd Candidate at the Sonic Arts Research Centre, Belfast.
His research focuses on the use of biosignal interfaces for musical
applications.
http://www.miguel-ortiz.com
Hannah Drayson
Artist and doctoral candidate at Transtechnology Research, Plymouth
University. Drayson’s current research is concerned with the relations between
scientific epistemology and instrumental devices.
http://www.trans-techresearch.net/ http://x2.i-dat.org/~hd/
Lizbeth Goodman
Professor Lizbeth Goodman is Founder & Director of the SMARTlab
Digital Media Institute & the MAGIC Multimedia & Games Innovation
Centre, Gamelab and PLAYroom, University of East London.
http://www.smartlab.uk.com
Tina Gonsalves
Gonsalves works as an artist. Her creative investigations draw from a
long-term interdisciplinary practice merging art, technology and science, exploring
social relationships, trust and intimacy.
http://www.tinagonsalves.com
Sylvain Le Groux
Musician, Engineer and PhD candidate at SPECS UPF, Barcelona. He
develops interactive music systems to study the influence of music on human
perception and emotion in the context of mixed reality and multi-sensory media
applications.
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~slegroux/
Kristina Höök
Professor in Human-Machine Interaction at
Department of Computer and Systems Sciences at Stockholm University and Royal
Institute of Technology (KTH). Kristina Höök is also the lab manager of the
interaction lab at SICS.
http://www.sics.se/~kia/
Lizzie Muller
Curator and writer specialising in interaction,
audience experience
and interdisciplinary collaboration, and senior
lecturer in design
studies at the University of Technology, Sydney.
http://www.lizziemuller.com/
Dr. Anne Nigten
Manager of V2_Lab in Rotterdam and lecturer on
research and development in the interdisciplinary field from an art
perspective.
http://www.v2.nl/
http://www.processpatching.net/author-anne_nigten.php
Dr. George Poonkhin Khut
Artist whose practice focuses on the use of
biofeedback and physiologically responsive media as tools for sensing and
re-imagining the lived experience of mind-body interrelation.
http://www.georgekhut.com/
Dr. Barbara Rauch
Artist and researcher at University of the Arts
London.
Rauch's practice-based research focuses on new
technologies and how they alter our current understanding of human
consciousness.
http://www.sciria.org.uk/
Dr. Paul Thomas
Coordinator of the Studio Electronic Arts (SEA)
at Curtin University and was the founding Director of the Biennale of
Electronic Arts Perth. Co-chair of the media art history conference Re:live 09.
Dr. Brigitta Zics
Artist and Visiting Fellow /Associate Lecturer in
Media Arts at Transtechnology Research, Plymouth University.
http://www.trans-techresearch.net/?page_id=26
Adinda van ‘t Klooster
Artist and PhD candidate at CRUMB, Sunderland University.
Van ‘t Klooster creates responsive artworks using sensors, light and sound. Her
contextual research focuses on artworks which use biofeedback in particular.
http://www.axisweb.org/seCVPG.aspx?ARTISTID=8405
Alexa Wright
Artist working with photography and interactive
digital media. She is interested in using new technologies to investigate the
expression of human identity and to question the conventional boundaries
between art, science and technology.
http://www.alteregoinstallation.co.uk/main_site/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Adinda van ‘t Klooster
School of Arts, Design, Media and Culture,
University of Sunderland
Ashburne House,
Ryhope Road
Sunderland
SR2 7EF
CRUMB web resource for new media art curators
http://www.crumbweb.org-------
> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:46:27 +0000> From: [log in to unmask]> Subject: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Aesthetic Tools for Responsive Art: Body-Mind Nexus / Noise-Signal / Invisibility-Transparency / Contact-Non-conntact Interfaces> To: [log in to unmask]> > From: Dr. Brigitta Zics. Email: [log in to unmask]> ---------------------> Dear All,> > > I am artist and researcher with the particular interest in emerging> technologies and their impact on creative practices(www.zics.net). I am> currently visiting fellow and lecturer at Transtechnology Research,> University of Plymouth (www.trans-techresearch.net). My main research> concerns how the philosophy of consciousness and cognitive sciences provide> a new potential for applications in technology-based art and design. My most> recent art work is the Mind Cupola (2008) which is intended to produce what> might be called an affective environment.> > Thank you Adinda for the invitation to contribute to this forum. It is great> to participate in a discussion of such a burning topic in art and> technology. It is quite interesting to see how we approach similar issues> with a great spectrum of terminology and methodology which however, often> hinder us in communicating even simple ideas.> > As an artist my particular interest is to evaluate how philosophy might help> us artists to implement technology in a way that is different to the> scientific modality. With this view I clearly reject the assumption that as> technology emerged through a scientific validation process it only> applicable effectively in this context. Instead I suggest that interactive> technology introduces a new potentiality to art, or possibly art uncovers> unforeseen potentials. The means of aesthetic inquiry might, in this> context, reveal or recover yet unknown or forgotten qualities of human> condition and experience.> > My recent practice, that builds upon a reciprocal exploration of philosophy> and practice, introduced the concept of a cognitive-feedback loop which also> develops the discussion of the concept of the body-mind nexus. In my> investigation, body and mind is transposed and rather relates to qualities> of the material and immaterial and to the quality of their interconnection –> and then how they might be separated. Based upon this I argue that there are> art works which build on the semiotics of the body movement, in that they> produce, through the variety of body states, a spectrum of states of> consciousness. Integral to my research interest however is the modality of> interaction I term as 'passive interaction' (earlier: active interaction)> which operates through cognitively inclusive bodily actions as emotion,> gesture and quality of the motion. Through this new-modality of interaction> which is also introduced as cognitive-driven interaction, a more effective> way of interaction might be produced. As such, the cognitive-feedback loop> is a bodily passive interaction which interconnects technologies of> affective computing (face/temperature analysis, eye-tracking) with instant> affection technologies (audiovisual affect, mechanical affect: hot or cold> stream etc.) to subject the participant to intentional decisions to operate> the system. > > Applying the concept of the cognitive-feedback loop, the Mind Cupola's> participant is subjected to an immersive experience in the art work (Mind> Cupola). The system measures the emotional and behavioural reactions of the> participant and acts to guide them towards an optimal experience, which is> an immersive state in a condition of 'equilibrium'. It is anticipated that> the desire to enter this condition and the mastering of the interaction> produces new levels of immersion and cognition.> > Since the immersive states for the aesthetic experience is crucial it was> important to apply a particular biofeedback technology which is non-contact.> The physical invisibility of the technology (even though the spectator can> see cameras) is intended to reinforce a cognitive impenetrability to the> experience so that the process of mastering the interface fully centred on> the aesthetically visible interfaces.> > With this I come to Adinda's and many others' great observations that> artistic interfaces might have qualities which are 'out of control' or in> other words in my interpretation: the artist implements technology in the> way that produce new functionality which we can not yet control. In my> recently completed thesis Transparency Cognition and Interactivity: Toward a> New Aesthetic for Technology-based Art. I discuss this extensively, but in> short I propose that artistic interfaces have to be both cognitively> invisible (as designers would argue) and artistically reflective. What this> means is that artists should design the interfaces in a way that the> participant is not aware of their quality, however when these new functions> of technology are linked to particular artistic meaning creation they might> become visible; this produces the aesthetic experience. This experience, in> my view, oscillates between the invisible and the newly visible, a> condition, which I term as the Transparent act since transparency is both> reflective (new knowledge) and pellucid (embodied knowledge).> > As such, (as Adinda also mentioned) visibility could be understood as noise.> But similar to Umberto Eco's explanation with the examples of the mosaics> (which have diverse angle but in whole they produce a novel aesthetic) the> 'noise belongs to the creative processes which at the end greatly contribute> to the aesthetic experience. The struggle (in a certain level of course) of> the 'mastering the interface' is a creative quality, which contribute to the> exploration of new in the art work.> > 'Out of control' in this discussion might also refer to the argument that I> introduce through the Mind Cupola experience, namely that simple interactive> process between human and machine might result in a great complexity in the> participant's consciousness. This is the unpredictable outcome, which I> termed as the 'fractal structure' in the participant's cognition. Thus, the> reputed similar action might generate a new state in consciousness.> > As you see my aim is not to develop a philosophical meta-conception but,> much more modalities, which assist us artists to produce artistic meaning> and enable critical approach to technology. However I guess inevitably this> investigation might offer something to philosophy too.> > Even through I understand that it is crucial to experience these art works> it would be great if the discussion would produce reflections on the art> works introduced here (as a virtual exhibition maybe) with regards to> contact/non-contact technology, quality of experience, quality of> biofeedback, how these art works might provide a contribution to the> discussion of the to body/mind problem or to introduce new qualities in> human/machine interaction.> > > Best,> > Brigitta> > > Dr. Brigitta Zics
> Visiting Fellow Transtechnology Research,
> Associate Lecturer Media Arts (BA) UoP /> MA Design by practice UWN
>
> http://www.zics.net> http://www.trans-techresearch.net/?page_id=26> > Transtechnology Research,
> Room B321 Portland Square,
> University of Plymouth,
> Drake Circus,
> Plymouth,
> PL4 8AA.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
|
