Adinda, many thanks for the thoughtful response.
I think I’d like to start with a terminological clarification of Responsive
Art to avoid confusion as there are well-established accounts that explain a
diverse approach from the here represented accounts.
The well known debut of the differentiation of Responsive Art and
Interactive Art could be shortly explained as that all Interactive Art is
Responsive Art however not all Responsive Art interactive. This account –
differently from this forum’s interpretation- clearly refers to the
suggestion that interaction means feedback: when both, the mental state of
the user and the working state of the art work changes reciprocally.
Response, therefore, could be explained as reaction, which not particularly
measured or evaluated by the artistic system itself. An example could be
the mirror, which is responsive for me, but because it do not particularly
explain what we see (so it is not 'aware' about its own state) it is a
responsive medium.
Responsive Art in this discussion refers to the state of the user/body and
to the state of the machine (which broadly discussed in literature). It is
a 'Bodily Responsive Art' or Biofeedback Art, which refers to the
functioning body and not particularly to the spatial movement of the body. I
think it is important to point out as there are many existing discussions
which are based on the responsive-interactive divergence and not on the form
of data collection.
Following my initial view which more linked to the earlier understanding of
Responsive/Interactive art I explain passive interaction as a bodily
inactive state even though I know this only refers to how the system
evaluate the person (as a full body deadlock impossible). Passive refers to
the form of interaction when the system only analyse responses which we
often considered as automatic or bodily functioning (heart rate. galvanic
skin response, emotion... etc.). The great potentiality of this data
(especially facial data) that the person initially might has to operates
against embodied actions which make him/her even more aware about activities
which was subconscious / automatic before.
DISCUSSION
---------------------------------------------
ADINDA:
I think this is a very useful distinction[ACTIVE AND PASSIVE INTERACTION.]
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?
---------------------------------------------
RESPONSE:
I would not agree with the point that you make about passive interaction
i.e. that through the learning process/control of the user the work become
active. I think we talk about similar phenomena with slightly different
network of terms, which attempt to explain body-mind actions with a diverse
hermeneutic sensitivity. As I pointed out earlier the bodily passive status
means the way the body is used for interaction and not the quality whether
the art work activates conscious-subconscious processes. Passive interaction
refers to a bodily passive status, which activates
a sensitivity towards cognitive responses of the user (like emotions).
The interconnectivity of conscious-subconscious events or, from another
point of view, the relationship between embodied and new knowledge is
crucial to art works. However I describe this not with the differentiation
of active and passive but with the aesthetic conceptualisation of learning
processes in the interactive art work. To account for the learning process
(or as I term the 'mastering the tool' processes) means to operate between
embodied knowledge and action and the novelty of technology and content (new
knowledge and. non-predictable actions). As such, the aesthetic conception
of the mind-body nexus implies how we artists design the conscious-subconscious
relationship in the user's experience.
I think the term Cognitive-feedback Art is too restrictive for me (similarly
Biofeedback Art). I think we already have to work with difficult terms such
as Software Art / Virtual Art or Internet Art which from my point of view do
not bring creditable differentiations to art as they only refer to the
medium but not to the content. I would describe this simply as
technology-based art, which focuses on cognitive qualities, the body-mind
nexus and the embodied/ novel knowledge. I would suggest that this is an
emerging form of interactive art, which introduces cognitive-driven
interaction (if we suggest that bodily status reciprocally provide
information about cognitive states). As such, in my interpretation
‘cognitive-feedback loop’ also refers to a bodily status. Even though the
semiotics of the body do not have particular role in this kind of
interactive works, this is why I called them passive interactions. The
cognitive-feedback loop however is an important term to explain a system,
which builds on cognitive qualities. Thus, the system attempts to evaluate
the data according to a cognitive status and according to this outcome the
'instant affection technologies' (see in my earlier email) attempts to act
upon the user to lead him/her to particular cognitive states. Therefore
‘cognitive-feedback loop’ is an interactive system which applies affective
computing and technologies.
---------------------------------------------
ADINDA
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.
---------------------------------------------
RESPONSE:
I think the artistic choice of technology is based on the particular quality
of the aesthetic experience. I have chosen non-contact technology as I
wanted to achieve an immersive state without the distractions of bodily
actions. More problematic however is how accurate these technologies work
and, as we know, non-contact devices have a much greater tendency to provide
data with noise. Tangibility, as it seen in Nicholas Stedman’s work and
others, might provide qualities of bodily intimacy as in some way they refer
to skin-like experiences. One other significant point in connection with
this is that the hand is one o the most powerful operating organs which used
to the tactility of the world (it is embodied) or even the computer mouse.
Through this it emerges again that the concept of body-mind nexus as these
works demonstrate the diverse ways of an production of immersive aesthetic
experience. Whether we activate emotional responses as tangible qualities
there are different qualities of body-mind interconnectivity activated which
suggest. a variety of aesthetic experiences.
---------------------------------------------
ADINDA:
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!
---------------------------------------------
RESPONSE:
I lunched an dynamic archive on Youtube: MediaArtTube couple of months ago
which collects emerging art works in technology many of them using
biofeedback device:
http://www.youtube.com/user/MediaArtTube
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.
|
