 |
 |
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.