|
Dear List,
Greetings from Urban Screens in Manchester, where we've been discussing
both 'manners of engagement' introduced on this list:
> engagement in two manners: in its relation to when a response is
> given to
> participant input and in relation to keeping a momentum throughout the
> experience.
Firstly, on time and momentum: Joachim Sauter's presentation of some
elegant work from Art+Com was coincidentally arranged in two sections
of examples - fast and slow media – which reflected different
approaches to working in busy or quieter public spaces. In a busy
German railway station, for example, destination place names (including
concentration camp destinations) are projected briefly as moving
'labels' onto departing train carriages. On a walkway leading to a
transport station, electronic ripples spread into real ripples in a
water feature, and encouraged a pause for thought during transit.
Michael Joroff also showed some examples of proposed bus stops where
waiting time could be spent on computer terminals. Ingrid Smit
testified that sometimes, all that large outdoor screens gave the
audience was a stiff neck from looking up!
During the discussion of the panel that I was moderating, a pattern was
identified that a large number people could be engaged in a public
place, but usually for short periods of time such as with the World Cup
football in Korea. Mike Stubbs testified that smaller but regular
audiences could be built over a longer period of time, for example on
the screen in Federation Square in Melbourne Australia.
In a later poster session Ava Fatah of the MSc Adaptive Architecture
course at University College London used research methods from city
planning to identify levels of 'intensity' of interaction.
The very cool 'Simasticus' by Charles Earl Love Just et al. uses
Sims-type icons and games projected onto the pavement in New York area,
anyhting from soccer to speech bubbles and noughts and crosses. He
noted how return visitors become more sophisticated...
So, a brief roundup so far - any responses from CRUMBers?
yours,
Beryl
On 10 Oct 2007, at 15:20, Caroline LANGILL wrote:
> In 2006 I curated an exhibition by PLAN B, the collaborative team of
> Marc Fournel and Thomas Ouellette Fredericks at InterAccess in
> Toronto. One work in the exhibition, FLOCK, created an immersive
> experience for the viewer that was easily sustained for a number of
> reasons. Interaction consisted of the the participants picking up one
> of three furry, brightly coloured balls and then moving around the
> space. On doing so two types of interaction would occur: 1. a
> soundtrack, based on pre-recorded, and accumulative, sounds would
> begin to track and follow the interactor, 2: a series of animated
> "boids" would follow the participant, projected from a mirror array,
> but sensitive to the position of the ball, ie. viewer, if they
> continued to hold it. The nature of the movement of the boids was akin
> to imprinting by young animals (ducks), as iterated by Lorenz. The
> compelling nature of the following objects, as well as the sound, and
> the ease of the interface, led to sustained and easy interaction. The
> experience created a strange sense of intimacy as the interface became
> a material agent facilitating numerous relationships with the animated
> objects that followed and responded to the movement of the
> participant.
>
> Here is a link to the IA site that describes FLOCK:
> http://www.interaccess.org/exhibitions/index.php?id=58
>
> Best,
> Caroline
>
>
>> From: Andy Polaine <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: Andy Polaine <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Exchange Pieces
>> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:52:05 +0200
>>
>> I collaborated with Lizzie's research (along with the others from the
>> Creativity and Cognition Studios at UTS, who I know read this list)
>> with my Time Sketches work in Beta_Space.
>>
>> I've been late lurking on this conversation as I've been very busy
>> this week, but it's an issue and area close to my heart. For me, at
>> least, sustained audience interaction and engagement, where the
>> interactive experience *is* the work is central to everything. The
>> visual, physical or auditory elements of the work are usually
>> peripheral to that interactive experience - artefacts of it, if you
>> like.
>>
>> I come from more of an interaction design/arts crossover background,
>> so mainly interested in hooking people out of their everyday actions
>> and monotony in order for them to enter a more playful state. This
>> might just be for a couple of minutes, but that's quite a long time
>> compared to how long most people (most people not on this list,
>> probably) spend in front of a Picasso.
>>
>> The balance of action > reaction > interaction is still something
>> that's very hard to pin down or write rules about (that's my PhD
>> topic, incidentally). Mostly it's trial and error and some of
>> Lizzie's work has been about taking some of the prototyping rigor
>> that interaction designers use and applying it to the development of
>> interactive artworks (I'm sure she'll correct me if I've
>> misrepresented her here). It's perhaps a different mentality - when
>> someone doesn't 'get' the work, I see it as my fault not theirs.
>>
>> I try very hard to try and entice and seduce them into interacting
>> and camera-based interactives are so popular, I think, because
>> they're both intuitive in terms of the interface (the body) and
>> alluringly narcissistic, both of which engage 'passers by' quickly
>> and then keep people interacting. Some kind of instant response and
>> feedback is useful too.
>>
>> UVA's piece, Hereafter, is a simple but really well-executed example
>> of this in action: http://www.uva.co.uk/archives/57
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>> Andy Polaine
>>
>> http://playpen.polaine.com
>> http://www.omnium.net.au
>> http://www.antirom.com
>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>>
>> On 10/10/2007, at 2:58 PM, Mike Stubbs wrote:
>>
>>> Curator/researcher Lizzie Mullers work with artist George Khut
>>> amongst other artists, exemplifies a rigor in analysing feedback
>>> and interaction and if she is listening might contribute
>>>
>>> A fair bit of work around Keith Armstrongs work, Intimate
>>> Transactions also made a serious investigation into how the work
>>> was relating and those findings were quickly assimilated into the
>>> development of interface and presentation through a quick series of
>>> iterations - Keith has recontly publsihed a book of the same name
>>> capturing the views of a number of contributors to the process and
>>> makes good reading in relation to the current thread
>>>
>>> best wishes
>>>
>>> Mike Stubbs
>>> Director
>>> FACT (Foundation for Art and Creative Technology)
>>>
>>>
>>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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
|
