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
FACT (Foundation for Art and Creative Technology)
On 10 Oct 2007, at 13:36, Sarah Cook wrote:
> hi melissa and kelsey and others,
> thanks so much for your elaboration on the questions of sustaining
> engagement in interactive projects. i wonder if list members could
> describe practical examples of works they have presented (made or
> curated) in which both feedback and momentum were considered?
> i sometimes feel with works of new media art, that the feedback
> from visitor input is considered, but the work can be read as a one-
> liner when the piece isn't explicitly about sustaining engagement
> (though this aspect of simultaneity in new media art can be quite
> nice, and indeed the point of the piece, as is the case with a work
> of art i saw in brussels this past weekend, buttons by sascha
> pohflepp that is a digital camera which instead of presenting you
> with the photo you have just taken, shows on its small screen a
> photo from flickr which was taken at the exact same time). design
> and architecture projects, as opposed to discrete objects or
> gallery based work, might indeed demand different momentum - or
> rather exist on a different time scale, as you've pointed out. i
> was particularly interested in the work milkandtales have done
> considering the engagement of the "passersby" -- if anyone wants to
> talk about that, it might tie nicely into the discussion about to
> get underway at the urban screens conference.
> from sunny sunderland,
> On 9 Oct 2007, at 18:24, hello wrote:
>> Dear Beryl, Sally Jane, Danny and all everyone who has been
>> following the thread,
>> Thank you for your feedback. It is very interesting to get a point
>> of view from artists and curators. We do work from the perspective
>> of designers, where we often are not our own client and respond to
>> an exterior brief.
>> Two main topics have been picked up: timing and authorship.
>> From our interactive design perspective, timing affects 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.
>> Often, the more immediate the response, the easier it is for the
>> players/stakeholders to associate their actions with it, to relate to
>> it. Helping to exploit the full potential of the impact, immediacy
>> of feedback mechanisms gives a greater sense of interactivity.
>> Experiences can happen over a few minutes, hours, days, weeks,
>> years. For any scale, momentum needs to be sustained. Time scale
>> is always a factor to reflect against other factors – how
>> much intensity of interaction is needed over what period of time?
>> What level of engagement do we need from users over what period of
>> time? Various techniques can be used to maintain momentum:
>> creating a sense of suspense, planning a series, breaking up long
>> periods of time with new events. By planning when and how events
>> come into the experience, timing creates the story.
>> Perhaps the later is more relevant for curators, in the sense that
>> each piece has their own timeframe and together, they create a new
>> timeframe that the visitor/stakeholder/player navigates through
>> and momentum must be kept as a whole.