While using constructive design research methods, the area of interest in this mono- graph is still interactive art. The interactive installation which is part of this research, and the other interactive artworks presented in this thesis, could be labelled under many categories: In- teraction design, new media art, digital art, computer art, and finally interactive media art. The usage of these categories is often rather ambiguous, but in this study the term interactive art has been chosen, whenever possible. Not all digital or new media art is interactive — e.g. genera- tive art, real-time based image manipulation or image detection carried out with the latest AI algorithms do not necessarily involve any audience participation. It is also good to remember that not all interactive art is digital. The interaction and interactive artworks which are studied in this thesis are completely or mostly computer-run and digital, most of them extending to the physical world outside the screen, speakers, mouse and keyboard. Also, in order for them to
30
2 Research context: Designing art
function, they need active user input — the work becomes alive only through physical actions undertaken by someone, who is not the maker of the work.
Participatory art exists in many art genres, including music, theatre and dance, even analog (i.e. not digital or virtual computer-based works) interactive fine artworks, sculptures and installations are not uncommon. In the fine arts, early attempts for participation have been doc- umented during the early 20th century, typically related to different avant-garde movements. The Futurists wrote manifestos about random and voluntary audience collaboration in theatre. During some of their events, Dadaist artists invited the audience to participate in the alteration of viewing methods, or even the creation of the artwork (Dinkla, 1996). Later experiments in the 50s and 60s included happenings, and artworks (performances, imaginary art pieces, actual sculptures) which were to be carried out according to the artist’s instructions. Electronic, me- chanical, even robotic art were made by artists such as Jean Tinguely, Thomas Wilfred, Marcel Duchamp and Nam June Paik (Huhtamo, 2007). Further, artworks and performances which involved electronic technology and which were described as reactive, cybernetic or responsive were made in the late 50s and 60s by such artists as Nicolas Schöffer, James Seawright, Robert Rauschenberg, John Cage, Merce Cunningham and Billy Klüver (Dinkla, 1996; Kwastek, 2013). The term interactive art was first used in 1969 in the description of an installation called
Glowflow, by Myron Krueger and University of Wisconsin scientists (Huhtamo, 2002;
Kwastek, 2013). It is noteworthy that this installation was a computer-controlled system that was to be operated by the audience. However, the term started to be used more widely in the context of art only in the 1990s (Kwastek, 2013).
One more term which should be discussed here is media art. Media art is ubiquitous in the contemporary art world, though the vast majority of media art displayed take the form of linear video artworks, typically presented with one or more screens as video projections or on monitors. Sometimes the word “new” is used in front of media art as a means to distinguish computer-based artworks from this video-installation or -projection based media art. Although technology gets old quickly and various terms have been suggested for new media art, the idea is that new media artists bring forth new ways to combine art and technology and provide new
ways to think about our media and technology rich culture. Although some contemporary museums and galleries have featured shows by new media artists and exhibitions of new and even interactive media, mostly it still remains a curiosity in the largest art biennials in the world (Franco, 2013; Potts, 2007). Also, worthy of note is the fact that in many texts about new
Qualities of Simplicity in Designing Interactive Art
media art, the terms new media art and new media design are used almost synonymously. The
traditional role of a romantic, modern, or even a postmodern artist is also often neglected by people who present new media works: few come from a fine art background and many have a day job in design or the IT industry. Most work in a transdisciplinary or multidisciplinary way, seeking help from other disciplines and professions to support their own work (see e.g. Biggs, 2009; Simanainen, 2004, 2005). Design and engineering skills are needed in executing inter- active art installations. (Huhtamo, 2002).
Interactive art emphasises interaction as a central feature of the artworks. The works are presented in a public context: in museums, galleries, festivals, events, science centres, etc. There is always an audience: art connoisseurs, visitors, passersby. This is a normal practice for all the arts: there are always actions of creating, presenting or performing and on the other hand observing, watching, or listening related to a piece of art. Through observation, the viewers or listeners gain an aesthetic experience. There is a paradigm shift when interactive art is present- ed: interactive art engages the audience in a way fine arts, music, theatre or cinema does not, since on top of the action of perception, it requires physical participation from the viewers or listeners, which changes the work (see e.g. Brouwer et al., 2007; Kwastek, 2013; Lovejoy, 2004; Mulder, 2007). The viewer not only perceives the work, completing it mentally with his or her cultural viewpoint, but also becomes a participant or a user, who makes the work come to life. The interactive artwork can be
changed, performed — even sometimes co-au- thored. All these activities present a different relationship to the artwork other than just view- ing, listening or even experiencing. In interactive art, the aesthetic experience is not something that happens or is given to you (as in visual arts, music, cinema or theatre) but something that you do (Kwastek, 2013; Laurel, 1991; Rokeby, 1998). This experience can include, for example:
exploring, activating, controlling, selecting, navigating, exchanging, communicating, etc (see a taxonomy which collects keywords for interactive art and the way they operate and are oper- ated, Kwastek, 2009). Various categories of interactive art have been defined even before the home computer age (Cornock & Edmonds, 1973). In this thesis, interactive art is seen as a dis-
s
In interactive art, the aesthetic
experience is not something that
happens or is given to you but
something that you do.
32
2 Research context: Designing art
tinct art form or method for art making, which differs from participatory happenings or perfor- mances in which the audience is guided to act in a certain way. In interactive art, the artist does not assume the role of a leader or director of the event or the work, such as in happenings or in theatre acts. The artwork is typically mediated through technology — although not always with a computer: examples of non-computer-based interactive art also exists. Bernie Lubell’s inter- active wood machines — e.g. A Theory of Entanglement (2009) and Conservation of Intimacy
(2005) — are prime examples of analog interactive installations. Interactive artworks are expe- rienced voluntarily by interacting with them; the social interaction between people through the
artefact is considered important, but its role and functions are mostly framed outside this re- search. This thesis supports old school interactive art, in which physical, active participation of
a human is thought as a necessary component of interactive art. This notion has been criticised by, for example, some of the juries of the world’s most well-known interactive art festival Ars Electronica (see discussion in Huhtamo, 2007), in a bid to extend the idea of what interactive art can be, finally labelling almost all digital art as interactive. But if the user is neglected, the art functions in different areas: software algorithms, technological or mechanical innovations, or autonomous systems. The position in this research is, that the focus of interactive art should be on possibilities for interactive processes and engagement between people and technology, or
between people through technology.
It is worth considering this engagement to be similar to the engagement one experiences with a design object. They are handled, used, worked with and possibly owned. One differ- ence with the interactive art object is the context in which the interaction happens: interactive artworks are presented most commonly in an art world context (galleries, museums, exhibitions, in public spaces, and so forth). Inside this particular context interactive art encounters can be difficult to face: we are taught to not touch art objects. Concretely and physically interact- ing with art requires a paradigm shift, both physically and mentally, from a passive audience member to an active user. In a way, interacting with non-art artefacts and systems designed to be interactive prepares us for interactive art experiences as well, and it might be that younger audiences are more willing to experiment with interactive art than older people (Brown & Ratzkin, 2011). However, when using HCI or Interaction design methods we can find out if the
s
Interactive art manifests itself through
its usage.
Qualities of Simplicity in Designing Interactive Art
type of interaction is good or bad, we cannot use similar methods to find out if art is good or bad (Höök et al., 2003).
Interactive art requires a paradigm shift from the artists as well: the work does not mani- fest without its usage (Edmonds et al., 2004; Muller, 2008). The interactive object is mean- ingful only in space and in time in interaction with the user (Löwgren & Stolterman, 2004). We can focus on the usage, and borrow something from John Dewey’s ideas about art as an experience (1934). Instead of focusing to the art object Dewey draws attention to the experi- ences of the artist and the viewer. An aesthetic experience of an artwork requires a certain type of observation from the viewer. Building on this idea, the aesthetic experience of an interactive artwork requires a certain type of action from
the observer. Dewey also emphasises the role of political, social, economic and cultural contexts of artworks — they are not born in a void and the aesthetic forms which the works carry are bound to these dimensions. Indeed, Dewey’s texts have guided art theory discussion more towards questions like, “How does an artwork function?” This can be easily extended to questions such
as, “How does an interactive artwork function?” and “How does interaction with an artwork function?” The idea of the active participant physically acting to complete the work extends
the field of traditional art theories (Huhtamo, 2007). This idea should also be incorporated in the creative processes of interactive artists. An interactive artwork is not only an artefact, but something, which is used in a specific space and time without the presence or guidance of the artist. Thus, artists should care about what happens after the artwork is put out to display. Creating such work should support the fact that interactive art is to be interacted with, in other words making the interaction possible, feasible and logical. This has been challenged by certain interactive artists by, for example, making installations which do not always follow their own in- ternal rules or user actions (Huhtamo, 2007). I see this as a dangerous path, although criticism of our pervasive interactive media culture can be healthy. This thesis however takes the position that if an interactive artist creates an installation, which is — deliberately or due to bad design — difficult to use, the audience will walk away annoyed and frustrated, thinking either that the installation is broken, programmed poorly, or that the fault is in the users themselves. The
s
In this thesis, interactive art is
understood to contain qualities of both
34
2 Research context: Designing art
last thought leads to a widening of the gap between the user and the artist, putting the artist on a pedestal above the participants. This sort of philosophy forgets that interactive art does not exist without the users actively using the work, and in a way, this will always change the work and affect the roles of the artist and the user, since the user becomes a sort of performer of the work. Understood broadly, interactive art combines the skills of a designer (creating for another person in mind) and an artist (manifesting personal content and ideas).