Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Enactive appropriation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
AI & SOCIETY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The appropriation of digital artefacts involves their use, which has changed, evolved or developed beyond their original design. Thus, to understand appropriation, we must understand use. We define use as the active, purposive exploitation of the affordances offered by the technology and from this perspective; appropriation emerges as a natural consequence of this enactive use. Enaction tells us that perception is an active process. It is something we do, and not something that happens to us. From this reading, use then becomes the active exploitation of the affordances offered us by the artefact, system or service. In turn, we define appropriation as the engagement with these actively disclosed affordances—disclosed as a consequence of, not just, seeing but of seeing as. We present a small case study that highlights instances of perception as an actively engaged skill. We conclude that appropriation is a simple consequence of enactive perception.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This is also know as “free running” which involves getting between two points in an urban setting. It differs from commuting in that its practitioners—traceurs/traceuses—deliberately make use of their bodies and the obstacles they encounter to propel themselves to their destinations. It said to be a sport, a philosophy and a creative process.

  2. Tekkit is a popular mod.

References

  • 2Player (2012) Minecraft: the story of Minecraft video online available from http://www.minecraftstoryofmojang.com. Accessed 18 Oct 2014

  • Akah B and Bardzell S (2010) Empowering products: personal identity through the act of appropriation. Proceedings of CHI 2010, pp 4021–4026

  • Ameel L, Tani S (2011) Everyday aesthetics in action: parkour eyes and the beauty of concrete walls. Emot Space Soc 9(3):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Bannon L, Bødker S (1991) Beyond the interface: Encountering artifacts in use. In: Carroll JM (ed) Designing interaction: psychology at the human–computer interface. CUP, Cambridge, pp 227–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Belin A, Prié Y (2012) DIAM : towards a model for describing appropriation processes through the evolution of digital artifacts. Proceedings of DIS ‘12: proceedings of the designing interactive systems conference 2012, Newcastle, UK, pp 645–654, 11–15 June 2012

  • Blom J, Monk A (2003) A theory of personalisation: why people personalise their PCs and mobile phones. Hum Comput Interact 18:193–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bødker S, Klokmose CN (2012) Dynamics in artifact ecologies. Proceedings of NordiCHI ‘12, pp 448–457

  • Carroll J (2004) Completing design in use: closing the appropriation cycle proceedings of European conference on information systems, pp 337–347

  • Chase WG, Simon HA (1973) Perception in chess. Cognit Psychol 4:55–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Childress H (2004) Teenagers, territory and the appropriation of space. Childhood 11(2):195–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark A (1999) An embodied cognitive science? Trends Cogn Sci 3(9):345–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debord G (1967) The society of the spectacle. Zone Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis G, Poole M (1994) Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory. Organ Sci 5(2):121–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillon A, Scaap D (1996) Expertise and the perception of shape in information. J Am Soc Inf Sci 47(10):786–788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dix A (2007) Designing for appropriation. Proceedings of BCS HCI group conference, pp 27–30

  • Dourish P (2003) The appropriation of interactive technologies: some lessons from placeless documents. Comput Support Coop Work 12:465–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falzone A, Ahrens J, Nazer D, Rutledge V, Alinder Z, Polito J and McCutchen B (2011) The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts brief of amicus curiae in support of defendants-appelants and urging reversal Patrick Cariou v Richard Prince and Gargosian Gallery Inc, available from http://www.scribd.com/doc/71837645/Cariou-v-Prince-Warhol-Foundation-Amicus-Brief. Accessed 08 Oct 2014

  • Farrow D, Abernethy B (2003) Do expertise and the degree of perception–action coupling affect natural anticipatory performance? Perception 32(9):1127–1139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson JJ (1986) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society. Polity, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Graw I (2004) Dedication replacing appropriation: fascination, subversion and dispossession in appropriation art. In: Lawler L, Kaiser P (eds) Louise Lawler and others. Ostfildern-Ruit, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory RL (1966) Eye and brain: the psychology of seeing. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London

  • Grèzes J, Decety J (2002) Does visual perception of object afford action? Evidence from a neuroimaging study. Neuropsychologia 40:212–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger M (1971) The question concerning technology. In: Krell DF (ed) Basic writings: Martin Heidegger. Routledge, London, pp 307–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutto DD, Myin E (2013) Radicalizing Enactivism. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

  • Koffka K (1935) The principles of gestalt psychology. Harcourt Brace, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Leavitt A (2013) The source of open-source culture: participation in the production of an Open Media Artifact, Minecraft. Selected Papers Of Internet Research, 3. Last retrieved 8 Nov 2014, from http://spir.aoir.org/index.php/spir/article/view/798

  • Lincoln YS, Guba EG (2000) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

  • Lundgren S, Björk S (2012) Neither playing nor gaming: pottering in games. Proceedings of international conference on the foundations of digital games. Raleigh, North Carolina

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • MacLean A, Carter K, Lövstrand L and Moran T (1990) User-tailorable systems: pressing the issues with buttons. Proceedings of CHI ‘90. ACM Press, New York, pp 175–182

  • McGann M (2007) Enactive theorists do it on purpose: toward an enactive account of goals and goal-directedness. Phenomenol Cognit Sci 6:463–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noë A (2004) Action in perception. MIT press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Oudejans RRD, Michaels CF, Bakker FC, Dolne M (1996) The relevance of action in perceiving affordances: perception of catchableness of fly balls. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 22:683–703

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzo A, Schuut S, Linegar D (2012) Imagine that: creating a third space for young people with high functioning autism. In: Proceeding of OzCHi 2012, pp 513–516

  • Salovaara A (2008) Inventing new uses for tools: a cognitive foundation for studies on appropriation. Hum Technol 4(2):209–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salovaara A, Höök K, Cheverst K, Twidale M, Chalmers M and Sas C (2011) Appropriation and creative use: linking user studies and design. CHI 2011 workshop. CHI 2011, 7–12 May 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada. ACM 978-1-4503-0268-5/11/05

  • Schneider A (2003) On ‘appropriation’. A critical reappraisal of the concept and its application in global art practices. Soc Anthropol 11(2):215–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengers P and Gaver B (2006) Staying open to interpretation: engaging multiple meanings in design and evaluation. In: Carroll JM, Bødker S and Coughlin J (eds) Proceedings of DIS’06, pp 99–108

  • Silverstone R, Haddon L (1996) Design and the domestication of information and communication technologies: technical change and everyday life. In: Mansell R, Silverstone R (eds) Communication by design. OUP, NY, pp 44–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Spinosa C, Flores F, Dreyfus HL (1997) Disclosing new worlds: entrepreneurship, democratic action, and the cultivation of solidarity. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass

    Google Scholar 

  • Tong S (2011) Mining data from Minecraft—GameSpot.com. Available from http://uk.gamespot.com/news/mining-data-from-minecraft-6331569. Accessed 2nd Oct 2014

  • Varela FJ, Thompson E, Rosch E (1991) The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton K (1990) Mimesis as Make-Believe. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

  • Wartofsky M (1979) Models: representation and scientific understanding. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Winograd T, Flores F (1986) Understanding computers and cognition. Ablex Publishing Corp, Norwood, HJ

  • Zang N, Rosson MB and Nasser V (2008) Mashups: who? what? why? Proceedings of conference on human factors in computing systems, extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. Florence, Italy, pp 3171–3176

  • Ziff T (2006) Che Guervara revolutionary and icon. London V&A 2006

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Make-Believe Laboratory, School of Computing, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, EH10 5DT, Scotland, UK

    Tom Flint & Phil Turner

Authors
  1. Tom Flint
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Phil Turner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Phil Turner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Flint, T., Turner, P. Enactive appropriation. AI & Soc 31, 41–49 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-015-0582-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-015-0582-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation