Contemporary Installation Art and Phenomenon of Digital Interactivity: Aha Experiences – Recognition and Related Creating with and for Affordances

  • Anthony L. BrooksEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 265)


Observing audience attendance of a student created interactive art installation is posited relating to phenomenon of serendipity, brought about via cumulated conditions and strategies, synchronously resulting in an author-recognized ‘Aha experience’. Identifying of engagement, then disengagement, and subsequent re-engagement informs reflections and critique. Speculation to how multi-affordances in an interactive art installation can combine with perceptual and cognitive pre-knowledge, e.g. pervasiveness of sensors in contemporary society (as audience pre-knowledge), to influence audience expectation, explorations, and engagement experiences. This contextually illustrated in how affordances (false/perceptual/hidden) of the installation became aspects that unwittingly and coincidentally cumulated to establish a critical incident moment: A period in time that serendipitously and synchronously involved observation of audience disengagement following initial confrontation immediately followed by a system reset that stimulated (as if playfully) re-engagement. Conclusions question how a strategy of playful artistic design that incorporates such audience perceptual and cognitive influencing through affordances can be a potential factor utilized in realizing interactive art installations. Posited thus is a contemporary art strategy goal to engage beyond artless mapping (e.g. one-to-one) toward more stimulating, intellectual, and enjoyable audience experience.


Aha experience Serendipitous synchronicity Interactive art POPBL Multi-affordances Playful design 


  1. 1.
    Kolmos, A., Fink, F.K., Krogh, L. (eds.): The Aalborg PBL Model – Progress, Diversity and Challenges. Aalborg University Press, Aalborg (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eriksson, E., Hansen, T.R., Lykke-Olesen, A.: Reclaiming public space: designing for public interaction with private devices. In: 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (TEI 2007), pp. 31–38. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lave, J., Wenger, E.: Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bowles, M.S.: Relearning to E-Learn: Strategies for Electronic Learning and Knowledge. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Canova Calori, I., Divitini, M., Eljueidi, M.: A design framework for city-wide collaborative learning systems. In: 8th World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning (mLearn 2009), Orlando, Florida, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Olsen, P.B., Pedersen, K.: Problem-Oriented Project Work – A Workbook. Roskilde University Press, Roskilde (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Topolinski, S., Reber, R.: Gaining insight into the “Aha” experience. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 19(6), 402–405 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kluszczynski, R.W.: Strategies of interactive art. J. Aesthet. Cult. 2(1) (2010). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Michelis, D., Müller, J.: The audience funnel: observations of gesture based interaction with multiple large displays in a city center. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 27(6), 562–579 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lombard, M.: Intercoder reliability (2010).
  11. 11.
    Foucault, M.: Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. Vintage Books/Random House, New York (1988). Foucault quoted in Dreyfus, H.L., Rabinow, P.: Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, 2nd edn. p. 187. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1983)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Flanagan, J.C.: The critical incident technique. Psychol. Bull. 51(4), 327–358 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G.: Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage, Beverly Hills (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Glaser, B., Strauss, A.L.: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine de Gruyter, New York (1967)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Casement, A.: Who Owns Jung?, p. 23. Karnac Books, London (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roberts, R.M.: Serendipity: Accidental Discoveries in Science. Wiley, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cobbledick, S.: The information-seeking behavior of artists: exploratory interviews. Libr. Q. 66(4), 343–372 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Foster, A.E., Ford, N.: Serendipity and information seeking: an empirical study. J. Doc. 59(3), 321–340 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oliveira, N., Oxley, N., Petry, M.: Installation Art in the New Millennium. Thames & Hudson, London (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gaver, W.W.: Technology affordances. In: Proceedings of CHI 1991, pp. 79–84 ACM, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gibson, J.: The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, USA (1979)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Norman, D.: The Psychology of Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York (1988)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICST Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations