Advertisement

The Contribution of Art and Design to Robotics

  • Ioana OcnarescuEmail author
  • Isabelle Cossin
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11876)

Abstract

Today the industrial interests for technological objects, the increasing number of robotic solutions that appear on the market and the powerful imaginative stories on robotics demand a deep exploration on what living with robots means. This article shows how art and design could contribute to the field of social robotics by proposition a new paradigm shift based on aesthetic and ethical challenges intimately linked to the quality of living. It shows different explorations coming from artists and designers whose goals are finally very similar to those of roboticists. These experiments allow not only to create technical and artistic objects but also propose new ways to better understand the human-robot interaction on notions like the design of the robotic body, the different types of relationships with robots and the narrative context.

Keywords

Robotic art Human-Robot Interaction Experience Movement Human-robot relationship Fiction 

References

  1. 1.
    Dautenhahn, K.: Human-robot interaction. In: The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd edn. The Interaction Design Foundation, Aarhus (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kac, E.: The origin and development of robotic art. Convergence 7(1), 76–86 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becker, J.: Humanoïdes. Expérimentations croisées entre arts et sciences. Presses universitaires de Paris Ouest, Nanterre, coll. Frontières de l’humain, pp. 238–240 (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dufrêne, T.: Au jeu de la présence-absence dans l’art, catalogue de l’exposition Persona, étrangement humain, dir. T. Dufrêne, E. Grimaud, D. Vidal, A.C. Taylor, Hors collection, Actes Sud, coedition Musée du quai Branly, pp. 23–24 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ruskin, J.: Les sept lampes de l’architecture , V. 31, translation G. Elwall, 1900, in Jarassé, D. Rodin: la passion du mouvement, Paris, Terrail (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mori, M., MacDorman, K., Kageki, N.: The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 19, 98–100 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vidal, D.: Vers un nouveau pacte anthropomorphique! Les enjeux anthropologiques de la nouvelle robotique. Gradhiva Revue d’anthropologie et d’histoire des arts (15) (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kahn Jr, P.H., et al.: Will people keep the secret of a humanoid robot? Psychological intimacy in HRI. In: HRI 2015 Proceedings, pp. 173–180 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aubergé, V.: L’art est-il une partie de go? Les relations entre artistes et intelligence artificielles. Experimenta, Salon arts, sciences, technologies, (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grimaud, E.: Androïde cherche humain pour contact électrique. Gradhiva Revue d’anthropologie et d’histoire des arts (15) (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Paré, Z.: Effets de présence: relations hommes-androïdes, Cultures-Kairós [Enligne], Métamorphoses digitales: Expérimentations esthétiques et construction du sensible dans l’interaction humain-machine (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cossin, I.: Le robot – Une post-sculpture? In: La Sculpture et le vivant. Issue n°4, T. Dufrêne (dir.). Presses universitaires de Rouen et du Havre (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoffman, G., Ju, W.: Designing robots with movement in mind. J. Hum.-Robot Interact. 3(1), 89–122 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mondada, F., Fink, J., Lemaignan, S., Mansolino, D., Wille, F., Franinović, K.: Ranger, an example of integration of robotics into the home ecosystem. In: Bleuler, H., Bouri, M., Mondada, F., Pisla, D., Rodić, A., Helmer, P. (eds.) New Trends in Medical and Service Robots. MMS, vol. 38, pp. 181–189. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23832-6_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    Breazeal, C.: Designing Sociable Robots. Intelligent Robotics and Autonomous Agents Series. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0898-1221(03)80129-3CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Breazeal, C., Aryananda, L.: Recognition of affective communicative intent in robot-directed speech. Auton. Robots 12, 83–104 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vidal, V., Gaussier, P.: Ressemblances de famille et robotique humanoïde, catalogue de l’exposition Persona, étrangement humain, dir. Dufrêne, T. Grimaud, E. Vidal, D. Taylor, A.C. Hors collection, Actes Sud (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Grimaud, E., Paré, Z.: Le jour où les robots mangeront des pommes: conversations avec un Geminoïd, éditions Petra, coll. Anthropologiques, Paris (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dunne, A., Raby, F.: Design for debate (2007). http://www.dunneandraby.co.uk/content/bydandr/36/0
  22. 22.
    Heudin, J.C.: Robots & avatars, éditions Odile Jacob (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Auger, B.: Living with robots: a speculative design approach. J. Hum.-Robot Interact. 3(1), 20–42 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cupchik, G.C., Hilscher, M.C.: Holistic perspective on the design of experience. In: Elsevier, S., Hekkert, P., Schifferstein, H.N.J. (eds.) Product Experience (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sermon, J.: Marionnettes contemporaines: de la manipulation à l’installation. In: La marionnette: objet d’histoire, œuvre d’art, objet de civilisation, dir. Dufrêne, T. et Huthwol, J. Editions l’Entretemps (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Becker, J.: Le corps humain et ses doubles. Sur les usages de la fiction dans les arts et la robotique. Gradhiva, op. cit., p. 108 (2006). Robot Hum. Interact. Commun., p. 51–5Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Strate School of DesignSèvresFrance

Personalised recommendations