Advertisement

Artefacts and Representation

  • Nelson ZagaloEmail author
Chapter
  • 24 Downloads
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)

Abstract

In this chapter, we enter the discussion of the design of artefacts, their representational possibilities and approaches connected with our profiles and contexts. We present the representation divided into three main categories—symbolic, enactive and mimetic—from which we then build a discussion on the different impacts they have on interaction. The artefact analysis gets deeper with the analysis of the pleasure motives and stimuli and its correlation with the different types of interaction with representation. All is supported by illustrative examples, made of situations, diagrams and pictures.

References

  1. Aarseth, E. (1997). Cybertext: Perspectives on ergodic literature. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aarseth, E. (2001). Computer game studies, year one. Game Studies. ISSN: 1604-7982. http://gamestudies.org/0101/editorial.html.
  3. Aarseth, E. (2004). Genre trouble: Narrativism and the art of simulation. In First person new media as story performance and game.  https://doi.org/10.1215/00295132-1261040.
  4. Alfonso X. (1284). Libro de los juegos: Acedrex, dados e tablas (R. O. Calderón, Ed.). Biblioteca Castro. Google Scholar
  5. Amabile, T., & Kramer, S. (2011). The progress principle: Using small wins to ignite joy, engagement, and creativity at work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Aristotle. (335BC). Poetics. London: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  7. Barthes, R. (1966). Introduction à l’analyse structurale des récits. Communications, 8, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baukal, C., Ausburn, F., & Ausburn, L. (2013). A proposed multimedia cone of abstraction: Updating a classic instructional design theory. Journal of Educational Technology, 9(4), 15–24.  https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.9.4.2129.
  9. Bazin, A. (1958). Qu’est-ce que le cinéma?. 1, Ontologie et langage. Paris: Éditions du verf.Google Scholar
  10. Bennis, W., & Thomas, R. J. (2002, September). Crucibles of leadership. Harvard Business Publishing. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2002/09/crucibles-of-leadership.
  11. Bergen, B. (2012). Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  12. Berger, J. (2013). Contagious: Why things catch on. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  13. Black, J. B., & Bower, G. H. (1980). Story understanding as problem-solving. Poetics, 9(1–3), 223–250.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(80)90021-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bloom, P. (2010). How pleasure works: The new science of why we like what we like. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  15. Bolter, J. D. (2019). The digital plenitude. The decline of elite culture and the rise of new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Booker, C. (2004). The seven basic plots: Why we tell stories. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  17. Bordwell, D. (1985). Narration in the fiction film. In Narration in the fiction film.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315002163.
  18. Bordwell, D. (2006). The way Hollywood tells it: Story and style in modern movies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Boyd, B. (2010). On the origin of stories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Branigan, E. (1984). Point of view in the cinema. A theory of narration and subjectivity in classical film. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  21. Branigan, E. (1992). Narrative comprehension and film. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Broderick, M., & Traverso, A. (2011). Interrogating Trauma: Collective suffering in global arts and media. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Brown, D., & Hayes, N. (2008). Influencer marketing.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080557700.
  24. Brown, S. L. (2009). Play: How it shapes the brain, opens the imagination, and invigorates the soul. New York: Avery–Penguin Group.Google Scholar
  25. Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Buckland, W. (2009). Puzzle films: Complex storytelling in contemporary cinema. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Cage, D. (2010). Heavy Rain. Quantic Dream.Google Scholar
  28. Campbell, J. (1949). The hero with a thousand faces. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  29. Carvalho, A. A., Zagalo, N., & Araujo, I. (2015). From games played by secondary students to a gamification framework. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 737–744.Google Scholar
  30. Chouliaraki, L. (2006). The spectatorship of suffering. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Comley, C., Steele, D., Algar, N., Schafer-Peek, S., & Perkins, S. (2011). Opening our eyes. How film contributes to the culture of the UK. London.Google Scholar
  32. Conrad, J. (1910). The Nigger of the ‘Narcissus’. New Hampshire: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  33. Cortazar, J. (1963). Rayuela. Buenos Aires: Editorial Sudamericana.Google Scholar
  34. Costikyan, G. (2000, September). Where stories end and games begin. Game Developer, pp. 44–53. Retrieved from http://www.costik.com/gamnstry.html.
  35. Cott, H. (1940). Adaptive coloration in animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Cruz, J., & Gordon, R. M. (2003). Simulation theory. In Encyclopedia of cognitive science.  https://doi.org/10.1002/0470018860.s00123.
  37. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Go with the flow. Wired. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/1996/09/czik/.
  38. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow. The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  39. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Abuhamdeh, S., & Nakamura, J. (2005). Flow. Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 598–608). New York, NY: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  41. Decety, J. (2005). Une anatomie de l’empathie. PSN, 3(1), 16–24.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03006827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Del Vecchio, M., Kharlamov, A., Parry, G., & Pogrebna, G. (2018). The Data science of Hollywood: Using emotional arcs of movies to drive business model innovation in entertainment industries. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1807.02221.
  43. Deterding, S. (2012). Gamification: Designing for motivation. Interactions, 19(4), 14.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2212877.2212883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Egri, L. (1946). Art of dramatic writing: Its basis in the creative interpretation of human motives. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  45. Eisner, E. W. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Ekman, P. (1997). Expression or communication about emotion. In Uniting psychology and biology: Integrative perspectives on human development (pp. 315–338).  https://doi.org/10.1037/10242-008.
  47. Ellmann, R. (1982). James Joyce. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Elmerghany, A. H., & Paulus, G. (2017). Using minecraft as a geodesign tool for encouraging public participation in urban planning. GI_Forum, 1, 300–314.  https://doi.org/10.1553/giscience2017_01_s300.
  49. Elsaesser, T. (2009). The Mind-Game Film. (W. Buckland Ed.), Puzzle Films: Complex Storytelling in Contemporary Cinema (pp. 13–41). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  50. Ertiö, T.-P., & Bhagwatwar, A. (2017). Citizens as planners: Harnessing information and values from the bottom-up. International Journal of Information Management, 37(3), 111–113.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Eskelinen, M. (2001). The gaming situation. Game Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Everett, D. L. (2017). How language began: The story of humanity’s greatest invention. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  53. Feagin, S. L. (1983). The pleasures of tragedy. American Philosophical Quarterly, 20(1), 95–104. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20013989.pdf.
  54. Fisch, M. H. (1986). Peirce, semeiotic, and pragmatism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Fischoff, S., Antonio, J., & Lewis, D. (1998). Favorite films and film genres as a function of race, age, and gender. Journal of Media Psychology, 3(1).Google Scholar
  56. Fodor, J. A. (1975). The language of thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  57. García, A. M., Moguilner, S., Torquati, K., García-Marco, E., Herrera, E., Muñoz, E., Ibáñez, A. (2019). How meaning unfolds in neural time: Embodied reactivations can precede multimodal semantic effects during language processing. NeuroImage, 197, 439–449.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.05.002.
  58. Gauntlett, D. (2011). Making is connecting: The social meaning of creativity. In Making is connecting. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  59. Gauntlett, D., & Thomsen, B. S. (2013). Cultures of creativity. Retrieved from https://www.legofoundation.com/media/1073/cultures-of-creativity-lego-fonden-2013.pdf.
  60. Gaynor, S. (2013). Gone Home. Fullbright Company.Google Scholar
  61. Gendler, T. S. (2008). Alief and belief. Journal of Philosophy, 105(10), 634–663.  https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil20081051025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Genette, G. (1966). Frontières du récit. Communications, 8, 152–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Godin, S. (2011). We are all weird. US: Domino Project.Google Scholar
  64. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  65. Gottschall, J. (2012). The storytelling animal: How stories make us human. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  66. Grau, O. (2003). Virtual art: From illusion to immersion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  67. Green, M. C. (2004). Transportation into narrative worlds: The role of prior knowledge and perceived realism. Discourse Processes, 38(2), 247–266.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3802_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Gunning, T. (1994). The cinema of attractions early film, its spectator and the avant-garde. In The cinema of attractions reloaded (pp. 381–388).Google Scholar
  69. Hall, T. (1993). Doom. Texas: id Software.Google Scholar
  70. Hassenzahl, M. (2010). Experience design: Technology for all the right reasons. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics.  https://doi.org/10.2200/S00261ED1V01Y201003HCI008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Hemingway, E. (1929). A farewell to arms. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  72. Herman, D. (2002). Story logic: Problems and possibilities of narrative. London: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  73. Herman, D. (2013). Storytelling and the sciences of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Hudson, C. (2007). Mass Effect. Bioware.Google Scholar
  75. Huizinga, J. (1938). Homo Ludens: The study of play-element in culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  76. Israel, P. (2016). The invention factory. In Thomas A. Edison papers. http://edison.rutgers.edu/inventionfactory.htm.
  77. Iwatani, T. (1980). Pac-Man. Namco.Google Scholar
  78. Jockers, M. L. (2015). Revealing sentiment and plot arcs with the syuzhet package. Retrieved August 8, 2019, from MatthewJockers.com website: http://www.matthewjockers.net/2015/02/02/syuzhet/.
  79. Johnson, E. (2019, June 26). The problem with tech people who want to solve problems. Recode. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/6/26/18758776/joi-ito-mit-media-lab-resisting-reduction-exorcist-kara-swisher-recode-decode-podcast-interview.
  80. Joyce, J. (1922). Ulysses. Relógio D’Agua.Google Scholar
  81. Juul, J. (2001). Games telling stories. Game Studies. ISSN:1604-7982. http://gamestudies.org/0101/juul-gts/.
  82. Kapp, K. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  83. Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt psychology. Oxford: Harcourt Inc.Google Scholar
  84. Kress, G. (2009). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203970034.
  85. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  86. Kushner, D. (2003). Masters of Doom: How two guys created an empire and transformed pop culture. Random House.Google Scholar
  87. Lane, H. C., & Yi, S. (2017). Playing with virtual blocks: Minecraft as a learning environment for practice and research. In Cognitive development in digital contexts (pp. 145–166).  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809481-5.00007-9.
  88. Lopes, C. (2004). Ludicidade Humana. Contributos para a busca dos sentidos do Humano. Aveiro: Universidade de Aveiro.Google Scholar
  89. Lucas, G. (1977). Star Wars. US: Lucasfilm Ltd.Google Scholar
  90. Lyotard, J.-F. (1979). La Condition postmoderne. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
  91. Mateas, M., & Stern, A. (2005). Façade. Atlanta: Self published.Google Scholar
  92. McCarthy, J. F., & Rose, D. (1991). Joyce’s Dublin: A walking guide to Ulysses. London: St Martins Press.Google Scholar
  93. Metz, C. (1966). La grande syntagmatique du film narratif. Communications, 8, 120–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Millar, B. (2019a). How dark content hacks our subconscious and what we can do about it. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/330119765.
  95. Millar, B. (2019b, May). We studied what 10,000 people love online. The results would make Freud blush. Fast Company. Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/90343372/we-studied-what-10000-people-love-online-the-results-would-make-freud-blush.
  96. Miyamoto, S. (1985). Super Mario Bros. Nintendo.Google Scholar
  97. Muncy, J. (2019, July). The “Super Mario maker 2” community is a Haven of player creativity. Wired. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/story/super-mario-maker-2-community/.
  98. Nabokov, V. (1973). Strong opinions. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  99. Nebel, S., Schneider, S., & Rey, G. D. (2016). Mining learning and crafting scientific experiments: A literature review on the use of Minecraft in education and research. Educational Technology and Society.Google Scholar
  100. Nitsche, M., & Weisling, A. (2019). When is it not craft? In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction—TEI ’19, 683–689.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3294109.3295651.
  101. Nolan, C. (2000). Memento.Google Scholar
  102. OReilly, D. (2017). Everything. San Francisco: Double Fine Productions.Google Scholar
  103. Oshino, Y. (2015). Super Mario maker. Tokyo: Nintendo.Google Scholar
  104. Oshino, Y. (2019). Super Mario maker 2. Tokyo: Nintendo.Google Scholar
  105. Pajitnov, A. (1984). Tetris. Moscow: Academy of Science of the Soviet Union.Google Scholar
  106. Peirce, C. (2000). Semiótica. São Paulo: Perspectiva.Google Scholar
  107. Perec, G. (1978). La Vie Mode d’Emploi. Paris: Hachette Littératures.Google Scholar
  108. Persson, M. (2009). Minecraft. Mojang.Google Scholar
  109. Pinchbeck, D. (2012). Dear Esther. Chinese Room.Google Scholar
  110. Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  111. Polti, G. (1895). Les Trente-Six situations dramatiques. Paris: Édition du Mercure de France.Google Scholar
  112. Pratt, A. E. (1949). Cluedo. Leeds: Waddingtons.Google Scholar
  113. Pulizzi, J. (2014). Epic content marketing: How to tell a different story, break through the clutter, and win more customers by marketing less. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  114. Reagan, A. J., Mitchell, L., Kiley, D., Danforth, C. M., & Dodds, P. S. (2016). The emotional arcs of stories are dominated by six basic shapes. EPJ Data Science, 5(1), 31.  https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-016-0093-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Redfern, N. (2012). Correspondence analysis of genre preferences in UK film audiences. Participations: Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 9(2), 45–55.Google Scholar
  116. Rexhepi, A., Filiposka, S., & Trajkovik, V. (2018). Youth e-participation as a pillar of sustainable societies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174, 114–122.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161–1178.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Ryan, M. (2001). Narrative as virtual reality. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2003). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  120. Sarkar, B., & Walker, J. (2009). Documentary testimonies. Global archives of suffering. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Schell, J. (2008). The art of game design: A book of lenses. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  122. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Short, E. (2000). Galatea. Self published.Google Scholar
  124. Stanton, A. (2003). Finding Nemo. Emeryville: Pixar Animation Studios.Google Scholar
  125. Sternberg, R., & Sternberg, K. (2012). Cognitive psychology. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  126. Stevens, T. (2009). Character-driven/plot-driven. Retrieved August 16, 2019, from EditTorrent website: http://edittorrent.blogspot.com/2009/10/character-drivenplot-driven.html.
  127. Straubel, L. H. (2006). Character and plot nodes: Writing fiction with concept maps. In Second International Conference on Concept Mapping (pp. 63–70). Retrieved from http://eprint.ihmc.us/140/.
  128. Sutton-Smith, B. (1978). The dialectics of play. In F. Landry & W. A. R. Oban (Eds.), Physical activity and human well-being (pp. 759–768).Google Scholar
  129. Sutton-Smith, B. (2005). Play and ambiguity. In The game design reader: A rules of play anthology.Google Scholar
  130. Thompson, D. (2017a). Hit makers: The science of popularity in an age of distraction. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  131. Thompson, D. (2017b). The four-letter code to selling just about anything. What makes things cool? The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/01/what-makes-things-cool/508772/.
  132. UChicago. (2007). Part of Vonnegut’s legacy, cat’s cradle, also earned him master’s. Retrieved August 8, 2019, from The University of Chicago Chronicle website: http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/070510/vonnegut.shtml.
  133. Ullal-Gupta, S., Nederlanden, C. M. V. B. der Tichko, P., Lahav, A., & Hannon, E. E. (2013). Linking prenatal experience to the emerging musical mind. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 7.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2013.00048.
  134. Vanaman, S. (2012). The walking dead. California: Telltale Games.Google Scholar
  135. Varotsis, G. (2018). The plot-algorithm for problem-solving in narrative and dramatic writing. New Writing, 15(3), 333–347.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14790726.2017.1374414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Vogler, C. (2007). The writer’s journey: Mythic structure for writers. San Francisco: Michael Wiese Productions.Google Scholar
  137. Vonnegut, K. (2004). Kurt Vonnegut lecture. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_RUgnC1lm8.
  138. Wallenstein, G. (2008). The pleasure instinct. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  139. West, R. E. (2017). Foundations of learning and instructional design technology. Retrieved from https://lidtfoundations.pressbooks.com/.
  140. Wiltermuth, S. S., & Heath, C. (2009). Synchrony and cooperation. Psychological Science, 20(1), 1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02253.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Wright, W. (2008). Spore. Redwood: Electronic Arts.Google Scholar
  142. Zagalo, N. (2013). Videojogos em Portugal: História, Tecnologia e Arte (FCA Editora, Ed.). Lisboa.Google Scholar
  143. Zeiser, A. (2015). Transmedia marketing.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315880112.
  144. Zug, J. (2011, June). Stolen: How the Mona Lisa became the world’s most famous painting. Smithsonian Mag. Retrieved from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/stolen-how-the-mona-lisa-became-the-worlds-most-famous-painting-16406234/.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication and ArtUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal

Personalised recommendations