Robots and Art pp 229-254 | Cite as

Still and Useless: The Ultimate Automaton

  • Nicolas ReevesEmail author
  • David St-Onge
Part of the Cognitive Science and Technology book series (CSAT)


Robots descend from the long genealogy of automata, machines with no practical purposes essentially meant to simulate objects embedded with an anima. Our hypothesis is that the thrust for the creation of every robot is rooted in the primordial myth of infusing inanimate matter with the breath of life: the aim of any automaton is to become a living thing. The ultimate automaton does not need to move or to do anything: the essence of any robot lies in the desire to simulate life to the point where it actually becomes alive. This chapter presents the Aerostabile research-creation program, which progressively evolved from an architectural origin to a research platform for exploring the nature of the elements that maximizes this deliberately created illusion. It goes through the origins and main methodologies of the program, then describes several artworks that were created along its evolution, focusing on the notion of behaviour and observed interactivity.


Acceleration Curve XVIIth Century Architectural Origin Expressive Potential Artificial Emotion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Bedini SA (1964) The role of automata in the history of technology in technology and culture, vol 5, no 1, pp 24–42Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bruce A, Nourbakhsh I, Simmons R (2002) The role of expressiveness and attention in human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings from the ieee international conference on robotics and automation, pp 4138–4142Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Imai M, Ono T, Ishiguro H (2003) Physical relation and expression: joint attention for human-robot interaction. IEEE Trans Industr Electron 50(4):636–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pioggia G, Igliozzi R, Ferro M, Ahluwalia A, Muratori F, De Rossi D (2005) An android for enhancing social skills and emotion recognition in people with autism, in neural systems and rehabilitation engineering, vol 13, 4, pp 507–515Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Destephe M, Maruyama T, Zecca M, Hashimoto K, Takanishi A (2013) Improving the human-robot interaction through emotive movements, a special case: walking. HRI 2013:115–116Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reeves N, Nembrini J, Poncet E et al (2005) Mascarillons—flying swarm intelligence for architectural research. IEEE Swarm Intell Symp 2005:225–232Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cooke C et al (1990) Architectural drawings of the russian avant-garde (see in particular Krutikov’s flying cities). Editions of The Museum of Modern Art, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bunge E (2003) Jealousy: modern architecture and flight, in cabinet, Issue 11, Flight Summer 2003, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van der Zwaan S, Bernardino A, José Santos-Victor J (2000) Vision based station keeping and docking for an aerial blimp. IROS 2000:614–619Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lozano R (2007) Objets volants miniatures: modélisation et commande embarquée (ch. 2), Lavoisier, Cachan (France)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    St-Onge D, Gosselin C, Reeves N (Voiles|Sails) (2011) A modular architecture for a fast parallel development in an international multidisciplinary project. In: Proceedings of IEEE ICAR 2011, Tallin, Estonia, pp 482–488Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    St-Onge D, Reeves N, Herald D, Kroos C, Hanafi M, Stelarc S (2011) The floating head experiment. Proceedings of HRI 2011. Lausanne, Switzerland, pp 395–396Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reeves N (2009) Rom<evo>: Evolution of a dead memory. New realities: being syncretic, Angewandte edn. Springer, Vienna, pp 236–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Joosse M, Lohse M, Evers V (2014) Lost in proxemics: spatial behavior for cross-cultural HRI. HRI 2014:184–185Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kiesler T, Kiesler S (2004) My pet rock and me: an experimental exploration of the self-extension concept. Adv Consum Res 32:365–370Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kroos C, Herath D, Stelarc S (2012) Evoking agency: attention model and behavior control in a robotic art installation. Leonardo 45(5):401–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    St-Onge D, Reeves N, Persson M, Sharf I (2014) Development of aerobots for satellite emulation, architecture and art. In: Proceedings of 13th international symposium on experimental robotics. Quebec Canada, pp 167–181Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NXI GESTATIO Design Lab (Arts Design Architecture Informatique) École de DesignUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations