Advertisement

Saving Face: Shared Experience and Dialogue on Social Touch, in Playful Smart Public Space

  • Karen LancelEmail author
  • Hermen Maat
  • Frances Brazier
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Gaming Media and Social Effects book series (GMSE)

Abstract

Can shared experience and dialogue on social touch be orchestrated in playful smart public spaces? In smart city public spaces, in which physical and virtual realities are currently merging, new forms of social connections, interfaces and experiences are being explored. Within art practice, such new connections include new forms of affective social communication with additional social and sensorial connections to enable and enhance empathic, intimate experience in playful smart public space. This chapter explores a novel design for shared intimate experience of playful social touch in three orchestrations of ‘Saving Face’, in different cultural and geographical environments of smart city (semi-) public spaces, in Beijing, Utrecht, Dessau-Berlin. These orchestrations are purposefully designed to create a radically unfamiliar sensory synthesis to disrupt the perception of ‘who sees and who is being seen, who touches and who is being touched’. Participants playfully ‘touch themselves and feel being touched, to connect with others on a screen’. All three orchestrations show that shared experience and dialogue on social touch can be mediated by playful smart cities technologies in public spaces, but rely on design of mediated, intimate and exposed forms of ‘self-touch for social touch’, ambivalent relations, exposure of dialogue and hosting.

Keywords

Social engagement Digital performance art City smart spaces Intimacy Exposure Playful social touch 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Prof. Caroline Nevejan, Susa Pop and Public Art Lab Berlin and Connecting Cities Network for their inspirational contribution and support.

Saving Face [9] was developed by Lancel/Maat (Karen Lancel, Hermen Maat) as an art work, artistic research and case study (http://www.lancel.nl/work/saving-face/).

The work was generously supported by Media Fund, Mondriaan Fonds, Festival aan de Werf Utrecht, MediaFonds@Sandberg, Cultural Consulate Beijing, BCAF Beijing, Beam Systems Amsterdam, Dutch Embassy Berlin, SICA NLTR 400. It was technically developed in collaboration with Sylvain Vriens, Tim Olden, Matthijs ten Berge, Mart van Bree, Beamsystems, using Kyle McDonald and Jason Saragih open source Facetracker library.

References

  1. 1.
    Benford S, Giannachi G (2012) Interaction as performance. Interactions 19(3):38–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blast Theory (2007) Can You See Me Now? http://www.blasttheory.co.uk/projects/can-you-see-me-now/. Last accessed 27 Feb 2019
  3. 3.
    Gould C, Sermon P (2015) Occupy the screen: a case study of open artworks for urban screens. In: Armstrong K (ed) Proceedings of ISEA 2015, the 21st international symposium of electronic art. ISBN: 978-1-910172-00-1Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lozano-Hemmer R (2001) Body movies, relational architecture 6. http://www.lozano-hemmer.com/body_movies.php. Last accessed 12 July 2018
  5. 5.
    Sermon P, Gould C (2014) Occupy the screen. http://www.paulsermon.org/occupy/. Last accessed 7 Feb 2019
  6. 6.
    Benford S, Giannachi G, Koleva B, Rodden T (2009) From interaction to trajectories: designing coherent journeys through user experiences. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 709–718Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kwastek K (2013) Aesthetics of interaction in digital art. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gsöllpointner K, Schnell R, Schuler KS (eds) (2016) Digital synesthesia: a model for the aesthetics of digital art. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lancel/Maat: Saving Face (2012) http://lancelmaat.nl/work/saving-face/. Last accessed 31 Aug 2018
  10. 10.
    Nijholt A (ed) (2017) Playable cities: the city as a digital playground. Springer, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mcquire S (2008) The media city: media, architecture and urban space. Sage Publications Ltd, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nijholt A (2019) Smart, affective, and playable cities. In: Proceedings of the ArtsIT 2018—7th EAI international conference: ArtsIT, interactivity and game creation, LNICST 265. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp 163–168Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Waal M, Dignum M (2017) The citizen in the smart city. How the smart city could transform citizenship. it-Inf Technol, de Gruyter, 59(6):263–273Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McQuire S, Martin M, Niederer S (eds) (2009) Urban screens reader (vol. 5). Institute of Network Cultures, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pop S, Toft T, Calvillo N, Wright M (2016) What urban media art can do: why when where and how?. av edition GmbH, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Struppek M (2007) Discovering the interrelation of public space, interaction and new media. In: Lozano-Hemmer R and Hill D (eds) Under scan. EMDA & Antimodular, Nottingham and QuebecGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Verhoeff N (2016) Interfacing urban media art. In: Pop S, Toft T, Calvillo N, Wright M (eds) What urban media can do: why when where and how. av edition GmbH, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chomko J, Rosier M (2014) Shadowing. https://www.playablecity.com/projects/shadowing/. Last accessed 19 Feb 2019
  19. 19.
    Ga Z (2004) People’s portrait. http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/works/peoples-portrait/images/3. Last accessed 3 Sep 2018
  20. 20.
    De Mul J (2009) The work of art in the age of digital recombination. In: Van den Boomen M, Lammes S, Lehmann AS, Raessens J, Schäfer MT (eds) Digital material tracing new media in everyday life and technology. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, p 95Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reeves S, Benford S, O’Malley C, Fraser M (2005) Designing the spectator experience. In: CHI’05 proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 741–750Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mcquire S (2008) The media city. Media, architecture and urban space. Sage Publications, pp 153–154Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huisman G (2017) Social touch technology: a survey of haptic technology for social touch. IEEE Trans Haptics 10(3):391–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van Erp JB, Toet A (2015) Social touch in human–computer interaction. Front Digital Humanit 2(1):2Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gill SP (2015) Tacit engagement, beyond interaction. Springer International Publishing, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lancel K, Maat H, Brazier FM (2018) Kissing data, distributed haptic connections through social touch. In: Acoustic space volume no 17. Riga’s center for new media culture RIXC/art research laboratory of Liepaja UniversityGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Verhoeff N, Cooley HR (2014) The navigational gesture: traces and tracings at the mobile touchscreen interface. NECSUS Eur J Media Stud 3(1):111–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cillari S (2006-2009) Se Mi Sei Vicino. http://www.li-ma.nl/site/cata-logue/art/sonia-cillari/se-mi-seivicino-if-you-are-close-to-me/9774, last accessed 2019/4/30
  29. 29.
    Lancel/Maat (2009) Tele_Trust. http://www.lancelmaat.nl/work/tele-trust//
  30. 30.
    Lancel/Maat (2016) Digital Synaesthetic EEG KISS. http://www.lancelmaat.nl/work/e.e.g-kiss/, last accessed 2019/7/2
  31. 31.
    Vlugt M (2015) Performance as interface. In: Interface as performance. IT&FB, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Huisman G, Frederiks AD, Van Erp JB, Heylen DK (2016) Simulating affective touch: using a vibrotactile array to generate pleasant stroking sensations. In: International conference on human haptic sensing and touch enabled computer applications. Springer, Cham, pp 240–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    CREW (2010) C.a.p.e. http://www.crewonline.org/art/projects/437, last accessed 2019/7/2
  34. 34.
    Aldhous J, Hetherington R, Turner P (2017) The digital rubber hand illusion. https://www.napier.ac.uk/~/media/worktribe/output-847674/digital-rubber-hand-illusion-revised-version.pdf. Last accessed 27 Feb 2019
  35. 35.
    Tajadura-Jiménez A, Longo MR, Coleman R, Tsakiris M (2012) The person in the mirror: using the enfacement illusion to investigate the experiential structure of self-identification. Conscious Cogn 21(4):1725–1738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Martin D (ed) (2018) Mirror touch synaesthesia: thresholds of empathy with art. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–26Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ward J (2018) The vicarious perception of touch and pain: embodied empathy. In: Martin D (ed) Mirror touch synaesthesia. Thresholds’ of empathy with art. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 55–70Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Loke L, Khut K (2014) Intimate aesthetics and facilitated interaction. In: Candy L, Ferguson S (eds) Interactive experience in the digital age: evaluating new art practice, Springer Series on Cultural Computing. Springer: London, Cham, pp 91–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fosh L, Benford S, Reeves S, Koleva B, Brundell P (2013) See me, feel me, touch me, hear me: trajectories and interpretation in a sculpture garden. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 149–158Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lomanowska AM, Guitton MJ (2016) Online intimacy and well-being in the digital age. Internet interventions 4:138–144, ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Verhaeghe P (2018) Intimiteit. Uitgeverij De Bezige BijGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Benford S, Greenhalgh C, Giannachi G, Walker B, Marshall J, Rodden T (2013) Uncomfortable user experience. Commun ACM 56(9):66–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Price S, Leder-Mackley K, Jewitt C, Huisman G, Petreca B, Berthouze N, Prattichizzo D, Hayward V (2018) Reshaping touch communication: an interdisciplinary research agenda. In: CHI’18 extended abstracts. Montréal, QC, Canada, 21–26 Apr 2018Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lancel/Maat (2000–2019) Lancel/Maat.nl/work/. Last accessed 20 Feb 2019Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Butler J (1990) Gender trouble, feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge Publishers, Abingdon-on-ThamesGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    McDonald K, Saragih J. Open source facetracker library. https://github.com/kylemcdonald/ofxFaceTracker. Last accessed 21 Feb 2019
  47. 47.
    Zimmerman J, Forlizzi J (2014) Research through design in HCI. In: Olson JS, Kellog WA (eds) Ways of knowing in HCI. Springer, New York, pp 167–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wouters N, Downs J, Harrop M, Cox T, Oliveira E, Webber S, Vetere F, Vande Moere A (2016) Uncovering the Honeypot effect: how audiences engage with public interactive systems. In: Proceedings of the conference on designing interactive systems 2016, ACMGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Artists duo Lancel/MaatAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options