Performative Uses of Space in Mixed Media Environments

  • Giulio Jacucci
  • Ina Wagner
Part of the The Kluwer International Series on Computer Supported Cooperative Work book series (volume 5)


Active Spectator Bodily Presence 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Acconci, V. (1981). Some Grounds for art as a political model. In: Sobel, D., Andera, M., Kwinter, S., Acconci, V. (2001). Vito Acconci: Acts of Architectures, Milwaukee Art Museum.Google Scholar
  2. Antonelli, Paola (ed.), (2001). Workspheres. Design and Contemporary Work Styles. New York: The Museum of Modern Art.Google Scholar
  3. Barba, E. (1995, 2002). The Paper Canoe: a Guide to Theatre Anthropology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Barba, E., & Savarese, N. (1999). The Secret Art of the Performer, a dictionary of theatre anthropology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Benjamin, W. (1963). Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  6. Binder, T., De Michelis, G., Gervautz, M., Iacucci, G., Matkovic, K., Psik, T., Wagner, I., (forthcomingn) Supporting Configurability in a Mixed Media Environment for Design Students. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Journal: Springer Verlag, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P., 1989, Social Space and Symbolic Power. Sociological Theory 7(1), 14–25.Google Scholar
  8. Carlson, M. (1996). Performance, A Critical Introduction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Certeau, M. de, (1988). Kunst des Handelns. Berlin: Merve Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. Certeau, M., de, (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Counsell, C., & Wolf, L. (2001). Performance Analysis: An Introductory Coursebook. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Dewey, J., (1980/1934) Art as Experience. New York: Perigee Books.Google Scholar
  13. Dourish, P. (2001). Where the Action is: the Foundations of Embodied Interaction. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fiebach, J. (1995). Audivisuelle Medien, Warenhäuser und Theateravantgarde. In: Fischer-Lichte. E. (ed.) Theater Avantgarde. Francke, Tübingen/Basel, pp. 15–57.Google Scholar
  15. Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge/Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Selfin Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  17. Gropius, W. (1934). Theaterbau. In: Gropius, W. Apollo in der Demokratie. Mainz/Berlin: Kupferberg.Google Scholar
  18. Grotowski, J., (1992/1969). Towards a Poor Theatre, edited by Eugenio Barba, preface by Peter Brook, Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  19. Heath, C., P. Luff, Lehn, vom, D., Hindmarsh, J., Cleverly, J. 2002, ‘Crafting Participation: Designing Ecologies, Configuring Experience’, Visual Communication, 1(1), 2002, pp. 9–33.Google Scholar
  20. Iacucci, G., & Wagner, I. (2003). Supporting Collaboration Ubiquitously: An augmented learning environment for architecture students. In: Proceedings of the 8th European Conference of Computer-supported Cooperative Work, 14.–18. September 2003, Helsinki, Finland, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 139–158.Google Scholar
  21. Kaprow, A. (1966). Assemblage, Environments, & Happenings, New York: Abrams.Google Scholar
  22. Kostelanetz, R. (1968). The Theater of Mixed Means. New York: Dial.Google Scholar
  23. Kostelanetz, R. (1994). On Innovative Performance’s: Three Decades of Recollections on Alternative Theater. McFarland & Company.Google Scholar
  24. Lainer, R. & Wagner, I. (1998). Connecting Qualities of Social Use with Spatial Qualities. In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Cooperative Buildings. Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 191–203.Google Scholar
  25. Lainer R., & Wagner, I. (2000). Silent Architecture — Narrative Technology. Digital Creativity 11/3, pp. 144–155.Google Scholar
  26. Lunenfeld, P. (2001). Snap to grid, A user’s guide to digital arts, media and cultures. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Nesbitt, K., (Ed.), (1996). Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture. An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965–1995, New York: Princeton Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  28. Nollert, A., (Ed.), (2003) Performative Installation, Snoeck Verlagsgesellschaft GmbH, Cologne.Google Scholar
  29. Rumpfluber, A., & Wagner, I., (2004). Sampling ‘mixed objects’ as part of architectural practice. In: Proceedings PixelRaiders 2, 6–8 April 2004, Sheffield, UK.Google Scholar
  30. Schechner, R., (2002). Performance Studies, An Introduction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Schön, D. (1983, 2000). The Reflective Practitioner, How Professionals Think in Action, Burlington USA: Ashgate Arena.Google Scholar
  32. Shaw, J., & Weibel, P., (2003). Future Cinema: The Cinematic Imaginary after Film. Cambridge, Massachusetts. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Sobchack, V. (1988). The Scene of the Screen Beitrag zu einer Phänomenologie der ‘Gegenwdrtigkeit’ im Film und in den elektronischen Medien’, in: Gumbrecht, H. U. and Pfeiffer K. L., Eds, Materialitiit der Kommunikation. Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, pp. 416–429.Google Scholar
  34. Suderburg, E. (Ed.). (2000). Space Site Intervention, Situating Installation Art, University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  35. Tellioglu, H., & Wagner, I., (2001). Work Practices Surrounding PACS. The Politics of Space in Hospitals. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). An International Journal 10, 163–188.Google Scholar
  36. Tschumi, B. (1977), The Pleasure of Architecture. Architectural Design 47(3), pp. 214–218.Google Scholar
  37. Tuan, Yi-Fu, (1990). Space and Context. In: Schechner, R., & Appel, W., (Eds.) By Means of Performance, Intercultural Studies of Theater and Ritual. Cambridge University Press, pp. 236–244.Google Scholar
  38. Virilio, P. (1990). Das dritte Intervall. Ein kritischer Übergang. Vom Verschwinden der Ferne. In: E. Decker and P. Weibel, (eds), Telekommunikation und Kunst, Dumont, Köln, pp. 335–346.Google Scholar
  39. Wagner, I. (2003). Open planning: objets persuasifs et fluidité des pratiques. In: F. Seitz & J.-J. Terrin (Eds.), Architecture des systèmes urbains, Actes de colloque Université de Technologie de Compiègne, July 5, 2001, L’Harmattan: Paris, pp. 223–237.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giulio Jacucci
    • 1
  • Ina Wagner
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Information Processing ScienceUniversity of OuluFinland
  2. 2.Institute for Technology Assessment & DesignVienna University of TechnologyAustria

Personalised recommendations