Interaction in Art and Computing

  • Jennifer SeevinckEmail author
Part of the Springer Series on Cultural Computing book series (SSCC)


The questions surrounding emergence in interactive art necessitate insight from different domains. While the previous chapter established an understanding of emergence, here the focus is on interaction . A selection of contemporary arts practices and computing approaches are reviewed as these can point to new ways of thinking about the relationships between audience, art system and artist. Participation , experience and open interactions form the core of the chapter’s discussions, leading to insight into open and emergent digital interactions.


Active Audience Dawn Chorus Hybrid Space Bird Feeder Audience Experience 
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. Achituv R, Utterback C (1999) Text Rain, interactive artworkGoogle Scholar
  2. Arns I (2004) Reception, participation, interaction—from receptive to active participation. Accessed 18 Jan 2015
  3. Ascott R (1966) Behaviourist art and the cybernetic vision. Cybernetica 9:247–264Google Scholar
  4. Bannon L (1992) From human factors to human actors the role of psychology and human-computer interaction studies in systems design. In: Greenbaum J, Kyng M (eds) Design at work: cooperative design of computer systems. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, USA, pp 25–44Google Scholar
  5. Bilda Z (2011) Designing for audience engagement. In: Interacting: art, research and the creative practitioner. Libri Publishing Ltd., Faringdon, UK, pp 163–181Google Scholar
  6. Bilda Z, Edmonds E, Candy L (2008) Designing for creative engagement. Des Stud 29:525–540. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2008.07.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bødker S (2006) When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges. ACM Press, New York, USA, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  8. Bolter JD, Gromala D (2003) Windows and mirrors: interaction design, digital art, and the myth of transparency. The MIT Press, Cambridge, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. Burnham J (1968) Systems Esthetics. 7:30–35
  10. Cage J (1952) 4′33″, music compositionGoogle Scholar
  11. Candy L, Edmonds EA (2011) Interacting: art, research and the creative practitioner. Libri Publishing Ltd., Faringdon, UKGoogle Scholar
  12. Candy L, Ferguson S (eds) (2014) Interactive experience in the digital age evaluating new art practice. Springer International PublishingGoogle Scholar
  13. Cornock S, Edmonds EA (1973) The creative process where the artist is amplified or superseded by the computer. Leonardo, The MIT Press 6:11–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daniels D (2008) Strategies of interactivity. In: Sommerer C, Jain LC, Mignonneau L (eds) The art and science of interface and interaction design. Springer, pp 27–62Google Scholar
  15. Debord G (1957) Towards a Situationist international. In: McDonough T (ed). The MIT Press, Cambridge, USA, pp 44–50Google Scholar
  16. de Souza e Silva A (2006) From cyber to hybrid mobile technologies as interfaces of hybrid spaces. Space and Culture 9:261–278. doi: 10.1177/1206331206289022
  17. Dourish P (2001) Seeking a foundation for context-aware computing. Human-Computer Interaction 16:229–241. doi: 10.1207/S15327051HCI16234_07 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duchamp M (1920) Rotary Glass Plates (Precision Optics), motorized artworkGoogle Scholar
  19. Dunne A, Raby F (1996) Fields and Thresholds. In: Pearce M, Spiller N (eds) Architects in cyberspace. Academy Press, pp 64–71Google Scholar
  20. Eco U (1962) The poetics of the open work. In: Bishop C (ed) Participation. The MIT Press, London, England, Whitechapel, pp 20–40 Google Scholar
  21. Edmonds EA (2002) Heron, interactive artworkGoogle Scholar
  22. Edmonds EA (2009) Cities Tango, interactive artworkGoogle Scholar
  23. Edmonds EA (2011a) Interactive art. In: Candy L, Edmonds EA (eds) Interacting: art, research and the creative practitioner. Libri Publishing Ltd., Faringdon, UKGoogle Scholar
  24. Edmonds EA (2011b) Art, interaction and engagement. In: Candy L, Edmonds E (eds) Interacting: art, research and the creative practitioner. Libri Publishing Ltd., Faringdon, UK,Google Scholar
  25. Edmonds EA, Muller L, Connell M (2006) On creative engagement. Visual Communications 5:307–322Google Scholar
  26. Edmonds EA, Turner G, Candy L (2004) Approaches to interactive art systems. ACM Press, Singapore, pp 113–117Google Scholar
  27. Feingold K (1991) The Surprising Spiral, interactive artworkGoogle Scholar
  28. Fitzmaurice GW, Ishii H, Buxton W (1995) Bricks: laying the foundations for graspable user interfaces. ACM Press, pp 442–449Google Scholar
  29. Gaver W, Martin H (2000) Alternatives exploring information appliances through conceptual design proposals. In: Proceedings of CHI 2000. pp 209–216Google Scholar
  30. Gaver W, Beaver J, Benford S (2003) Ambiguity as a resource for design. Proceedings of CHI 2003. ACM Press, Ft Lauderdale, Florida, USA, pp 233–240Google Scholar
  31. Gibson JJ (1977) The theory of affordances. In: Shaw R, Bransford J (eds) Perceiving, acting, and knowing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, USA, pp 127–143Google Scholar
  32. Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, London, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  33. Hewett T, Baeker, Card S, et al (1992) ACM SIGCHI curricula for human-computer interaction. ACM SIGCHIGoogle Scholar
  34. Hwang D (2016) Pokémon GO! Niantic, USA,
  35. Ishii H, Ullmer B (1997) Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. Proc. SIGCHI Human Factors. ACM Press, Atlanta, Georgia, United States, pp 234–241Google Scholar
  36. Ishii H, Lakatos vid, Bonanni L, Labrune J-B (2012) Radical atoms: beyond tangible bits, toward transformable materials. Interactions 19:38–51. doi: 10.1145/2065327.2065337
  37. Ivrea Interaction Design Institute (2005) Arduino Microcontroller BoardGoogle Scholar
  38. Jones C, Muller L (2008) David Rokeby, The Giver of Names (1991) documentary collection. The Daniel Langlois Foundation collection: DOCAM (Documentation and Conservation of the Media Arts), Montreal, Canada.
  39. Juul J (2002) The open and the closed: games of emergence and games of progression. In: Mäyrä F (ed) Computer game and digital cultures conference proceedings. Tampere University Press, Tampere, Finland, pp 323–329Google Scholar
  40. Krueger M (1974) Videoplace, interactive artworkGoogle Scholar
  41. Krueger M, Gionfriddo T, Hinrichsen K (1985) VIDEOPLACE—an artificial reality. ACM Press, pp 35–40Google Scholar
  42. Lieser W (2010) The World of Digital Art. Har/DVD edition. H.F. Ullmann Publishing Gmbh, Köln, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  43. Muller L (2008) Towards an oral history of new media art. In: Daniel Langlois Foundation for art, science and technology. Accessed 13 Jul 2016
  44. Muller L, Edmonds E, Connell M (2006) Living laboratories for interactive art. CoDesign 2:195–207. doi: 10.1080/15710880601008109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Norman DA (2002) The design of everyday things. Basic Books, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  46. NOX, Serafijn QS, Spuybroek L (2004) D-Tower, media architecture in Doetinchem, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  47. Paik NJ (1963) Participation TV 1, interactive artworkGoogle Scholar
  48. Paul C (2015) Digital Art, Third, edition edn. Thames & Hudson, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  49. Salen K, Zimmerman E (2004) Rules of play game design fundamentals. The MIT Press, Cambridge, USAGoogle Scholar
  50. Schimmel P (1989) Leap into the void: performance and the object. In: Schimmel P (ed) Out of actions: between performance and the object. The Museum of Contemporary Art, Thames and Hudson, Los Angeles, USA, pp 1949–1979Google Scholar
  51. Seevinck J (2008) +-now, interactive artworkGoogle Scholar
  52. Sengers P, Gaver B (2006) Staying open to interpretation: engaging in multiple meanings in design and evaluation. In: Designing interactive systems DIS’06. ACM Press, pp 99–108Google Scholar
  53. Shedroff N (2001) Experience design 1. New Riders Publishing, Oakland, USAGoogle Scholar
  54. Sommerer C, Mignonneau L (1997) Life Spacies, interactive artworkGoogle Scholar
  55. Sommerer C, Mignonneau L (1999) VERBARIUM, interactive artworkGoogle Scholar
  56. Sommerer C, Mignonneau L (eds) (1998) Art as a living system. In: Art @ science. Springer, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  57. Turkle S (2015) Reclaiming conversation: the power of talk in a digital age. Penguin Press, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  58. Weibel P (1973) Observation of the Observation: Uncertainty, artworkGoogle Scholar
  59. Weiser M (1991) The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American 94–100Google Scholar
  60. Weiser M (1994) The world is not a desktop. Interactions 7–8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations