Haunting Space, Social Interaction in a Large-Scale Media Environment

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10513)

Abstract

The Immersive Lab is a platform for the development and experience of large-scale audio-visual and interactive media arts. In this article we investigate questions of audience engagement, artistic strategies, and interaction principles, as well as the effects of embodied and social interactions that become evident in this media environment. Using the catalogue of artistic works developed for this platform within the past five years as our material, we carry out qualitative inquiries through interviews and categorisations. The emerging insights generate a clear perspective on the convergence as well as discrepancies between the artist’s intentions and the behaviours of visitors in the media space and allow us to, if not definitively state, then at least speculate about universal aspects that each encounter in the media arts context entails.

Keywords

Social interaction Interactive media space Artistic strategies Interaction principles Qualitative methods Multi-modal perception 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Many thanks go to all the participating artists and to Patrick Neff for sharing his expertise. The ‘Immersive Lab’ is the outcome of two Swiss National Science Foundation DORE grants: Interactive Swarm Orchestra ISO, Grant 13DPD3-109849 (2006–2008) and Interactive Swarm Space ISS, Grant 13DPD6-124810 (2009–2011). For the 2015 activities in California it benefitted from financial support by Swissnex, the Swiss Arts Council Pro Helvetia, the Swiss Consulate General in San Francisco, and the Zurich University of the Arts. The current project cycle is funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation, AGORA Grant Nr. RAGP1_171656.

References

  1. 1.
    Almond, R.: Sensory and emotional immersion in art, technology and architecture. Ph.D. thesis, Mackintosh School of Architecture, Glasgow School of Art, Glasgow (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amatriain, X., Kuchera-Morin, J., Hollerer, T., Pope, S.T.: The AlloSphere: immersive multimedia for scientific discovery and artistic exploration. IEEE Comput. Soc. 16(2), 64–75 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Annett, J., Stanton, N.A.: Task Analysis. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bisig, D., Schacher, J.C., Neukom, M.: Flowspace - a hybrid ecosystem. In: Proceedings of the Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression, Oslo, Norway, 30 May–1 June 2011Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buxton, B.: Multi-touch systems that i have known and loved. Microsoft Res. 56, 1–11 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chan, A.: The theory behind social interaction design (2011). http://johnnyholland.org/2011/04/the-theory-behind-social-interaction-design/
  7. 7.
    Chelstrom, E.S.: Social Phenomenology: Husserl, Intersubjectivity, and Collective Intentionality. Lexington Books, Lanham (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    DeFanti, T.A., Dawe, G., Sandin, D.J., Schulze, J.P., Otto, P., Girado, J., Kuester, F., Smarr, L., Rao, R.: The StarCAVE, a third-generation CAVE and virtual reality OptIPortal. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 25(2), 169–178 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duranti, A.: Husserl, intersubjectivity and anthropology. Anthropol. Theory 10(1–2), 16–35 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eilan, N.: Joint attention, communication, and mind. In: Eilan, N., Hoerl, C., McCormack, T., Roessler, J. (eds.) Joint Attention: Communication and other Minds. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ellis, R.D.: Phenomenology-friendly neuroscience: the return to merleau-ponty as psychologist. Hum. Stud. 29(1), 33–55 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fauconnier, G., Turner, M.: Conceptual blending, form and meaning. Rech. Commun. 19(19), 57–86 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fauconnier, G., Turner, M.: The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. Basic Books, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gallagher, S.: How the Body Shapes the Mind. Clarendon Press, Oxford (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gibson, J.J.: The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1986)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grau, O.: Virtual Art: From Illusion to Immersion. MIT press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hansen, M.B.N.: New Philosophy for New Media. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hartson, R.: Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design. Behav. Inf. Technol. 22(5), 315–338 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huizinga, J.: Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. Beacon Press, Boston (1955)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hutto, D.D., Myin, E.: Radicalizing Enactivism: Basic Minds without Content. MIT Press, Cambridge (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ihde, D.: Bodies in Technology, vol. 5. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jacob, R.J., Girouard, A., Hirshfield, L.M., Horn, M.S., Shaer, O., Solovey, E.T., Zigelbaum, J.: Reality-Based Interaction: A Framework for Post-WIMP Interfaces. In: Proceedings of CHI 2008. ACM, Florence, 5–10 April 2008Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kaptelinin, V., Nardi, B.: Activity theory in HCI: fundamentals and reflections. Synth. Lect. Hum. Cent. Inform. 5(1), 1–105 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Katz, D.: Gestalt Psychology, Its Nature and Significance. The Ronald Press Co., New York (1950)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lakoff, G., Johnson, M.: Metaphors We Live By. University Of Chicago Press, Chicago (1980)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leont’ev, A.N.: Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1978)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lindley, C.A.: Ludic engagement and immersion as a generic paradigm for human-computer interaction design. In: Rauterberg, M. (ed.) ICEC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3166, pp. 3–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-28643-1_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Macho, T.: Tiere zweiter Ordnung. Kulturtechniken der Identität und Identifikation. transcript Verlag, Bielefeld, Germany (2008)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maturana, H.R., Varela, F.J.: Autopoiesis and cognition: the realization of the living. Boston Stud. Philos. Sci. 43, 2–58 (1980)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Merleau-Ponty, M.: The Structure of Behavior. Beacon Press, Boston (1942/1963)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Merleau-Ponty, M.: The Primacy of Perception, and Other Essays on Phenomenological Psychology, the Philosophy of Art, History and Politics. Edie. Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL (1964). Edited, with An Introduction by M. JamesGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nechvatal, J.: Immersive Ideals/Critical Distances, vol. 2009. Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrücken (2009)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Norman, D.A.: The Psychology of Everyday Actions: The Design of Everyday Things. Doubleday/Currency, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    O’Regan, J.K., Noë, A.: A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behav. Brain Sci. 24(05), 939–973 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Paine, G.: Towards unified design guidelines for new interfaces for musical expression. Organ. Sound 14(2), 142–155 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rose, F.: The Art of Immersion. WW Norton & Company, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Russell, J.A.: A circumplex model of affect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 39(6), 1161–1178 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schacher, J.C., Bisig, D.: Face to face - performers and algorithms in mutual dependency. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Live-Interfaces ICLI, Brighton, UK, pp. 80–88, June 2016Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Snibbe, S.S., Raffle, H.S.: Social immersive media pursuing best practices for multi-user interactive camera/projector exhibits. In: CHI 2009, New Media Experiences 2. ACM, Boston, 4–9 April 2009Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Thompson, E., Stapleton, M.: Making sense of sense-making: Reflections on enactive and extended mind theories. Topoi 28(1), 23–30 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tomko, M.: Politics, performance, and coleridge’s “suspension of disbelief”. Vic. Stud. 49(2), 241–249 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tsakiris, M., Haggard, P.: Neural, functional, and phenomenological signatures of intentional actions. In: Grammont, F., Legrand, D., Livet, P. (eds.) Naturalizing Intention in Action, pp. 39–64. MIT Press, Cambridge (2010)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Varela, F., Thompson, E., Rosch, E.: The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. MIT Press, Cambridge (1991)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Winthrop-Young, G.: Cultural techniques: preliminary remarks. Theor. Cult. Soc. 30(6), 3–19 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zeltzer, D.: Autonomy, interaction, and presence. Presence Teleoper. Virt. Environ. 1(1), 127–132 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zone, R.: Stereoscopic Cinema and the Origins of 3-D Film, 1838–1952. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Computer Music and Sound TechnologyZurich University of the ArtsZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations