Study of Arduino for Creative and Interactive Artwork Installations

An Open Source Software Knowledge for Creativeness
  • Murtaza Hussain Shaikh
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 281)


The Arts and Software are often thought as two parallel fields but with the growth of the information technology, the gap between these two fields is rather decreasing. The present existing majority of the tools are focused for the commercial business settings such as software development but the scope of the field can be increased to the other fields such as education and serving people in different fields such as Artists. The Artists are in search of open source software tools which can enhance their creative ability and at the same time want to collaborate with others to increase their knowledge on the tool. The creativity is difficult to measure as we have to consider the way the tool is enhancing the creative knowledge of the user using the tool. The creativity can also be based upon understanding the relations between different phenomena governing the tool such as Artist, Artwork, Visitor and Software. The ArTe conceptual model is based upon these principles, so the tools are evaluated based upon the ArTe conceptual model.


Arduino Artist Artwork Creativity Collaboration Conceptual Framework Interactivity Evaluation Technology 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M.: Creativity: Flow and Psychology of invention. HarperCollins, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boden, M.A.: The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Edmonds, E.A., Weakleya, A., Knott, R., Paulettod, S.: The studio as laboratory: Combining creative practice and digital technology research. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 63, 452–481 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Willis, K.D.D.: User authorship and creativity within interactivity. In: Proeedings of the 14th Annual ACM International Conference on Multimedia (MULTIMEDIA 2006), pp. 731–735. ACM, New York (2006), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giunchiglia, E., Maratea, M., Tacchella, A., Zambonin, D.: Evaluating Search Heuristics and Optimization Techniques in Propositional Satisfiability. In: Goré, R.P., Leitsch, A., Nipkow, T. (eds.) IJCAR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2083, pp. 347–363. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berezin, S., Campos, S., Clarke, E.M.: Compositional reasoning in model checking. In: de Roever, W.-P., Langmaack, H., Pnueli, A. (eds.) COMPOS 1997. LNCS, vol. 1536, pp. 81–102. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ahmed, S.U., Jaccheri, L.: SM’kadmi- Arts and Technology: Sonic Onyx: Case Study of an Interactive Artwork. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Letizia, J.: ArTe conceptual framework, Art and Technology, (last accessed on October 23, 2010)
  9. 9.
    Electronic Publication: Indtech Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Offshore Development , (last accessed on November 26, 2010)
  10. 10.
    Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Giunchiglia, F., Roveri, M.: NUSMV: a new symbolic model checker. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT) 2(4) (March 2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Farooq, U., Carroll, J.M.: Supporting creativity in distributed scientific communities. In: Proceedings of the 2005 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP 2005), pp. 217–226. ACM, New York (2005), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Audemard, G., Bertoli, P.G., Cimatti, A., Kornilowicz, A., Sebastiani, R.: A SAT Based Approach for Solving Formulas over Boolean and Linear Mathematical Propositions. In: Voronkov, A. (ed.) CADE 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2392, pp. 195–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ernest Brants, T.: Tnt - a statistical part- of-speech tagger. In: Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, ANLP. ACL (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Terry, M.: Open Source as a Test Bed for Evaluating Creativity Support Tools. In: Proceedings of the NSF Creative IT workshop at Arizona State University, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weill, P.: MIT Center for Information Systems Research. In: Director, as Presented at the Sixth e-Business Conference, Barcelona, Spain (March 27, 2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Giachetti, R.E.: Design of Enterprise Systems, Theory, Architecture, and Methods. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Resnick, M.: Sowing the Seeds for a More Creative Society. In: Learning and Leading with Technology. International Society for Technology in Education, Norway (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Borälv, A.: A Fully Automated Approach for Proving Safety Properties in Interlocking Software Using Automatic Theorem-Proving. In: Gnesi, S., Latella, D. (eds.) Proc. of the Second International ERCIM FMICS, Pisa, Italy (July 2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ranjan, R.K., Aziz, A., Plessier, B., Pixley, C., Brayton, R.K.: Efficient BDD algorithms for FSM synthesis and verification. In: Proc. IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Logic Synthesis, Lake Tahoe, NV (May 1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Murtaza Hussain Shaikh
    • 1
  1. 1.Norwegian University of Science & Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations