Robots and Art pp 149-175 | Cite as

Cultivating the Uncanny: The Telegarden and Other Oddities

Chapter
Part of the Cognitive Science and Technology book series (CSAT)

Abstract

The concept of the Uncanny has attracted the attention of art critics and scholars for over a century. Freud’s 1919 essay The Uncanny considers objects and other phenomena that evoke a powerful psychological response of fear and fascination. Freud links the human experience of the Uncanny—essentially an awareness of awareness—to repressed fears and desires. The Uncanny Valley—a related but distinct concept—was proposed by Masahiro Mori in 1970 concerning the design of robots and prosthetics. This chapter explores the Freudian and Morian concepts of the Uncanny and their influence on artists working with robots. We identify two categories: the representational uncanny is triggered by objects that look lifelike, and the experiential uncanny is triggered by non-anthropomorphic phenomena that behave in ways that signal awareness. We focus on the latter in our examination of three artworks—The Telegarden (1995), Six Robots Named Paul (2012), and The Blind Robot (2013)—which create a heightened atmosphere of awareness and challenge assumptions about authenticity and agency.

References

  1. 1.
    Bloom H (1982) Freud and the sublime: a catastrophe theory of creativity. In: Ellman M (ed) Psychoanalytic literary criticism. Longman Publishing, New York, pp 173–195Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bown O (2013) The machine as autonomous performer. In: Candy L, Ferguson S (eds) Interactive experience in the digital age. Springer, New York, pp 75–90Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burnham J (1968) Beyond modern sculpture. Penguin Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castle T (1995) The female thermometer: eighteenth-century culture and the invention of the uncanny. Oxford University Press, CaryGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cixous H (1976) Fiction and its phantoms: a reading of Freud’s Das Unheimliche. New Literary History 7(3): 525–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cohen J (1966) Human robots in myth and science. George Allen & Unwin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fischer-Lichte E (2008) The transformative power of performance: a new aesthetics. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Foster H (1993) Compulsive beauty. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Freud, S (1925) The uncanny. (trans Strachey J) In: The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud. Hogarth, London, pp 217–252Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldberg K (2001) The unique phenomenon of a distance. In: Goldberg K (ed) Robot in the garden. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 2–20Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldberg R (2011) Performance art: from futurism to the present. Thames and Hudson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hagner M (1995) Enlightened Monsters. In: Clark W, Golinski J, Schaffer S (eds) The sciences in enlightened Europe. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 175–217Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haughton H (2003) Introduction. In: Haughton H (ed) The uncanny, pp vii–lx. Penguin Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    ICRA (2013) Art and robotics: Freud’s Unheimlich and the uncanny valley. http://uncannyvalley_icra2013.sssup.it. Accessed 28 June 2014Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jentsch E (2008) On the psychology of the uncanny (trans: Sellars R). In: Collins J, Jervis J (eds) Uncanny modernities. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp 216–228Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jochum E (2013) Deus Ex Machina: towards an aesthetic of autonomous and semi-autonomous machines. Dissertation, University of ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kageki N (2012) An uncanny mind. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 19(1):106–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kang M (2011) Sublime dreams of living machines. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kusahara M (2001) Presence, absence, and knowledge in telerobotic art. In: Goldberg K (ed) Robot in the garden. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 198–212Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mascha M, Gentner S, Rothenberg N, Sutter C, Wiegley J (1995) Desktop teleoperation via the world wide web. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, May 1995Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mori M (1970/2012) The uncanny valley (trans: MacDorman K, Kageki N). IEEE Robot Autom Mag 19(1):98–100Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Onians J (1994) A short history of amazement. In: Onians J (ed) Sight and insight. Phaidon, London, pp 11–33Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Packer R (2003) The Pepsi pavilion: laboratory for social experimentation. In: Shaw J, Weibel P (eds) Future cinema. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Potts A (1994) Dolls and things: the reification and disintegration of sculpture in Rodin and Rilke. In: Sight and insight. Phaidon, London, pp 355–378Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reichardt J (1978) Robots: fact, fiction, and prediction. Penguin Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schaffer S (1999) Enlightened Automata. In: Clark W, Golinski J, Schaffer S (eds) The sciences in enlightened Europe. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 126–165Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shklovsky V (1965) Art as technique. In: Lemon L, Reis M (eds) Russian formalist criticism. University of Nebraska Press, LincolnGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tresset P, Leymarie F (2013) Portrait drawing by Paul the robot. Comput Graphics 37(5):348–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Weber S (2000) The sideshow: or, remarks on a canny moment. The legend of Freud. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 207–235Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wood G (2002) Edison’s eve. Random house, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication and PsychologyAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark
  2. 2.CITRIS “People and Robots” Initiative, IEOR and EECS, College of Engineering, Art Practice, and School of InformationUC BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations