Robots and Art pp 177-189

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

The Potential of Otherness in Robotic Art

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter compares and contrasts the creation of humanoid robots with that of non-humanoid robots, identifying assumptions about communication that underlie the designs and employing a range of communication theories to analyse people’s interactions with the robots. While robots created in science and technology laboratories to communicate with humans are most often at least somewhat humanlike in form, those created as part of interactive art installations take a variety of forms. The creation of humanoid robots can be linked with ideas about communication that valorise commonality above all else, whereas robotic artworks illustrate the potential of otherness in interactions between humans and non-humanoid robots.

References

  1. 1.
    Blanchot M (1993) The infinite conversation. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Breazeal CL (2002) Regulation and entrainment in human-robot interaction. Int J Exp Robot 21:883–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Breazeal CL, Edsinger A, Fitzpatrick P, Scassellati B (2001) Active vision systems for sociable robots. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A 31:443–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Breazeal CL, Hoffman G, Lockerd A (2004) Teaching and working with robots as a collaboration. In: Proceedings of the third international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems. pp 1030–1037Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carey J (1992) Communication as culture: essays on media and society. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Centre for Social Robotics (n.d.) The fish-bird project. http://www.csr.acfr.usyd.edu.au/projects/Fish-Bird/index.htm. Accessed 1 Aug 2014
  7. 7.
    Clark D (1997) On being “the last Kantian in Nazi Germany”: dwelling with animals after Levinas. In: Ham J, Senior M (eds) Animal acts: configuring the humans in western history. Routledge, New York, pp 165–198Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Craig RT (1999) Communication theory as a field. Commun Theory 9:119–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dautenhahn K (2013) Human-Robot Interaction. In: Soegaard M, Dam RF (eds) The encyclopedia of human-computer interaction, 2nd edn. The Interaction Design Foundation, AarhusGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Demers L-P (2009) Area V5. In: Process. Plant. http://www.processing-plant.com/web_csi/index.html#project=areav5. Accessed 1 Aug 2014
  11. 11.
    Derrida J (2002) The animal that therefore I am (more to follow). Crit Inquiry 28:369–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fogel A (1993) Developing through relationships: origins of communication, self, and culture. Harvester Wheatsheaf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fogel A (2006) Dynamic systems research on interindividual communication: the transformation of meaning-making. J Dev Process 1:7–30Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Freud S (2004) The Uncanny (1919). In: Sandner D (ed) Fantastic literature: a critical reader. Praeger, Westport Conn., pp 74–101Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gunkel DJ (2012) The machine question: critical perspectives on AI, robots, and ethics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hanson D (2006) Exploring the aesthetic range for humanoid robots. Towards Social mechanisms of android science, Vancouver, pp 39–42Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hanson Robotics Website (n.d.) http://hanson.robotics.com/. Accessed 18 Oct 2008 (no longer available)
  18. 18.
    Haraway D (2006) Encounters with companion species: entangling dogs, baboons, philosophers, and biologists. Configurations 14:97–114. doi:10.1353/con.0.0002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Levinas E (1969) Totality and infinity. Duquesne University Press, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Levinas E (1985) Ethics and infinity, 1st edn. Duquesne University Press, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Levinas E (1990) Difficult freedom. The Athlone Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Matsumoto N, Fujii H, Okada M (2006) Minimal design for human–agent communication. Artif Life Robot 10:49–54. doi:10.1007/s10015-005-0377-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Menzel P, D’Aluiso F (2000) Robo sapiens: evolution of a new species. MIT Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mori M (1970) The uncanny valley. Energy 7:33–35Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Penny S (2000) Agents as artworks and agent design as artistic practice. In: Dautenhahn K (ed) Human cognition and social agent technology. John Benjamins, Amsterdam; [Great Britain], pp 395–413Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Penny S (1997) Embodied cultural agents: at the intersection of robotics, cognitive science, and interactive art. AAAI Technical Report FS-97-02. AAAIGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Penny S (2011) Petit Mal video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_kMOMYq0MU. Accessed 1 August 2014
  28. 28.
    Peters JD (1999) Speaking into the air: a history of the idea of communication. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pinchevski A (2005) By way of interruption: Levinas and the ethics of communication. Dusquene University Press, Pittsburgh, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Poyatos F (1997) The reality of multichannel verbal-nonverbal communication in simultaneous and consecutive interpretation. In: Poyatos F (ed) Nonverbal communication and translation: new perspectives and challenges in literature, interpretation and the media. J. Benjamins, Philadelphia, pp 249–282Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rinaldo K (n.d.) Artist statement. http://kenrinaldo.com/frame_about.html. Accessed 1 Aug 2014
  32. 32.
    Sandry E (2015) Robots and communication. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Science Gallery (2011) Human + area V Louis-Philippe Demers video. Dublin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKqhgsromfc. Accessed 1 Aug 2014
  34. 34.
    Steeves HP (2005) Lost dog, or, Levinas faces the animal. Figuring animals: essays on animal images in art, literature, philosophy, and popular culture. Palgrave Macmillan, New York pp 21–35Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Velonaki M, Rye D (2010) Human-robot interaction in a media art environment. Workshop: What do collaborations with the arts have to say about HRI? Osaka. http://hri.willowgarage.com/workshops/HRI2010/downloads/Velonaki.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2010
  36. 36.
    Velonaki M, Scheding S, Rye D, Durrant-Whyte H (2008) Shared spaces: media art, computing, and robotics. Comput Entertain 6:1. doi:10.1145/1461999.1462003 Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    White N (n.d.) Norman T. White: a short autobiography and credo. http://www.normill.ca/ntwbio97.html. Accessed 1 Aug 2014

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Internet Studies, School of Media, Culture and Creative ArtsCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations