The intangible material of interactive art: agency, behavior and emergence* NODE: "ART MATTERS II"

This paper presents a conceptual analysis of some of the basic notions for the practice of interactive art and the relations among them. A sound understanding of these notions is essential for the creation of the aesthetics of artistically behaving systems. Interactivity, agency, behavior and emergence are presented as the building blocks of this practice, understanding that they are at least as important as the materials that physically instantiate the pieces and installations that constitute the body of interactive art. Interactivity is defined and confronted to the metaphor of the conversation and to the idea of designing interactive systems with artistic purposes. The notions of agency, behavior and performativity are reviewed through the reading of Andrew Pickering’s account for the ontology of Cybernetics and in relation to interactive art practices. Finally, the concept of emergence and Peter Cariani’s emergence-relative-to-a-model are presented as a theoretical framework with which the analysis and creation of unexpected and non pre-designed behaviors in interactive systems can be based.

[1]  Sally J. McMillan,et al.  Defining Interactivity , 2000, New Media Soc..

[2]  K. M. Lee,et al.  Narrative and interactivity in computer games , 2006 .

[3]  René Weber,et al.  Measuring Interactivity in Video Games , 2014 .

[4]  S. Shyam Sundar,et al.  Theorizing Interactivity's Effects , 2004, Inf. Soc..

[5]  G. Wu,et al.  Perceived Interactivity and Attitude toward Web Sites, In Proceedings of the Conference of the American Academy of Advertising: . , 1999 .

[6]  Hugh Dubberly,et al.  ON MODELINGWhat is conversation, and how can we design for it? , 2009, INTR.

[7]  Peter A. Cariani.  The Semiotics of Cybernetic Percept-Action Systems , 2011, Int. J. Signs Semiot. Syst..

[8]  S. Penny.  15. Agents as Artworks and Agent Design as Artistic Practice , 2000 .

[9]  Mark A. Bedau,et al.  Downward Causation and Autonomy in Weak Emergence , 2008 .

[10]  Oliver Quiring,et al.  What Interactivity Means to the User Essential Insights into and a Scale for Perceived Interactivity , 2008, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[11]  Hugh Dubberly,et al.  ON MODELINGWhat is interaction?: are there different types? , 2009, INTR.

[12]  SG Penny,et al.  Towards a performative aesthetics of interactivity , 2011 .

[13]  Ruairi Glynn.  Conversational Environments Revisited , 2008 .

[14]  Joshua Noble.  Programming Interactivity - A Designer's Guide to Processing, Arduino, and openFrameworks , 2009 .

[15]  W. Ashby,et al.  An Introduction to Cybernetics , 1957 .

[16]  Chris Crawford,et al.  Chris Crawford on Game Design , 2003 .

[17]  Chris Langton,et al.  Artificial Life , 2017, Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and Data Mining.

[18]  L. Steels.  The Artificial Life Roots of Artificial Intelligence , 1993, Artificial Life.

[19]  Peter Cariani,et al.  To evolve an ear: epistemological implications of Gordon Pask's electrochemical devices , 2007 .

[20]  A. Pickering.  Cybernetics and the Mangle , 2002 .

[21]  John H. Holland,et al.  Emergence. , 1997, Philosophica.

[22]  Owen Holland.  The first biologically inspired robots , 2003, Robotica.

[23]  Fay Sudweeks,et al.  Networked Interactivity , 1997, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[24]  Viktor Mikhaĭlovich Glushkov,et al.  An Introduction to Cybernetics , 1957, The Mathematical Gazette.

[25]  Simon Penny,et al.  Robotics and Art, Computationalism and Embodiment , 2016, Robophilosophy/TRANSOR.

[26]  Hugh Dubberly,et al.  What is interaction ? Are there different types ? , 2014 .

[27]  Norbert Wiener,et al.  The human use of human beings - cybernetics and society , 1988 .

[28]  Andrew Pickering.  Ontological Theatre Gordon Pask, Cybernetics, and the Arts , 2007, Cybern. Hum. Knowing.

[29]  Jerome T. Durlak,et al.  A Typology for Interactive Med , 1987 .

[30]  G. Pask.  Conversation, cognition and learning: A cybernetic theory and methodology , 1975 .

[31]  Paul Pangaro.  How Can I Put That? Applying Cybernetics to "Conversational Media" , 2010, Cybern. Hum. Knowing.

[32]  Myron W. Krueger,et al.  Artificial reality II , 1991 .

[33]  Oliver Quiring,et al.  What do users associate with ‘interactivity’? , 2009, New Media Soc..

[34]  Peter Mechant,et al.  An illustrated framework for the analysis of Web2.0 interactivity , 2012 .

[35]  Gordon Pask,et al.  Heinz von Foerster's self organization, the progenitor of conversation and interaction theories , 1996 .

[36]  Peter A. Cariani,et al.  Strategies for creating new informational primitives in minds and machines , 2009, Computational Creativity: An Interdisciplinary Approach.

[37]  Simon Penny,et al.  Self-organization and novelty: Pre-configurations of emergence in early British cybernetics , 2014, 2014 IEEE Conference on Norbert Wiener in the 21st Century (21CW).

[38]  Jens F. Jensen,et al.  Interactivity: Tracking a New Concept in Media and Communication Studies , 1998 .

[40]  W. Walter.  An Imitation of Life , 1950 .

[41]  Andrew Pickering,et al.  The mangle of practice : time, agency, and science , 1997 .

[42]  T. F. Rodger.  The Human Use of Human Beings , 1952 .

[43]  Andrew Pickering,et al.  The Cybernetic Brain: Sketches of Another Future , 2010 .

[44]  Yuping Liu,et al.  What is Interactivity and is it Always Such a Good Thing? Implications of Definition, Person, and Situation for the Influence of Interactivity on Advertising Effectiveness , 2002 .

[45]  B. Latour.  We Have Never Been Modern , 1991 .

[46]  Ronald M. Baecker,et al.  Readings in human-computer interaction : a multidisciplinary approach , 1988 .

[48]  Spiro Kiousis,et al.  Interactivity: a concept explication , 2002, New Media Soc..

[49]  John E. Newhagen,et al.  Interactivity, Dynamic Symbol Processing, and the Emergence of Content in Human Communication , 2004, Inf. Soc..

[50]  G. Pask.  Conversation, Cognition and Learning , 1975 .