Contents:
Edmonds's recent work in interactive art systems evolved from earlier video constructs, which are abstract computer animations in which a computer program provides the underlying structure that generates the work. The effect is to produce a sequence of images in which the formation of the shapes and the colours change over time. The changes are not random, and some order can be sensed although the actual rules that generate the sequence are not normally fully clear to the viewer. The time-based video constructs have been developed into interactive video constructs.
The artwork can be so constructed as to react to events detected by sensor systems as is done in the Iamascope see above [ 7 ]. A real-time image analysis system is incorporated into the generative program. The performance of the work, i. In a video construct, the program is using a set of rules and, as it searches through different ways of using them, it generates the sequence of images that forms the work. In the earlier systems, the sequence of images was entirely determined by the search strategy used by the program to explore the rules.
In the interactive case, however, the program has available to it a stream of data that is a coded representation of the behaviour of the viewer, and this data modifies the way the search is conducted, thus leading to a sense that the system is reacting to the participant. Because these interactive video constructs are described within the computer by a set of rules, it is possible to add an agent that uses the history of interactions between participants and the work to modify the generative behaviour by changing the rules used, or changing which rules are used.
Through recording and analysing the interactions, the agent learns from experience about human reaction to the artwork. The video construct changes its behaviour in the light of its experience with human participants interacting with the work. At its core, the work is a program, a generative system. Hence, as it learns, it changes the way that it develops rather than simply changing the stimulus-response rules that govern its behaviour. The learning interactive video construct is an art system that evolves in response to the interpretation of participant interaction with the work by a software agent [ 6 ].
Art systems such as those described in this article are increasingly significant in modern technology-based art. Artists are putting considerable effort into the specification and construction of interactive experiences of many types. As well as the interaction between the artworks and human participants, many other kinds of interaction have come to be important. The way in which the artist can interact with computers and digital media in order to specify the works is both complex and varied.
The increasing degree of collaboration between technologists and artists affects the necessary interaction between artist and computer and also adds the dimension of interaction between technologists and artists. The importance of finding the right people to interact with creatively has driven Jack Ox to seek out particular individuals over a wide geographical area.
She acknowledges the fact that the kinds of works she is interested in are expensive to develop and difficult to market. Her participation in conferences, giving talks, writing papers and demonstrating her works is part of an entrepreneurial spirit that seeks to disseminate innovative ideas to international cultural communities and the public at large.
In doing this, Jack Ox is not just promoting art. It is her experience and firm belief that, in the technology and art collaborations that she finds so necessary, the technologist has much to gain and that the artist should positively engage in achieving such benefits as well as progressing her own art practice. All the artists mentioned are concerned with issues of art practice and the changes that digital technology is bringing to their practice. Where the artist cannot find a way to exploit the technology, the reasons are rarely a failure of the usability of the software alone.
As these artists demonstrate, the mapping of artistic goals and intentions to digital methods often requires transformations not only in the technical solutions but also in the artist's thinking [ 4 ]. In general, the challenges inherent in working with digital technology can have an influence in encouraging artists to break with existing conventions and abandon well-established techniques, a development that is a core element of truly innovative practice.
In deciding to use new technology, the artist is not simply changing the medium as in substituting oil paint for computer-based image generation. It is not a case of doing the same kinds of things but using a digital medium, although this is certainly happening. There are many software applications that can make the creation of visual material very easy, for example, but this kind of technology-based art does not represent the front edge of current work.
Where innovative concepts direct the artist to seek out new digital techniques, it often takes considerable time and effort to develop the technology to a level where it can deliver the desired result. Few artists are in a position to achieve this themselves, and this is where collaborative projects involving people from different fields and of varying levels of expertise are required.
Once the artist is engaged in a collaborative art and technology venture, many complex issues come into play, some of which we touch on in the next section. A standard question for designers of interactive computer systems is how to determine if and how the user, rather than the computer, is in control of the interaction.
Sometimes the computer takes control, for example, in a car braking system, but mostly, users want to be in control themselves. When teams of people are involved in the interaction with the technology as, for example, in computer-supported meetings, the nature of the meeting will affect how the system is designed.
For example, if the situation is a democratic one where everyone has an equal say, how can the interaction be mediated? Is there a leader, a moderator or a chair? Artists tend to be very particular about who or what is in control. They will wish to be the author of the creative concept and its progress, if not the actual physical realization of the artefact, where it exists.
In this situation, developing new kinds of digital technology can lead to a problem of control and, hence, ownership. When a software developer collaborating with an artist writes a program for an interactive artwork that only they understand, who controls the artistic decisions then? Some technologies are easier for the artist to control than others. Some artists insist on learning how to stay in control. If they cannot control the process fully, they do not go in that technological direction. Issues of control are closely related to the level of complexity of the computer.
The more things that a computer can do, the more complex its instruction language has to be and the harder it is to control. The harder it is to control, the more has to be learnt in order to master it. This is often the dilemma. A software application may be quite easy to use and quick to learn. It might enable many things to be done beautifully but, almost inevitably, it will impose constraints on the user. Often, it will impose limitations that are unacceptable to the creative mind. Faced with these dilemmas, it is all too easy to conclude that technology should stay as it is and artists should restrict their ambitions in order to accommodate it.
However, for new ideas and art forms to be created, it is more helpful to view the limitations in the current technology as the requirements for new technological initiatives. Taking this line, by opening up the horizons of the software developers, artists might be the driving force behind the development of the next generation of technology. Likewise, by initiating new ideas and carrying them through themselves, artists can become the drivers of innovative digital art forms. We need computing resources and software to enable the kind of guided or playful exploration of possibilities in which artists engage.
Buy Explorations in Art and Technology: Intersections and Correspondence ed. by Linda Candy, Ernest Edmonds (ISBN: ) from Amazon's. The characteristics of art and technology intersection and correspondence have implications for technological requirements and the environments in which new.
But how can we ensure that the artists have access to digital environments that are adaptable to their evolving needs? One solution might be the creation of more software tools that allow the artist access to deeper levels of the computer's programming system, rather than software applications that have been developed for specific tasks such as image manipulation. Our experience suggests that even today, with all the advances in software, the degree of programming and systems expertise is critical to having more artistic control over the development process.
Those artists who had such knowledge were in a position to make more interim decisions during the exploratory process that guided the next course of action. Those artists who depended on a technologist often felt uncertain as to how much control they might have to relinquish to achieve their goals. There is no one solution to designing environments for creative use. Conflicting requirements, such as accessibility and ease of learning on the one hand, and a high degree of control by the artist on the other, may not be mutually achievable. Ways forward combine new technology, new ways of working and new collaborations.
Each artist will chose a personal approach, and the intersection of art and technology will lead along different paths in each case. Nevertheless, it is important to understand as much as possible about what is general in art and technology creative processes and how applicable different technologies are. A fundamental question that we have been considering is, what kind of environments best support the development of digital art?
There is one answer to this question which, although it may sound a little strange, is, nevertheless, appropriate. In art and technology environments, we need environments for building environments. This approach is analogous to having a store which stocks all of the components that one might need in order to build a carpenter's workbench. The store is an environment that has all of the components that one might need, such as vices, bench tops, tool racks, etc.
By selecting from them and assembling the items in our own workroom, we can build a specific environment suitable for our particular carpentry needs. The store provides an environment for building the particular environments that its customers need. This article arises from research and practice in art and technology. To understand the full scope of the work, readers are referred to the forthcoming book, Explorations in Art and Technology [ 4 ]. Recent experiences of twenty-five artists, technologists and researchers who are working at the intersection between art and technology in collaborative projects are described.
From this, we furthered our understanding of the nature of interaction between people and computers. There is another benefit, however. The process of being involved in research about their practice has proved both interesting and advantageous to many of the artists involved. Learning about digital technology was clearly important to the artists involved in these studies, but, in addition, learning about their own art practice from the reflections that the research induced may have been equally or even more important.
It is also very important that these reflections are part of a research activity that both documents the process and disseminates the outcomes. In this way, what has been learnt is shared with the world and all can benefit from the work. This sharing also encourages consideration and feedback by others.
The research is leading to a social development process and so to an acceleration of the learning. Further details can be obtained at www. She has a first degree in English and French, a masters degree in computer-aided learning and a doctorate in Computer Science from Loughborough University. Artists and Technologists in Collaboration. Her main research areas are creativity, interaction design and usability evaluation She has conducted studies of creative people including the designer of the Lotus bicycle and has published widely.
She is a member of a number of international conference programme committees and has carried out a number of projects in collaboration with industry. She is co-chair of the international symposia on Creativity and Cognition and Strategic Knowledge and Concept Formation. For further details see: Ernest Edmonds is an artist and a computer scientist. He has been using computers in art since His work has concentrated on logic-based generative digital videos, known as video constructs.
Recently he has been making interactive, participative work and investigating correspondences between visual art and music through the use of computers. His research in Human-Computer Interaction and creativity has led to more than publications. In the area of creativity, he first published on the implications of computers for art practice in He is co-chair of the Creativity and Cognition conference series.
Interactive Art The media used in digital art apply to many art forms, including painting, performance, film and participation. Categories of Interaction in Art Turning to the specific context of art and interactive digital technology, we can envisage several situations that characterize the relationship between the artwork, artist, viewer and environment.
We can now elaborate on those descriptions and bring them up-to-date as follows: Static The art object does not change and is viewed by a person. There is no interaction between the two that can be observed by someone else, although the viewer may be experiencing personal psychological or emotional reactions. The artwork itself does not respond to its context. This is familiar ground in art galleries and museums where art consumers look at a painting or print, listen to tape recordings and talk to one another about the art on the walls and, generally speaking, obey the command not to touch.
Dynamic-Passive The art object has an internal mechanism that enables it to change or it may be modified by an environmental factor such as temperature, sound or light. The internal mechanism is specified by the artist and any changes that take place are entirely predictable. Sculptures, such as George Rickey's kinetic pieces that move according to internal mechanisms and also in response to atmospheric changes in the environment fall into this category [ 15 ].
The viewer is a passive observer of this activity performed by the artwork in response to the physical environment. For example, by walking over a mat that contains sensors attached to lights operating in variable sequences, the viewer becomes a participant that influences the process of the work. Motion and sound capture techniques can be used to incorporate human activity into the way visual images and sounds are presented.
There may be more than one participant and more than one art object. An example of this work is the Iamascope Figure 1 , a work which includes a camera looking at the viewers and is connected to a controlling computer. The work reacts to human movement in front of it by changing a kaleidoscope-like image and making music at the same time in direct response to the viewer's movements [ 7 ]. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies. Available soon, pre-order now. When will my order arrive? Home Contact Us Help Free delivery worldwide. Explorations in Art and Technology.
The Studios were created to bring together the visions and expertise of people working at the boundaries of art and digital media.
The book explores the nature of intersection and correspondence across these disciplinary boundaries, practices and conceptual frameworks through artists' illustrated contributions and studies of work in progress. These experiences are placed within the context of recent digital art history and the innovations of early pioneers. Creative Selection Ken Kocienda. Visualize This Nathan Yau.
Lean UX, 2e Josh Seiden. User Research Emma Howell. UX Research David Farkas. Escaping the Build Trap Melissa Perri. About Face David Cronin. Redux in Action Will Faurot. Design Thinking Jeff Gothelf. Designing for Behavior Change Stephen Wendel. Measuring the User Experience Thomas Tullis.
Information Architecture, 4e Peter Morville. Mapping Experiences James Kalbach. Product Leadership Richard Banfield. UX Strategy Jaime Levy. Designing with the Mind in Mind Jeff Johnson.
Agile Web Development with Rails 5. The Metainterface Soren Bro Pold. The Workbook Nicolai Marquardt. User-Centered Design Travis Lowdermilk. Interaction Design Yvonne Rogers.
Augmented Human Helen Papagiannis. Global UX Daniel Szuc. Fundamentals of Game Design Ernest Adams. Design for Emotion Trevor van Gorp.