by Carol Bales
In this paper we will discuss artists who have created interfaces through which new interactions are possible. We will discuss artifacts that cause a conceptual shift in the viewer and interactions designed to explore the affordances of new technology. We will discuss interfaces that facilitate novel interactions with information and with the world around us. In the diagram below, interactions between the artist, the participant/viewer and the art works are identified.
Artifacts designed to cause a conceptual shift in the viewer
Previously in this course we explored participatory art and conceptual art, the object of which is to create a conceptual shift in the viewer. John Cage’s Variations Vis an example of the recontextualization of an art experience [1] . Creation of a space where an art piece should be but isn’t. Audience members, expecting a musical performance then shift their focus to the moment at hand and intentionally or not, create an art experience by their actions. While we can argue that all art is designed to create a conceptual shift in the viewer, digital artifacts are uniquely suited to create certain kinds of shifts, bring about certain kinds of experiences because of the fact, as Marshall McLuhan states, “the medium is the message.” Certain art works compel us to appreciate how much we experience the world through constructed images and encapsulated information and challenge the believability of the image.
While artists using technology to create digital images in the 1980s and 1990s were working in a traditional sense to create an image for a viewer, these artifacts have some unique characteristics. Digitally created images differ from photographs because there is no original artifact such as a film negative or a video tape. A film or video artifact is a tangible object in the world created by a person or persons, existing in someone’s possession. Digitally created images however, exist only in digital form. There is no original artifact to point to. Challenging notions of location and ownership, digital images can be copied and dispersed with no degradation, and one digital version is exactly like another [2].
Lillian Schwartz’s Mona/Leo and Ken Gonzales-Day’s Untitled #36 reference the fact that much interaction with art takes place by viewing photographs of a work of art rather than direct viewing of the original. By juxtaposing other images onto photographs of original art works, they draw new comparisons and recontextualize the original art works. Advertising also is largely experienced through photographic imagery. Artists KIDing®, Annu Palakunnathu and Barbara Kruger use the form of advertising, but with subtly different content and subject matter to draw attention to the conventions of, the power of and the motivations behind advertising [2] (p 35). Paul Smith thwarts the conventions of dramatic cinematography by inserting multiple images of himself into highly staged, filmic images.
Artists who use technology to create an interface to data
The digital information revolution has generated massive amounts of data and new opportunities to interact with that data. While some artists address the complexity of data representation, others provide filters for the simplification of data, exposing facts that we might otherwise miss. Still others explore highly complex, multivariate data, creating visualizations meant to bring about new insights. Artists Andreas Müller-Pohle and Jochem Henricks create graphically interesting visualizations that represent a high degree of complexity. In Digital Scores III, Andreas Müller -Pohle scanned in a photograph, then translated the file into an encoded form, then displayed that coded form visually. While the image represented in the original photograph is not in any way recognizable, it is in fact encapsulated by – residing within the abstracted encoded representation [2] (p 48). In Blind Genes (2002), Müller -Pohle again creates a complex translation of information into a crisp visualization. Müller -Pohle searched a genetic database for gene sequences related to blindness then color coded and translated into Braille. His images represent an almost ridiculous amount of complexity and translation of information from one form to another. It is this complexity that challenges the viewer to recognize the complexity of the images and information that we absorb without question. Jochem Henricks also creates novel visualizations – images that look like drawings or graphic designs and belie a complex origin. In Blinzeln (1992) and Fernsehen (1992), he uses eye tracking software to capture a map of his visual encounter with the world. These representations capture mechanized events – events that could not be possible without technology.
The field of data visualization has provided some unique affordances for artists and social activists. In Josh On’s They Rule (2001), Internet users see visual depictions of extremely close connections between the small number of people who wield tremendous power through corporate, governmental and institutional influence [2] (p 206). In a stellar example of bringing messages of social change to mass audiences, the fact that the visualization tool exists live on the Internet allows anyone with Internet access to interact with this data. Benjamin Fry’s Valence (1999) uses algorithms to translate traditional texts into data visualizations, providing the opportunity to draw new connections, make new interpretations. Fry made the interesting choice of addressing traditional textual works by Mark Twain and Goethe, effectively bringing these works forward, re-contextualized and re-examined with 21st century tools and a 21st century perspective. Again, these visualizations and therefore these insights could not be created without these particular technologies [2] (p 177). The C.R.E.A.T.E. lab’s Allosphere represents a further step in data visualization in an immersive environment.[3] Scientists and artists collaborate to create complex visualizations and sound compositions that combine scientific research and aesthetic composition, for example, interactions with a hydrogen atom. Art group I/O/D’s WebStalker and Wisniewski’s netomat™ provide alternative interfaces between users and information accessed via the Internet. The reinterpretation and restructuring of information that we normally see through traditional browsers brings into focus the ubiquity of browsers as heavily standardizing interfaces.
Artists who create interactions to explore what is now possible with technology
The natural world is represented in Joseph Scheer’s high resolution scans of moths show us magnificent detail that would not otherwise be possible by viewing with the human eye [2] (p 43). In Natalie Jeremijenko’s more interactive, and more thought provoking piece OneTrees (2000), cloned trees were exhibited in an arts center then planted in public sites in San Francisco. Art works that represent genetic manipulation are potentially highly controversial, but this is an example of the imperative of artists to collaborate with scientists so that the ethics and ramifications of scientific advancements can be communicated, processed an understood outside of the scientific community.
Technological augmentation of the human body for interaction with the world is another area of exploration for artists. In Stelarc’s Exoskeleton (1999), the artist stands within a highly complex construction and fits his hand inside a robot “glove,” controlling the movement of the construction with hand gestures. This piece represents an exploration of interaction with the world through robotic augmentation in concrete form of complexity not seen before. While robot augmentation of the human form has been seen in science fiction literature and movies for some time, a realized version used in an art context is somehow inspiring to the imagination in a way that Dr. Octo’s robot arms in the Spiderman comics is not.
Considerable effort is underway in the research of artificial intelligence. In Kenneth Feingold’s Sinking Feeling (2001), a realistic head “planted” in a flower pot uses speech recognition software to “listen” to visitors and respond by projecting their words on the wall behind him. In David Rokeby’s Giver of Names, a computer system analyzes objects placed upon a pedestal by conducting image processing. The processes of analysis are represented in words projected on the wall, again, exposing the machine intelligence within the computer system. As the computer “grapples” with the task of analysis, it exposes processes of sense-making that mirror the processes of the human brain. Interactive storytelling represents some of the most intriguing and potentially accessible art forms discussed here. Here, technology is used to assemble immersive storylines in which viewer/participants are both story builders and active participants in the story within a mixed reality environment. In Michael Naimark’s Be Here Now (1995-1997), the “viewer” dons 3D glasses to interact with stories projected on a wall. In Toni Dov’s Artificial Changelings and Spectropia (1999-2002), viewer/participants use multiple mechanisms to interact with a narrative within a scripted space. Signaling a transition away from filmmaking for passive audiences, filmmakers such as Peter Greenaway have moved away from traditional cinematographic storytelling into interactive digital media as a preferred art form, declaring the “cinema is dead.”[4]
The art works discussed here are excellent examples of the value
in having artists explore and experiment with scientific advancements. While scientists are good at envisioning useful
purposes for technology or technological solutions to real-world problems,
artists are good at using technology for unusual purposes and putting
technology into environments where it can be interacted with by the general
public. This interaction in unusual circumstances
can provide meaningful feedback for the general public as well as scientists, technologists,
philosophers, theorists and other artists.
1. Packer, R. and K. Jordan, Multimedia : from Wagner to virtual reality. 1st ed. 2001, New York: Norton. xxi, 394 p.
2. Paul, C., Digital art. World of art. 2003, London ; New York, N.Y.: Thames & Hudson. 224 p.
Comments