Evoking gesture in interactive art

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we describe an interactive artwork that uses large body gestures as its primary interactive mode. The artist intends the work to provoke active reflection in the audience by way of gesture and content. The technology is not the focus, rather the aim is to provoke memory, to elicit feelings of connective human experiences in a required-to-participate audience. We find the work provokes a diverse and contradictory set of responses. The methods used to understand this include qualitative methods common to evaluating interactive art works, as well as in-depth discussions with the artist herself. This paper is relevant to the Human--Centered Computing track because in all stages of the design of the work--as well as the evaluation--the focus is on the human aspect; the computing is designed to enable all-too-human responses.

REFERENCES

• 1: Barthes, R., 1977, Image-Music-Text. Noonday, New York.
• 2: Berleant, A., 1991, Art and engagement. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.
• 3: Rudolph P. Darken , John L. Sibert, Wayfinding strategies and behaviors in large virtual worlds, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: common ground, p.142-149, April 13-18, 1996, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [doi>10.1145/238386.238459]
• 4: Flemmert Jensen, A., 2002. Time for Playful Learning? -- A cross-cultural study of parental values and attitudes towards children's time for play, Lego learning institute, Denmark.
• 5: William Gaver, Cultural commentators: Non-native interpretations as resources for polyphonic assessment, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, v.65 n.4, p.292-305, April, 2007 [doi>10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.11.014]
• 6: Bill Gaver , Tony Dunne , Elena Pacenti, Design: Cultural probes, interactions, v.6 n.1, p.21-29, Jan./Feb. 1999 [doi>10.1145/291224.291235]
• 7: William Gaver , Phoebe Sengers , Tobie Kerridge , Joseph Kaye , John Bowers, Enhancing ubiquitous computing with user interpretation: field testing the home health horoscope, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, April 28-May 03, 2007, San Jose, California, USA [doi>10.1145/1240624.1240711]
• 8: Hanna Haaslahti , Seppo Heikkilä, Space of two categories, interactive installation with shadow projection, Proceedings of the 15th international conference on Multimedia, September 25-29, 2007, Augsburg, Germany [doi>10.1145/1291233.1291319]
• 9: Eva Hornecker , Matthias Stifter, Learning from interactive museum installations about interaction design for public settings, Proceedings of the 18th Australia conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Design: Activities, Artefacts and Environments, November 20-24, 2006, Sydney, Australia [doi>10.1145/1228175.1228201]
• 10: John Hughes , Val King , Tom Rodden , Hans Andersen, Moving out from the control room: ethnography in system design, Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, p.429-439, October 22-26, 1994, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States [doi>10.1145/192844.193065]
• 11: Jordan, B., 1996. Ethnographic workplace studies and computer supported cooperative work. in Shapiro, D., Tauber, M.J. and Traunmuller, R. eds. The Design of Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Groupware Systems, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 17--42.
• 12: Joseph 'Jofish' Kaye, Evaluating experience-focused HCI, CHI '07 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, April 28-May 03, 2007, San Jose, CA, USA [doi>10.1145/1240866.1240877]
• 13: Levinas, E., 2005. Meaning and sense. in Cahoone, L. E. ed. From Modernism to Postmodernism: An Anthology, Blackwell, London, 521--539.
• 14: Milgram, P. and Kishino, F., 1994, A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information Systems, E77-D (12). 1321--1329.
• 15: Ann J. Morrison , Peta Mitchell , Margot Brereton, The lens of ludic engagement: evaluating participation in interactive art installations, Proceedings of the 15th international conference on Multimedia, September 25-29, 2007, Augsburg, Germany [doi>10.1145/1291233.1291358]
• 16: Norman, D., 2004, Emotional Design: Why we love (or Hate) Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York.
• 17: Seitz, J. A., 2000, The bodily basis of thought. New Ideas in Psychology: An International Journal of Innovative Theory in Psychology, 18 (1). 23--40.
• 18: Phoebe Sengers , Bill Gaver, Staying open to interpretation: engaging multiple meanings in design and evaluation, Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems, June 26-28, 2006, University Park, PA, USA [doi>10.1145/1142405.1142422]
• 19: Sha, X. W., 2002, Resistance is futile: gesture and agency in the field of responsive media. Configurations, 10 (3). 439--472.
• 20: Sontag, S., 1990. Spiritual style in the films of Robert Bresson. in Against Interpretation, Doubleday, Toronto, 177--195.
• 21: van Beers, R. J., Wolpert, D. M. and Haggard, P., 2002, When feeling is more important than seeing in sensorimotor adaptation. Current Biology, 12 (10). 834--83

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  J. Computer Applications
  J.5 ARTS AND HUMANITIES
      Subjects: Arts, fine and performing**

General Terms:
Design, Experimentation, Human Factors, Performance

Keywords:
art installation, artist perspective, bodily gesture, childhood, evaluation, gesture, interaction, interaction design, ludic engagement, memory