CTIN 534

Rokeby Notes:

intro;
"what is returned in ourselves, transformed and processed"

context:
what is the role of improvisation in interactive artwork...? and how interactive is Cage's stuff?

art:
chance is replaced by the spectator, the interactive artist "holds up the mirror"
--> standard feedback system

narative structures:
Sequence is crucial to the user formation of their experience...
"constraints provide a frame of reference, a context, within which interaction can be perceived."
freedom = "a representation of a freedom, a symbol is freedom"
paradox --> interactive works can take over user's subjectivity, interferring with the important process of reflection-->"subjectivity has been replaced by a system of subjectivity"

Invention of media:
"presenting a limited range of possibilities reduces the liklihood that the interactor will run up against a creative block, and allows the medium to guide the inexperienced hand of the interactor" --> reminds me of the discussion we were having about apple's garageband...

transforming mirrors:
key quote: "the interactive artist must strike a balance between the interactor's sense of control, which enforces identification, and the richness of the response system's behavior, which keeps the system from becoming closed."

I was really intrigued by the comparison Rokeby makes between mirrors and interactive art. Many of the below statements seem a little more pertinent to my thesis idea than they did the first time around. Overall, the comparisons and ideas that Rokeby makes reflect potential new ways of looking at new media/interactive media and how we can go out there and create relationships instead of installations and projects.

-the medium reflects and refracts…our reflections are transformed and processed…we are provided with a self-image, a sense of self
-there is a dialogue between the interactor/user and the system making up the artwork…which eventually leads to a feedback system (infinite reflections in two mirrors)
-indeterminacy (extreme position)…interaction only takes place if both the user and artwork are changed/enriched
-ways in which artwork can be conceived of:
*navigable structure
*creative medium
*transforming mirror
*automation
-artists allow user to establish persona; identity in context of work through decisions and actions
-unsatisfying user experiences come from too much interactive freedom
-static artwork can be seen as either authoritarian or too liberal
*the two extremes
-interaction is about encounter rather than control
-relationships between artists and their media ==> increasing extent of audience’s role in artwork, while loosening the authority of author/creator==>interactive artists are creating relationships

Söke Dinkla

I really enjoyed reading this article. It was a nice introduction to several new media/interactive artists. It is a great resource for future research into who the pioneers of this field were and to see what has been done.

Two ideas mentioned caught my eye while reading. The first was the comment that, “Interactive Art uses the same technology it comments upon, meaning, there is a certain lack of distance…”; and the other was the discussion of power distribution between the user and the system. Both of these statements really got me thinking about the relationships created between artists, users and the artworks. How are the feedback systems affected by power distribution? Should there even be a distribution of power?

David's article really made me think about equal reactions and the exchange between the audience and the technology and whether they are enriched by the exchange.

Is media created or is it birthed? Inherently, if we create media, we want to have a discourse with it. People are birthed and we want to have a meaningful exchange with them and we are enriched by that exchange.

It was interesting that he posited that the human body is becoming obsolete with the advent of technology and the addition of technology to our world has made the focus less on humanity and our own contributions and more on what tech we can create and what it can contribute.

Notes on Paul De Marinis article:

Two points stood out to me in this interview:

1. When talking about "The Edison Effect" Marinis talks about the ancient belief that all senses relied on an extension of touch. That vision was a visual ray believed to emit from the eyes permitting the viewer to see by touching with his eyes. It was interesting to come upon this seeing as how, we tend to think of interfaces as needing the sense of touch to be interactive. A mouse, keyboard, game controller etc...we only use our eyes to see, to receive when dealing with interactive technology, but what if our eyes really were used for "touch." Enabling interactive technology to interface with our sense of vision has presented some interesting problems with the question of "sending" versus receiving.

2. I find that his analysis of technology being a dream that is all enveloping to be very true. It raises interesting questions about our relationships to our own technology and whether or not we really invent things to help us or hinder us. Is our perception really changed by the advent of tech that is supposed to enrich our lives?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: