Cases study:
- ‘Ruan Jue Xian Yin ‘(“阮觉咸音”)
‘Ruan Jue Xian Yin ‘(“阮觉咸音”) is a new media theater performance project created by Fn media lab, which integrates ethnic music, Ruan instrumental music, light and shadow mapping and mechanical institutions. The whole performance is divided into ‘ Ruan Jue ‘ audio-visual content and ‘ Xianyin ‘ live performance in two parts. In one of the areas of ‘ Ruanjue ‘, there are seven zhongruan(中阮, a traditional Chinese instrument) hanging, and their strings are plucked by mechanical devices to stimulate different rhythms. In another area, there are many headphones recording sound instruments, and the audience can choose music to listen by choosing different music. In the performance of ‘ Xianyin ‘, we played 10 pieces of music together with the performers. Multiple communication design with the performer in the early stage to determine the final presentation effect. In order to ensure the real-time collection of the rhythm of the live music, we have modified the instrument, enhanced the directional collection of the instrument, made the digital calculation more accurate, and visually more vivid and full to the audience.
–from https://www.manamana.net/video/detail?id=114#!zh
This project takes great advantages of the original features and sounds of zhongruan(中阮), which makes the project unique and a cultural flavor over it.
Based on the unique material, visualization of sounds/playing the instrument was created and finally shown to audience. There, I see the interaction not only happens when audience choose a piece of music, but also when the sounds were played–there is no much different between human-playing and plectrum&servo-playing, which is on the second half of the video.
For the user interaction, it might not so strong. Because in the exhibition, audience can only see the plectrum moving, hear sounds playing, and observe the shake reacting to device’s motion. [refer to later discuss about “interaction”–a process of Iteration of reaction]
2. A homepage of https://www.interactiveartifact.com/dashboard.
It attracted me by the dynamic changing of graphics reacting to my mouse. Is there any reaction of me to the page’s reaction? Of course. When I moved my mouse, I found my cursor sucking white short lines like gathering a dandelion, so I kept moving my mouse and wanted to gather all lines together; later I found, once I moved too fast, some lines dropped and were back to wander, so I tried to slow down and carefully gathered lines.
What’s more, I really like the effect of the low weight of those lines. It makes the interaction, that high speed will lose some lines, better and real–immersive and interactable.
About “Interaction”:
"We identified four situations, which we termed ‘Static’, ‘Dynamic-Passive’, ‘Dynamic-Interactive’ and ‘Dynamic-Interactive (Varying)’. Briefly, ‘Static’ applied to works that do not change, ‘Dynamic- Passive’ to works that changed but were not influenced by the audience, ‘Dynamic-Interactive’ to works that changed as a result of audience actions and “Dynamic-Interactive (Varying)’ applied to interactive works that were also influenced by other factors, so that their response varied. This was the initial framework that I worked with. As we will see, it did not cover all the cases that have turned out to be interesting in my practice, but it did provide a fairly robust starting point. ”（Edmonds, 2010）
Based on Edmonds’s frame of “interaction”, I tried to rebuild my understanding of this word on this four situations–Static, Dynamic-Interactive (Varying), Dynamic-Passive, Dynamic-Interactive.
I used to believe the four situations can all be called “interaction”, though most of time it is hardly be noticed and discussed. To be more specific, in a broad sense, “interaction” happens as long as there is an artifact and an audience. Take an example of Static, “the art object does not change and is viewed by a person”(Edmonds, 2010). There is no physical and observable contact, but the reflections, including enjoyments, judgement, and so on, are generated from the audience’s inner world; the reflections and later feedbacks put values and reputation of the artifact, sometimes received by the artist. It’s where an inner interaction happens.
However, this interaction is just an aesthetic judgement mostly depending on the audience. Through this, I found the difference between my interpretation and the “interaction” discussed and emphasised by Edmonds(also the public). That is, “interaction” has an essential element–retroaction, or iteration sometimes. Assuming there is an artifact and a user, it means that the artifact will give a reaction to an operation from the user(if the operation fits the instructions); sometimes, the user can do something more based on the reaction from the artifact; then the user will keep trying playing with the artifact and enjoy it. Therefore, interaction is not within a short time/seconds; instead, it is a process with changes and attampts.
But, still, this new observation and understanding do not mean I abandon the previous interpretation that “interaction” is overall existing in a board sense; the transformation between senses(vision, sounds…) can still be counted into “interaction”, though visitors only need to observe and enjoy it(without considering motions like choosing pieces to play).
And yes, for the subjects of interaction, as I mentioned above “[reflections] are generated from the audience’s inner world; the reflections and later feedbacks put values and reputation of the artifact, sometimes received by the artist”, soemtimes interaction is more about designers-audience rather than devices-audience. Although my interpretation of interaction before was not quite valuable, I still consider more connection between the designers and audience–the interaction between device and audience is actually what the designer want to do; the only deviation is that it is the device that replaces the roles of the design to react, but the designer is still the real controller of the interaction.
In another an angle, Edmonds said “[his Communication Game series of works] were concerned with humans interacting with humans through technology (rather than humans interacting with technology)”(2010). In his project, the device was only used to connect audience and create interaction between users. It gives me another perspective of artifact’s interations methods.
Excerpt:
[Humans] transformed the viewer into an active participant in creating the artwork (Edmonds, 1975).
A significant part of art making, for me, is the development of an understanding of the forms and material being used, what Cezanne called “a language and a logic” (Doran, 2001: 17). The language that the artist evolves
is a language of form, of-course: shapes, colours, textures and so on. However, it is sometimes helpful to have a language of words to help one think about and discuss the art. For example, although the key issues about an understanding of colour are embodied in artworks exploring colour, it is
also good to be able to name hue, saturation and intensity etc. This helps in
the thinking about colour that provides the context for using it. (edmonds 2010)
Reference：
Edmonds, Ernest A. & Franco, Francesca 2010. Art of Conversation. Swinton, UK:British Computer Society.
Boden, Margaret A. 2009. What is Generative Art?. In: Digital Creativity. London:Routledge
Edmonds, Ernest A. & Franco, Francesca 2010. Art of Conversation. Swinton, UK:British Computer Society
Mason, Catherine 2008. A Computer in the Art Room: The Origins of British Computer Arts 1950-1980 . Hindrigham (UK):JJG Publishing
Reichardt, Jasia, et al., Brown, Paul, et al., eds. 2008. White Heat Cold Logic: British Computer Art 1960-1980. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press