1w11(some things about interactive art)

As in Tuesday’s chat had to consider the relationship between the artist and the spectator, I thought that would be useful to search a couple of texts and art works that deal with interactive art. It was interesting to look at the meaning of interactive art, because it is something that I am thinking about.

Moreover, I add some more artists that their work relates to my project proposal.

Finally, I found a link about an interview of J.H. Murray (when story lines go online)that explains all about her concept and the general idea of her book. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/authors_corner/july-dec97/murray_10-23.html

Bellow I have tried to find some examples of interactive art works and a few things that explain in a way what interactive art is. Hopefully, that helps in understanding what interactive art is.

Anyway, it helps me generally.

INTERACTIVE ART

Its background in art consists of interactive art forms from the late sixties like for example Happenings and reactive kinetic environments

In a way Interactive Art made up the traditions of “participational” art forms by allowing the viewer to intervene in the action. However, in most works, unlike in Happenings, this interaction is not meant as an attack against the established art audience. Instead, it meets the needs of a media educated public. The implications of Interactive Art, though, go even further: this art also reflects the role played by computer technology .This may seem complicated, because Interactive uses the same technology it comments upon, meaning, there is a certain lack of distance. The situation of Interactive Art is therefore comparable with Video Art, which had to gain certain independence from the language of television. Both art forms demonstrate that today the role of the artist is changing significantly. Instead of being a commentator standing outside society, the artist now decides to take part in the socio-technological change and judge from within.

With the American Myron Krueger the development of computer-controlled Interactive Art started. He began at 1969 to conceive spaces in which actions of visitors set off effects. In co-operation with Dan Sandin, Jerry Erdman and Richard Veneszky he conceived the work Glowflow in 1969. Glowflow is a space with pressure sensitive sensors on its floor, loudspeakers in thefour corners of the room and tubes with coloured suspensions on the walls. The visitor who steps on one of the sensors sets off either sound or light effects.

The same did Robert Rauschenberg in the late sixties, created similar’ responsive environments’.

Krueger used a different variant, which was also developed at the end of the sixties, but in the scope of Video Art: it was the closed-circuit installation in which visitors are confronted by their own camera image. Krueger now combined this principle with computer technology.
In Video place there are a number of different interactions, in which Krueger subverts the rules of narcissistic self-reflection and self-control of the traditional video closed-circuit and lets the user play with constantly changing versions of themselves. In the most famous interaction called Critter a green figure appears on the screen tries to make contact with the visitor. , the interactions of Video place are not only a joyful game but are also concerned with the probing of power distribution between user and system.
Instead, he creates an open space where it is the interaction and not the instrument that causes the proximity to the system. This has important consequences for the understanding of the interface.

In Europe the approach to Interactive Art and also the use of the interface was quite different.

In Amsterdam in 1983 the Australian Jeffrey Shaw produced his first interactive installation. He transferred his concept of art, which he developed during the sixties to computer installations. In his first interactive installation Points of View Shaw takes up the joystick, the interface that is still customary for video games. Sitting on a chair the spectator can move the projected video image of a stage with Egyptian Hieroglyphs. With a second joystick she or he can steer sound traces. In Points of View the spectator turns into the director who individually selects the picture and sound material. The intended reception of Points of View is described by Shaw as following: “It is the particular audio visual journey made by a spectator who operates the joystick which constitutes a’ performance’ of this work. For the other spectators that performance becomes ‘theatre’.


The term movement does not any longer signify the movement of the performer in space, like in the former Happenings, but the movement of the image caused by the joystick. The projected scene can be changed in its perspective with only very small physical expenditure. The computer-controlled system inverts the reception situation of the earlier Happenings. Formerly the spectator had to change her or his position to perceive differently; now she or he induces the computer image to change its perspectives. The movement of the spectator is substituted by the movement of the image.

At the same time as Points of View – in 1983 – the Canadian David Rokeby began to develop his interactive sound installation Very Nervous System, which in the beginning he exhibited with changing titles and changing technical equipment

After Rokeby had experimented for a short time with light sensors as interface and with analogous electronics, he decided – as the earlier works of Krueger – to use the video camera as interface.

The New Yorker Grahame Weinbren produced his first interactive installation The Erlking in 1986. In this installation the interaction is mainly initiated and born by mysterious, almost static images. Weinbren – in co-operation with Roberta Friedman – works with distinctly cinematographic sequences.

I have been looking at ways interactivity can be applied to cinema for over 20 years. An investigation that has resulted in a number of installation works each with a different approach to the problem. The 5 minute section on this site is a short demo tape of Sonata (1991-93), a narrative interactive cinema installation that was exhibited internationally through the 1990s.” GRAHAME WEINBREN , faculty
Sonata (1991-93)

The work of the Spanish artist Santiago Sierra. He consists in playing groups of people to inhabit his creations. His subjects are often individuals, such as migrant workers, the unemployed, some of his installations even involve voluntary incarcerations. He doesn’t seek to expose the vulnerability of his collaborators, or turn them into performers, but focuses on the impotence of the observers , who are unable to alter the participants predicament.

A finall example could be one of the works of Camille utterback.

 

One of the interactive installation explores the possibilities of a projected kinetic sculpture that responds to people’s positions and movements using video tracking. The kinetic sculpture is a projected image, but the positions, velocity, and existence of various parts of the sculpture image depend on people’s positions and motions in the space in front of the projection. Some responses are direct and immediate, other types of sculptural momentum develop over time based on the overall flow of people in the space.( better see Camille utterback

http://www.camilleutterback.com/ )

“it’s the viewers which make the pictures.” Marchel Duchamp (conceptual art- page24-Taschen-Daniel Marzona)

“i was interested in creating objects that involved other people , and i was really interested in different explorations of space and time and the way people interact and fuction in these mediums” Robert Barry (conceptual art- page36-Taschen-Daniel Marzona)

 


REFERENCES

American Myron Krueger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Krueger

http://myweb.cwpost.liu.edu/paievoli/finals/505Sp_03/Prj2/KSLeePrj2.htm

http://classes.design.ucla.edu/Winter04/256/projects/andrew/report.html

David Rokeby

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rokeby

http://homepage.mac.com/davidrokeby/home.html

Grahame Weinbren

http://www.grahameweinbren.net/GWArrestMtls/GW1966.html

Erkki Huhtamo

http://www.ntticc.or.jp/pub/ic_mag/ic014/huhtamo/huhtamo_e.html

Jeffrey Shaw

http://www.jeffrey-shaw.net/html_main/show_work.php3?record_id=67

interactive art

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_art

 

Camille utterback

http://www.camilleutterback.com/

Sierra:

http://www.the-artists.org/ArtistView.cfm?id=D0C88621-8230-4820-B7C6988AA13022ED

Santiego Sierra

300 tons and previous works

Ecole nationale superieure des beaux –Arts ,1989
Groups , movements , tendances de l’art conteporain depuis 1945, Paris

conceptual art- -Taschen-Daniel Marzona

 

Advertisements

~ by avos on November 22, 2006.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: