TOWARDS EMBODIED INTERACTION
Andrew Morrison & Synne Skjulstad
Extending performanceTechnology enhanced performanceAugmented spaces, actions & actors
Audiences as participantsSystems as responsive
Activity Theory as a conceptual frame: the mediating artifact
From digital scenography towards embodied
interactionUsers’ increased control over management of a work
User interaction as informal assemblage of stepsImmediate circumstances of a work are made more
visibleSystem responds momentarily to actions & needs
(Dourish 2001: 160)
Embodied interactionPossessing and acting through a physical manifestation in
the worldEmbodiment phenomena occur in real time and space
Our engagement in the world of mediating artifactsA phenomenological presence
(Dourish 2001:)Our approach is from socio-cultural learning and
developmental view
Embodied interactionEmbodied interaction is the creation, manipulation,
and sharing of meaning throughengaged interaction with artifacts
(Dourish 2001: 126)
Embodied interactionDuality between action & meaning
Practice unites action & meaning in contextIncorporating the physical & symbolic
Embodiment as participative not physical reality(Dourish 2001)
Dance & digital media
Media as actors (Sparacino et al.)Digital scenography (ars 2004)
Experimental creative design
Learning designs & designs for learningConvergences between dance & digital media as
performanceCollaboration between Statens ballethøyskole &
InterMedia3 projects on creative educational practice &
research2 projects on designing embodied interaction &
kinesis
Ballectro
Socio-cultural approach to designing & learning the arts
Situated technology: live & mediatisedContexts of creative co-constructionMediating and articulating research
Extended
Collaborative inquiryChoreography and digital media
Student performance and reflection
Extended +
Adaptive redesign processConsultative, constitutive
The body as enculturated screener
Embodied interactionContextualising & explaining design practice via theory
Building vocabulary & conceptual apparatusRelating different elements of embodied interactionProviding principles for the design of new artifacts
Meaning via intentionality, ontology, intersubjectivityActing on but also through technologies
(Dourish 2001)
Embodied interactionLinks between tangible & social computing
How the everyday world works, how we experience the world
Things are embedded in the world, realities as embedded in settings
Artifacts can have multi-level roles & inscriptionsEmbodiment and phenomenology, experiential, being
with actingNew spatial and locative design challenges: activity,
practice, community(Dourish 2001)
Tapet
Tgarden (FOAM Sponge)Designing embodied movement
Audience as actors: Experiments with MPEG, sensors, spatial
irony(Sem 2004)
Karakuri
Anticipatory interactionSimulated space for user engagement
(Penny 2004)Trialling into extended use
(Westvang 2004)
‘Where the action is…’… the design and analysis of systems based on tangible interaction needs to
encompass more than simply their ‘tangible’ characteristics, and to
understand how they are caught up in larger systems of meaning that connect the physical to the symbolic rather than
separating them. Dourish (2001: 207)
Through the mediating artifact
Idunn Sem on Activity Theory and multimediated dance
Dourish’s principles for embodied interaction (2001: 161ff):
Computation as medium, Meaning on multiple levels
Users create meaning from and on the designed
Embodied technologies participate in world they represent
Embodied interaction moves action into meaning
Related references(For InterMedia dance and technology projects, see: www.intermedia.uio.no)deLahunta, Scott. (2002): Virtual reality and performance'. Performing Arts Journal. 70. 105-114.Dourish, P. 2001. Where the Action Is. The MIT Press: Cambridge.Morrison, A. 2003. ‘Dancing with postcolonial theory: digital scenography and the performance of local culture'. Norsk medietidsskrift. Vol. 10. No 2. 28-56. At: http://www.medieforskerlaget.no/nmt_arkiv/2003-02/index.htmMorrison, A., Skjulstad, S. & Smørdal, O. 2004. ‘Choreographing augmented space’. Future Ground Conference, Melbourne Australia, 17-21 November (to appear in proceedings)Penny. S. 2004. ‘Representation, enaction and the ethics of simulation’ In Wardrip-Fruin N. & Harrigan, P. (eds) First Person. The MIT Press: Cambridge. 73-84.Sha, X:W. & Kuzmanovic, M. 2000. ‘From representation to performance: responsive public space.’ DIAC 2000. At: www.fOam/publications/2000_diac/index.htmlSkjulstad, S., Morrison, A. & Aaberge, A. 2002. ‘Researching performance, performing research’. In Morison, A. (ed.) Researching ICTs in Context. InterMedia/UniPub: Olso. 211-248.Sparacino, F., Davenport, G. & Pentland, A. (2000): 'Media in performance: Interactive spaces for dance, theatre, circus, and museum exhibits'. Systems Journal. Vol. 39, Nos 3 & 4. At: http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/393/part1/sparacino.htmlWestvang, E. 2004. ‘Karakuri: shadows working on the world’. VSMM Conference, Ogaki City Japan, 17-19 November. pp. 1106-1115.