skip to main content
10.1145/3106548.3106595acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesartechConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Audience Participation in Interactive Art Systems: Is Instructional Signage a Necessary Evil?

Authors Info & Claims
Published:06 September 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Interactive Art deals with audience participation (visitor-made-interactor), something that the artist devises and incorporates into the piece since its conception. This research deals with the challenges of audience engagement that such endeavor represents. In particular, we address the use of instructional signage as a way to increase visitors' participation, through a field experiment research approach (taking place on a natural occurring environment) combining practice-based research, observation and a questionnaire. An interactive art piece using QR Code technology was created as part of the experimental procedure. Results showed that the interaction using smartdevices and QR Codes was successfully accomplished and audience engagement significantly improved when instructional signage was used.

References

  1. {n. d.}. aesthetics. ({n. d.}). http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=aestheticGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Marianna Adams, Cynthia Moreno, Molly Polk, and Lisa Buck. 2003. The Dilemma of Interactive Art Museum Spaces. Art Education 56, 5 (2003), 42--56.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Kristi Allik and Robert Mulder. 1992. Ars Electronica '92 "The World from Within". In Ars Electronica '92 "The World from Within", Karl Gerbel and Peter Weibel (Eds.). PVS Verleger, Linz, 207--208.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Teresa Cerratto-Pargman, Chiara Rossitto, and Louise Barkhuus. 2014. Understanding audience participation in an interactive theater performance. In Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction Fun, Fast, Foundational - NordiCHI '14. ACM Press, 608--617. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Hk Chu, Cs Chang, Rr Lee, and Nj Mitra. 2013. Halftone QR codes. ACM Trans. Graph. 32, 6 (2013), 1--8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Stroud Cornock and Ernest Edmonds. 1973. The Creative Process where the Artist is Amplified or Superseded by the Computer. Leonardo 6, 1 (1973), 11--16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Brigid Costello, Lizzie Muller, Shigeki Amitani, and Ernest Edmonds. 2005. Understanding the experience of interactive art: Iamascope in Beta_space. In Proceedings of the Second Australasian Conference on Interactive Entertainment. ACM Press, 49--56. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1109180.1109188 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Teresa Cruz. 2009. From Participatory Art Forms to Interactive Culture: Towards a Critique of the Aesthetic Economy. The International Journal of the Arts in Society 4, 3 (2009), 243--249.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Dieter Daniels. 2008. Strategies of interactivity. Studies in Computational Intelligence 141 (2008), 27--62.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Soke Dinkla. 1996. From participation to interaction. In Clicking in. hot links to a digital culture, Lynn Hershman Leeson (Ed.). Bay Press, Seattle, 279--290.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Leonardo Dioko, Patrick Lo, Wendy Tang, and Virginia Hong. 2016. Macao Visitor Profile Survey - 2nd Quarter Report. Technical Report 2. IFT Tourism Research Centre (ITRC), Macau.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Edward J Downes and Sally J McMillan. 2000. Defining interactivity. New Media & Society 2 (2000), 157--179.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Umberto Eco. 1989. The Open Work. Harvard University Press. 285 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. E. Edmonds, L. Muller, and M Connell. 2006. On creative engagement. Visual Communication 5, 3 (2006), 307--322.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. James Jerome Gibson. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Beryl Graham. 1997. A Study of Audience Relationships with Interactive Computer-Based Visual Artworks in Gallery Settings, through Observation, Art Practice and Curation. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Sunderland. http://stare.com/beryl/cv/sub/thesis.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Luke Hespanhol and Martin Tomitsch. 2015. Strategies for intuitive interaction in public urban spaces. Interacting with Computers 27, 3 (2015), 311--326.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. DENSO WAVE INCORPORATED. {n. d.}. The History of QR Code. ({n. d.}). http://www.qrcode.com/en/history/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. ISO. 2000. ISO/IEC 18004:2000 - Information technology - Automatic identification and data capture techniques - Bar code symbology - QR Code. (2000), 122 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Jens F. Jensen. 1998. Interactivity: Tracking a New Concept in Media and Communication Studies. NORDICOM Review 19, 1 (1998), 185--204.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Lisbeth Klastrup. 2003. Paradigms of Interaction. Conceptions and Misconceptions of the Field Today. Dichtung Digital 4 (2003), 1--17. http://www.dichtung-digital.org//2003/4-klastrup.htmGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Katja Kwastek. 2008. Interactivity - A word in process. Studies in Computational Intelligence 141 (2008), 15--26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin Lister, Jon Dovey, Seth Giddings, Iain Grant, and Kieran Kelly. 2008. New media: a critical introduction (2nd ed.). Routledge. 446 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Agathi Tsoroni. 2009. Technology Fatigue in Digital Interactive Exhibitions. engage 24: Digital Dorways (September 2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Julie R Williamson, Lone Koefoed Hansen, Giulio Jacucci, Ann Light, and Stuart Reeves. 2014. Understanding performative interactions in public settings. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 18, 7 (2014), 1545--1549. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Li Yuan. 2017. WeChat Rides QR-Code Wave. The Wall Street Journal. (jan 2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Audience Participation in Interactive Art Systems: Is Instructional Signage a Necessary Evil?

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Other conferences
            ARTECH '17: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Digital Arts
            September 2017
            192 pages
            ISBN:9781450352734
            DOI:10.1145/3106548

            Copyright © 2017 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 6 September 2017

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed limited

            Acceptance Rates

            ARTECH '17 Paper Acceptance Rate33of64submissions,52%Overall Acceptance Rate128of238submissions,54%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader