skip to main content
10.1145/3308560.3316453acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

#Default #Interactiveart #Audiencexperience

Authors Info & Claims
Published:13 May 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

The last decades have shown us a growing interest in different fields of how interactive art transforms the position of the viewer into a participant and how audiences engage and relate to interactive artwork. This article presents a visual analysis of the content shared on Instagram by the audience of Default –an interactive art installation presented in Santiago, Chile in 2017. The analysis shows that people reacted and engaged differently with various aspects of the installation, as shown by the strategies they used to share it. We argue that the analysis of the visual content of Instagram posts opens avenues to understanding the relationship between installation and audience, giving clues on the audience experience and, therefore, providing feedback for developers, who could use them in the design process of future installations.

References

  1. Ikuko, Acosta. (2001). Rediscovering properties inherent in art. American Journal of Art Therapy, 39 , 1 (Feb.2001) 93-97.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. M. Alejandro, alejandromerino.l. (2017).✨✨. Retrieved December 17, 2017 from https://www.instagram.com/p/BabXYlLnrNf/?taken-by=bryanmerino.lGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. V. Badrinarayanan, A. Kendall, and R. Cipolla (2017). Segnet: A deep convolutional encoder-decoder architecture for image segmentation. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 39(12), 2481-2495.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. S Barrass, and A. Sanchez (2014). Experience and Evaluation in the Collective Creation of a Public Digital Exhibition. In L. Candy and S. Ferguson, ed., Interactive experience in the digital age: evaluating new art practice. 209-219. Springer, Sydney.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. A. de Botton, and J. Armstrong (2013). Art as therapy. Phaidon, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Z. Bilda, L. Candy, and E. Edmonds (2007). An embodied cognition framework for interactive experience.. CoDesign 3, 2, 123-137Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Zafer Bilda, Chris Bowman, and Ernest Edmonds. 2008. Experience evaluation of interactive art: study of GEO landscapes. In Proceedings of the 5th Australasian Conference on Interactive Entertainment (IE '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 1, 10 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. G. Born and A. Barry. (2010). ART-SCIENCE. Journal of Cultural Economy 3,1, 103-119.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. K. Budge (2017). Objects in focus: Museum visitors and instagram. Curator: The Museum Journal, 60, 1, 67-85.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. L. Candy and S. Ferguson (2014). Interactive experience in the digital age: evaluating new art practice. Springer, Sydney. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. L. Candy. and E. Edmonds (2011). Interacting: art, research and the creative practitioner. Libri.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. A. Coles and G. Knowles, 2008. Arts-informed research. In G. Knowles & A. Cole (Eds). Handbook of the arts in qualitative research. Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA, United StatesGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Cristian, cris.ignaciocm. (2017). Deja de pensar y abre tus sentidos. Retrieved December 17, 2017 from https://www.instagram.com/p/BZ4eygVlc9S/?taken-by=crissnacioGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. C. Daniela, L. dacontrerasl. (2017). Default, de la diseñadora Manuela Garretón y el neurocientífico Tomás Ossandón. Retrieved December 17, 2017 from https://www.instagram.com/p/BZehf00ntoR/?taken-at=1314752441907553Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. R. Diego, diegorubio83. (2017). Divagando - Mind Wandering.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. E. Edmonds (2014). Chapter 2: Human Computer Interaction, Art and Experience. In L. Candy and S. Ferguson, ed., Interactive experience in the digital age: evaluating new art practice. Springer, Sydney.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. M, Garretón, T. Ossandón and K. Hyland, 2018. Default. Design and Neuroscience: Interactive Work on Brain Activity. Diseña, 12, 286-299Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. M. Garretón, K. Hyland. and D. Parra 2017. Understanding People's Interaction with Neural Sci-Art. Proceedings of the IEEE VIS Conference, Arts Program VISAP '17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. R. Gingrich, A. Emet, E and Z. Xiao, 2014. “Transmission: A Telepresence Interface for Neural and Kinetic Interaction”, Leonardo, 47, 4, 375-385. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. K. Gleeson. (2011). Polytextual thematic analysis for visual data. Pinning down the analytic. In Reavey, P. (Ed.). Visual methods in psychology. Using and interpreting images in qualitative research. Psychology Press, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. N. Hochman. and R. Schwartz, 2012. Visualizing Instagram: Tracing Cultural Visual Rhythms. AAAI Technical Report WS-12-03 Social Media Visualization.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Instagram. (2018). Our Story. Retrieved January 14, 2019 from https://instagram-press.com/our-story/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Rachel Jacobs, Steve Benford, Ewa Luger, and Candice Howarth. 2016. The Prediction Machine: Performing Scientific and Artistic Process. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 497-508. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Rachel Jacobs, Steve Benford, Mark Selby, Michael Golembewski, Dominic Price, and Gabriella Giannachi. 2013. A conversation between trees: what data feels like in the forest. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 129-138. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. E. Kramer. (2000). Art as therapy. Collected papers. Edited by Gerity, L. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Philadelphia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. L. Manovich (2017). Instagram and Contemporary Image. Retrieved January 14, 2019 from http://manovich.net/content/04-projects/147-instagram-and-contemporary-image/instagram_book_manovich.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. C.H. Moon (2010) (Ed.). Materials and Media in Art Therapy: Critical Understandings of Diverse Artistic Vocabularies. Routledge. Florence, KY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Oda M, odamoura. (2017). Que confusão gostosa!bjus. Retrieved December 17, 2017 from https://www.instagram.com/p/Balws25AHBe/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Pipexs_jt. (2017) Un breve timelapse de una presentación artística. Retrieved December 17, 2017 from https://www.instagram.com/p/BZ2BSXsj1vh/?taken-by=pipexs_jtGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. M. Raichle, A. MacLeod, A. Snyder, W. Powers, D. Gusnard and G. Shulman, 2001. A Default mode of brain function. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98, 2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. P. Ravey and K. Johnson, 2008. Visual approaches: using and interpreting images. In Willig, C. & Stainton-Rogers, W. (Eds). The Sage handbook of Qualitative research in psychology.Sage Publications Ltd. London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. P. Reavey (2011). The return to experience. Psychology and the visual. In Reavey, P. (Ed.). Visual methods in psychology. Using and interpreting images in qualitative research.New York: Psychology Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. C.K. Riessman (2008) Visual analysis. In Narrative methods for the human sciences. Sage Publica, Los Angeles, 141-182.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. G. Rose (2002) Visual methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual materials. Sage, London. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Statista. (2018). Distribution of Instagram users worldwide as of January 2018, by age group. Retrieved January 14, 2019 from https://www.statista.com/statistics/325587/instagram-global-age-group/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. P. Toscano. (2017). Instagram-City: New Media, and the Social Perception of Public Spaces. Visual Anthropology 30, 3, 275-286.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. A. Weilenmann, T. Hillman and B. Jungselius, 2013. Instagram at the museum. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI '13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. S. Wilson (2002). Information Arts: Intersections of Art, Science, and Technology (Leonardo). MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. R.West, J. Burke, C. Kerfeld, E. Mendelowitz, T. Holton, J. Lewis, E. Drucker and W. Yan. (2005). “Both and Neither: in silico v1.0, Ecce Homology”, Leonardo, 38, 4, 286-293Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. #Default #Interactiveart #Audiencexperience
      Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

      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
        WWW '19: Companion Proceedings of The 2019 World Wide Web Conference
        May 2019
        1331 pages
        ISBN:9781450366755
        DOI:10.1145/3308560

        Copyright © 2019 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: 13 May 2019

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format