skip to main content
10.1145/3325480.3326579acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesc-n-cConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

Virtual Artistry: Virtual Reality Translations of Two-Dimensional Creativity

Published:13 June 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

This study seeks to provide insight into two-dimensional (2D) artists' approach to three-dimensional (3D) creativity within a virtual environment. Specifically, this research investigates the widespread assumption that Virtual Reality (VR) provides a natural interface by which traditionally 2D-centric artists may explore 3D content creation. Using a prototype of Canvox, a VR tool that uses voxels to represent 3D space with a single stroke [1], we performed a qualitative study in which artists were observed producing familiar assets in a virtual space. Here, we present data on 2D artists' expectations for the User Interface (Space, Navigation, Scale, Tool Accessibility, Lighting), Functionality (Tool Functionality, Materials, Brushes, Primitives), Applications (Communication Mechanisms, Use Cases), and User Mindset (Ideation, Creation, Opportunities) for VR creation. Our results offer insights into the bifurcations between artists' mental models of 2D and VR creativity: in VR, artists expect to create content, while in 2D, artists expect to render representations of content. We also demonstrate the potential use cases of this emerging creative platform.

References

  1. Ericsson Yeojin Kim, Byungmoon Kim, Jiyang Kim, Young J. Kim. 2017. CanvoX: High-resolution VR painting in large volumetric canvas. arXiv (Technical Report), 1--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. David Gustavsson. 2014. Interaction with a 3D modeling tool through a gestural interface. An evaluation of effectiveness and quality. Master's Thesis.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Michael Chen, S. Joy Mountford, Abigail Sellen. 1988. A study in interactive 3D rotation using 3D control devices. Comp Graph 22, 4, 121--129. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Melanie Tory. 2003. Mental registration of 2D and 3D visualizations (an empirical study). IEEE Visualization. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Hitendra K. Pillay. 1994. Cognitive load and mental rotation: structuring orthographic projection for learning and problem solving. Instr Sci 22, 2: 91--113.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Takeo Igarashi, Satoshi Matsuoka, Hidehiko Tanaka. 1999. Teddy: A sketching interface for 3D freeform design. Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH, 409--416. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Lynn Eggli, Chiang-yao Hsu, Beat Bruderlin, Gershon Elber. 1997. Inferring 3D models from freehand sketches and constraints. Computer-Aided Design 29, 2: 101--112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Steve Tsang, Ravin Balakrishnan, Karan Singh, Abhishek Ranjan. 2004. A suggestive interface for image guided 3D sketching. Proceedings of ACM SIGCHI, 591--598. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Yotam Gingold, Takeo Igarashi, Denis Zorin. 2009. Structured annotations for 2D-to-3D modeling. ACM Transactions on Graphics 28, 5: 1--9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Gabriel Evans. 2018. Development of a 3D conceptual design environment using a commodity head mounted display virtual reality system". Graduate Theses and Dissertations.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Doug A. Bowman, Ernst Kruijff, Joseph J. LaViola Jr., Ivan Poupyrev. 2015. 3D User Interfaces: Theory and Practice. Pearson Education Inc, Boston, MA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Kurt Satter, Alley Burler. 2015. Competative usability analysis of immersive virtual environments in engineering design review. J Comput Inf Sci Eng, 19, 2, 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. David R. Millen. 2000. Rapid Ethnography: Time deepening strategies for HCI field research. Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, 280--286. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. K. Andrews Ericsson, Herbert A. Simon. 1984. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Rebecca R. Springmeyer, Meera M. Blattner, Nelson L. Max. (1992). A characterization of the scientific data analysis process. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Visualization, 235--252. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Paul Davies. 2012. Awakening: The Art of Halo 4. Titan Books Limited, London, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Virtual Artistry: Virtual Reality Translations of Two-Dimensional Creativity

                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 Conferences
                  C&C '19: Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Creativity and Cognition
                  June 2019
                  745 pages
                  ISBN:9781450359177
                  DOI:10.1145/3325480

                  Copyright © 2019 Owner/Author

                  Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

                  Publisher

                  Association for Computing Machinery

                  New York, NY, United States

                  Publication History

                  • Published: 13 June 2019

                  Check for updates

                  Qualifiers

                  • poster

                  Acceptance Rates

                  C&C '19 Paper Acceptance Rate30of101submissions,30%Overall Acceptance Rate108of371submissions,29%

                PDF Format

                View or Download as a PDF file.

                PDF

                eReader

                View online with eReader.

                eReader