skip to main content
10.1145/3569219.3569886acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmindtrekConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

Cell as Framework: Articulating interaction points through instinctive imaging practices

Published:16 November 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

This work presents a critical design case that uses the metaphor of a cell in relation to its designed environment. It then unpacks a photo-taking sequence using a site-specific installation to analyze both mechanically observed and biologically-embodied interactions. Combining the biological with a systemic way of thinking affords a view of interaction with multiple epistemological consequences. Titled Tracing Spaces, the installation attempts to connect an experience of ‘nature’ to the tacit knowledge of being in a body while immersed within an environment. This reflection pays particular attention to ‘the unseen’ relationships enabled in the designed surroundings. To these, it proposes six points of interaction to reveal the technological, ready-to-hand habits needed for contemporary photo-taking. These points suggest an intricate entanglement between immediately physical embodied gestures made visible through visible-representational content pushed to an awkward extreme. Moreover, these relationships point back towards critical sensibilities for interactive technologies – imaging technologies in particular – embedded within the everyday.

References

  1. Alia Al-Saji. 2014. Phenomenology of Hesitation: Interrupting Racializing Habits of Seeing. In E. Lee, ed., Living alterities: phenomenology, embodiment, and race. State University of New York Press, Albany, 2014, 133-172.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Jeffrey Bardzell and Shaowen Bardzell. 2013. What is “critical” about critical design?. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’13). 3297-3306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466451Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Eric P.S. Baumer, Vera Khovanskaya, Mark Matthews, Lindsay Reynolds, Victoria Schwanda Sosik, and Geri Gay. 2014. Reviewing reflection: on the use of reflection in interactive system design. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems (DIS ‘14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 93–102. DOI:https://doi. org/10.1145/2598510.2598598Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Hans Belting. 2005. Image, Medium, Body: A New Approach to Iconology, Critical Inquiry 31, 2 (Winter 2005), 302–19. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1086/430962Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Eli Blevis. 2016. Being Photo-Visual in HCI and Design. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ‘16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 983–995. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901863Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Peter Bond. 2004. Maturana, Technology, and Art: Is a Biology of Technology Possible? Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 11. 2, 49-70.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Fritjof Capra and Pier Luigi Luisi. 2014. The Systems View of Life: A unified vision, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Paul Dourish. 2004. Where the Action Is: The foundations of embodied action, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby. 2001. Design Noir – The Secret Life of Electronic Objects, London: August/Birkhäuser.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Annie Gentes. 2017. The In-discipline of Design, Springer, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Paolo Favaro. 2014. Learning to look beyond the frame: reflections on the changing meaning of images in the age of digital media practices, Visual Studies 29, 2 (April 2014), 166-179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586X.2014.887269Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Rowanne Fleck and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2010. Reflecting on reflection: framing a design landscape. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer-Human Interaction (OZCHI ‘10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 216–223. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1145/1952222.1952269Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Vilém Flusser. 1999. Toward's a Philosophy of Photography, Reaktion Books, London, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Martin Heidegger. 2007. Being and Time, Blackwell Publishing, Hoboken, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Grant H. Kester. 2004. Conversation pieces: Community and communication in modern art. University of California PressGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Miwon Kwon. 2004. One place after another: Sitespecific art and locational identity. MIT press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Asko Lehmuskallio. 2019. The look as a medium: a conceptual framework and an exercise for teaching visual studies, Journal of Visual Literacy 38, 1-2 (April 2019), 8-21, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1051144X.2018.1564607Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Humberto Maturana. 1997. Metadesign. Retrieved May 15, from http://www.inteco.cl/articulos/006/texto_ing.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Marty Miller and Giovanni Lion. 2021. Knowing through the Photo's Un-making. In [ ] With Design: Reinventing Design Modes - Proceedings of the 9th Congress of the International Association of Societies of Design Research (IASDR 2021), Springer (Forthcoming)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Phoebe Sengers, Kirsten Boehner, Shay David, and Joseph ‘Jofish’ Kaye. 2005. Reflective design. In Proceedings of the 4th decennial conference on Critical computing: between sense and sensibility (CC ‘05). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 49–58. DOI:https://doi. org/10.1145/1094562.1094569Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Anne-marie Willis. 2006. Ontological Designing, Design Philosophy Papers, 4, 2, 69-92. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2752/144871306X13966268131514Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Heather Wiltse. 2014. Unpacking Digital Material Mediation, Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 18, 3 (Fall 2014), 154-182, DOI: 10.5840/techne201411322Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

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
    Academic Mindtrek '22: Proceedings of the 25th International Academic Mindtrek Conference
    November 2022
    407 pages
    ISBN:9781450399555
    DOI:10.1145/3569219

    Copyright © 2022 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: 16 November 2022

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • poster
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate110of207submissions,53%

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