Abstract
In this chapter we explore the experience of interactive system-based artworks that exhibit autonomous behaviours in an interactive context. Engaging with such autonomously behaving works opens up experiences that are more akin to conversing, performing, or negotiating. We introduce cybernetic influences and take a closer look at the performance of the participant/machine system. Following this, we discuss the ways in which artists approach working with adaptive systems and observe audiences to iteratively improve their system designs. At the core of the chapter is a discussion of five artworks that serve as our case studies: two influential works: Edward Ihnatowicz’s The Senster and Ken Rinaldo’s Autopoiesis, and three projects developed by the authors: Uzume, Accomplice and Zamyatin. We use these case studies to explore the artists’ approach to autonomy, how it shapes the audience’s experience and the methods used in the development and evaluative process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Such complexity, for example, may be captured by the formalisation of digital art systems by Cornock and Edmonds (1973), including the category ‘dynamic interactive (varying)’ in which the conditions of interaction change over time. The works described here are most likely to fit this category, but may achieve a complexity of interaction by other means than devising mechanisms for long-term variation.
- 2.
Some dynamical systems can be highly sensitive to initial conditions, such that very small differences in initial conditions can result in very different behaviours, often referred to as the ‘butterfly effect’. Strange attractors are semi-stable, on the borderline between instability and stability and show the unique property that they never travel through space along the same trajectory twice.
References
Ascott R (2002) Behaviourist art and the cybernetic vision. In: Packer R, Jordan K (eds) Multimedia: from Wagner to virtual reality. W. W. Norton & Company, New York, pp 104–120
Ashby WR (1954) Design for a brain. Wiley, New York
Banerji R (2012) Maxine’s Turing test – a player-program as co-ethnographer of socio-aesthetic interaction in improvised music. In: Eighth artificial intelligence and interactive digital entertainment conference, Stanford University, Paolo Alto, CA. AAAI Press. http://aaai.org/ocs/index.php/AIIDE/AIIDE12/rt/captureCite/5533/0/BibtexCitationPlugin
Beer R (1996) Toward the evolution of dynamical neural networks for minimally cognitive behavior. In: From animals to animats 4: proceedings of the fourth international conference on simulation of adaptive behavior, North Falmouth, Cape Cod, MA, USA. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 421–429
Boden M, Edmonds E (2009) What is generative art? Digit Creat 20(1–2):21–46
Bown O (2011) Experiments in modular design for the creative composition of live algorithms. Comput Music J 35(3):73–85. MIT Press
Bown O, Eigenfeldt E, Martin A, Carey B, Pasquier P (2013) The musical metacreation weekend: challenges arising from the live presentation of musically metacreative systems. In: Proceedings of the musical metacreation workshop, AIIDE conference, Boston
Brown A, Gifford T, Voltz B (2013) Factors affecting audience perceptions of agency in human computer musical partnerships. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM conference on creativity & cognition, UTS, Sydney, Australia. ACM, New York, pp 296–299
Candy L (2014) Evaluation and experience in art. In: Candy L, Ferguson S (eds) Interactive experience in the digital age: evaluating new art practice. Springer, London, pp 25–48
Cornock S, Edmonds E (1973) The creative process where the artist is amplified or superseded by the computer. Leonardo 6(1):11–16
Cross I (2007) Music and cognitive evolution. In: Dunbar R, Barrett L (eds) Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 649–667
Dennett D (2009) Intentional systems theory. In: McLaughlin B, Beckermann A, Walter S (eds) Oxford handbook of the philosophy of mind. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 339–350
Eigenfeldt A, Burnett A, Pasquier P (2012) Evaluating musical metacreation in a live performance context. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on computational creativity, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Creativity, pp 140–144
Glynn R (2008) Conversational environments revisited. In: Proceedings of the 19th meeting of cybernetics and systems research, Graz, Austria
Hall J (2010) An autopoietic aesthetic for interactive robotic installation. Available online at: www.jenhall.org/pdf_files/Autopoietic_Aesthetic_JHall.pdf
Haque U (2007) The architectural relevance of Gordon Pask. Archit Des 77(4):54–61
Horowitz AC, Bekoff M (2007) Naturalizing anthropomorphism: behavioral prompts to our humanizing of animals. Anthrozoös 20(1):23–35
Ihnatowicz E (1988) Portrait of the artist as an engineer, unpublished book proposal. Available online at: http://www.senster.com/ihnatowicz/articles/artist_as_engineer.pdf. Accessed on 15 Aug 2013
McCormack J (2001) Eden: an evolutionary sonic ecosystem. In: Kelemen J, Sosik P (eds) Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, vol 2159. Advances in artificial life. Proceedings of the 6th European Conference (ECAL). Springer, Berlin, pp 133–142
Michie D, Johnston R (1984) The creative computer: machine intelligence and human knowledge. Penguin Books, London
Pachet F (2003) The continuator: musical interaction with style. J New Music Res 32(3):333–341
Penny S (2009) Art and artificial life – a primer. In: Proceedings of the 2009 digital arts and culture conference, UC Irvine, CA, USA. http://escholarship.org/uc/ace_dac09
Penny S (2011) Towards a performative aesthetics of interactivity. Fibrecult J FCJ-132:72–108
Reffin Smith B (1984) Soft computing: art and design. Addison-Wesley, London, pp 147–155
Rinaldo K (1998) The flock. Leonardo 31(5):407
Saunders R (2001) Curious design agents and artificial creativity. PhD dissertation, The University of Sydney, Sydney
Seth A (2010) Measuring autonomy and emergence via granger causality. Artif Life 16:179–196
Stern N (2011) The implicit body as performance: analyzing interactive art. Leonardo 44(3):233–238. MIT Press
Tenhaaf N (2008) Art embodies a-life: the VIDA competition. Leonardo 41(1):6–15
Whitelaw M (2004) Metacreation: art and artificial life. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Zivanovic A (2005) The development of a cybernetic sculptor: Edward Ihnatowicz and The Senster. In: Proceedings of creativity & cognition’05, Goldsmiths College, London, UK. ACM, New York, pp 102–108
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bown, O., Gemeinboeck, P., Saunders, R. (2014). The Machine as Autonomous Performer. In: Candy, L., Ferguson, S. (eds) Interactive Experience in the Digital Age. Springer Series on Cultural Computing. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04510-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04510-8_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-04509-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-04510-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)