Musings of a Media Culture graduate

1) Introduction

During previous research in June 2004 I have investigated the change in the sensual perception of art. Hence, a change has taken place in the way the artists are trying to address the audience. The traditional art has always had a so-called ‘closed characteristic’ which implied that the artists had ‘finished’ the artworks and the audience could only experience them by looking or listening. The traditional art was always complete with or without the audience’s attention. Other interaction was even not possible; there was no way for a spectator to enter an artwork other than by imagination. The spectator’s body stayed always outside the artwork. With the rise of media art, the relation to the audience changed and the artists tried to create closer contact between the artworks and the spectators. It became their goal to bridge the space between the two and led the spectator immerse into the art. At first, in the 1960s and 1970s, real physical contact was not possible which made it very difficult to overcome the large gap. However, in the 1980s and 1990s it became possible to diminish the space with the rise of new technological developments like modern computers which enabled the spectator to become more like a ‘user’ of the art. Hence, the spectators were required to explore for example computer programs which were made into art. They needed to interact with the computer programs actively in order to have the right experience. With the rise of these kinds of artworks, art became ‘open’; it became necessary for the spectators to interact with the art in order to experience it. It was no longer enough just to listen or look at artworks; participation became inevitable.

This interaction between the artwork and the audience could take place in two ways. On the one hand there could be the role of the spectator as both sender and receiver during active participation, on the other hand there was also the possibility for the spectator to act passively only in the role of the receiver. These two ways of interaction could take place both in the ‘real’ and in the virtual world. During my previous research I looked at the possibilities of immersion for spectators into art in the ‘real’ world. I analysed the so-called ‘tactile’ media art which involved the sense of touch in its artworks in order to create a closer communication with the audience. It was considered that the sight and sound would still make the audience aware of the distance between them and the art. The touch, it was considered, would be able to connect the physical body to the art and would vanish the gap between the two. However, the touch cannot operate autonomously as accurate as the sight or the sound and therefore needs to interact with these two senses. This combination of touch, sound, and sight then provides the possibility for the spectators to become part of artworks. I concluded from this research that the paradoxical characteristic of the touch as being both sender and receiver provides the possibility to bridge the gap between the spectator and the artwork. Hence, sometimes the touch needs to reach out in order to touch something or to be touched. In this case, activity is necessary to be touched passively. In both ways a mutual interaction between the physical body and the artwork is created which makes the spectator feel like he is becoming part of the art.

During re-consideration of this research I noticed that this conclusion was not satisfactory enough for me. There were still many questions unanswered like: Don’t the sight and the sound still make the audience aware of the fact that there is a distance between the two? If we touch something other than our body does it not always feel ‘strange’ so that we are aware of the fact that it is not part of ourselves? Can a human body totally immerse into an artwork? As a consequence of this, I tried to rethink the concepts of interactivity and immersion from my own perspective and I noticed that I felt more closely connected with an interactive virtual artwork called Bubbles –which I could not actually touch– than with a ‘real’ artwork called Nervous which did in fact offer me the opportunity to touch. Is there possibly another element in art which offered the possibility to bridge the gap besides the sense of touch? In the installation Bubbles by Wolfgang Münch and Kiyoshi Furukawa, the spectator is placed in front of a projection screen, a data projector and a video input system which combined the real and the virtual world. By making use of the data projector a series of bubbles was projected on the screen. In order to interact and play with these bubbles, the spectator needed to step into the light of the data projector so his or her shadow could be seen on screen, next to the bubbles. Because of the video input system, each bubble had the possibility to recognise the shadow of the spectator/participant and react to its touch. In the installation Nervous several ‘fluffy’ orange balls were placed against a wall in little groups. The spectator was expected to touch these balls so they would ‘come to life’ and would vibrate and produce little high sounds. The artist Björn Schülke: “Spielt die Machine mit dem Betrachter, oder ist es umgekehrt?” [Does the machine play with the spectator or is it the other way around?] In both artworks the interaction of the spectator was required. In the one case the spectator really needed to touch the artwork while in the other it was more of a virtual touch by the spectators shadow. In this context I started wondering: Why did I feel more connected to the virtual artwork than to the ‘real’ artwork where I could really use my sense of touch? What are the differences between artworks like Nervous and Bubbles? What new possibilities does virtual art offer? In this context I think it is most interesting to focus the research on virtual art which is screen-based (like Bubbles) because there is no possibility for the physical body to enter the screen of the artwork.

This is really interesting material to explore in the sense of Media Culture because it could help to develop the possibilities of the new media art in relation to its audience. It could help the development of understanding first how to produce art which bridges the gap between the spectators and the artworks and secondly how to explore the possibilities of the virtual world. Moreover, there has not been much research on the perception of the virtual world and media art so there is much left to explore. For me personally, it is very interesting to conduct this research because it is closely related to my personal interests in the perception of media and offers me the possibility to continue in a way my previous research. Where my previous research concentrated on the possibilities of immersion and interaction in the ‘real’ world I can now examine its possibilities in the virtual world and possibly answer my remaining questions. The interesting point for me is also that this research will provide a totally different insight in the material because I will work with screen-based virtual art which is very different from the ‘tactile’ art because there is no possibility for the physical body to enter the screen.

2) The Research Problem
In order to examine the possibilities of immersion and interaction in the virtual world and to explore whether there is something else than the touch to diminish or vanish the gap between the artwork and the audience I have formulated the next research problem: To what extent could the screen-based interactive virtual art create new insights in the immersion into art?

In order to structure the research a bit more I also formulated some sub-questions for my research: What are the characteristics of interactive virtual art? How could people immerse into interactive virtual art which is screen-based? Which of these possibilities provides the closest connection between the artwork and the audience and maybe even vanishes the gap between them? What is the reason for this accomplishment?

3) Research Strategy

The Research Strategy which I am going to use for my investigation will contain two kinds of research methods from the book Media Research Methods; audience, institutions, texts by Ina Bertrand and Peter Hughes: the so-called ‘Research on Texts’ and the ‘Research on Audiences’.

In Bertrand and Hughes view, ‘Research on Texts’ is not as it seems merely examining texts but rather the examination of films, television programmes, radio programmes, websites, pop music and the like. In this context, I intend to do phenomenological analysis which will help me to examine virtual interactive artworks and ask questions like: What does this artwork mean to me? How do I immerse into this artwork? Phenomenology is a philosophy in which the experience of a phenomena is the starting point. From this point it tries to extract the essential features of experiences and the essence of what we experience. It is like Bennington and Gay stated in 2000: “Phenomenology is a philosophical endeavour concerned primarily with perception and structures of experience (...). The phenomenological enterprise entails describing the perceptual act, or the relationship between perceiving subject and what is perceived, as it is perceived.” (Bertrand & Hughes, 2005, p. 223) The perceiving subject in the context of my research will be the person which is perceiving the art –this can be either myself or someone else. Because the phenomenology is focused on the perception of phenomena –which is the intention of my research as well– it is an excellent research method to use in order to investigate the way people experience the interactive virtual art and see to what extent they feel the gap between them and the artwork is possibly bridged. At the moment I intend to use virtual artworks from the Zentrum für Kunst und Medientechnology, ZKM, in Karlsruhe (Germany) and look for more examples at other institutions and museums. I have not decided yet which artworks will suite best for my research, this will develop when the investigation is at a later stage.

The empirical experience from the artworks will be combined with theoretical knowledge from literature. Literature from phenomenologists like Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Vivian Sobchack will help me to shed a light on my empirical findings and place them into a larger phenomenological context. Moreover, they will also be informative on the question of how to do phenomenological research and what exactly to focus on. Merleau-Ponty claimed that human beings experience their environment through and because of their bodies. Sobchack has continued this view in the light of the film experience (which is interesting for my research because it is also a screen-based experience) and claims that it is not only the sight which is perceiving the images but the complete spectator’s body; all human senses together. (p. 225) This are very interesting thoughts to keep in mind when examining the immersion into screen-based interactive virtual art. However, I will not only focus on phenomenological literature, I will also use other literature on interactive art, virtual art, interface, cyberspace, and the like.

Because my research is based upon the experience of art I will also do research on the audience to see how other people experience certain virtual interactive artworks. This will not only be by observation or interviews with the spectators but most probably by reading other reviews on artworks because they will provide a closer and well formulated insight in the way other people experience these kinds of artworks. At the moment I have not searched for these reviews yet because of the fact that I have not decided which artworks I will use for my research. As a consequence of this, I do not know whether these reviews will be available or that I might need to change my research method and mainly interview or observe spectators, next to my phenomenological and theoretical research. When I will decide to do the interviews I will ask people questions like: Do you feel like you are closely connected to the artwork? How do you think/feel the gap between the artwork and you is being diminished or maybe even vanished? Questions like these will trigger the people to think about the way they experienced the artwork. Most probably I will try to get in touch with the people during or right after their interaction with the artwork when the experience in fresh in their memory.

It will depend on the availability of material whether I will only do phenomenological research and examine art-reviews or that it will be necessary to involve observation and interviews with other spectators to the research. I expect to gain the most interesting and useful material from the phenomenological research both from myself and others because it is especially designed for the investigation of the experience of phenomena.

4) Planning and organisation
In order to get the research started I have asked dr. Renée van de Vall, who is specialised in Philosophical Aesthetics, and Theory and History of Visual Art and Culture, to be my supervisor. It was very nice that she agreed to be my supervisor because of her expertise and the fact that she supervised also my previous research on ‘tactile’ media art and therefore exactly knows what I have already done and what my interests are.

In order to conduct my phenomenological research it will be necessary for me to visit the artworks which I am going to use for my research. At the moment I am planning to examine at least one of the artworks at the ZKM so, as a consequence of this, part of my research will be taking place at the institute in Karlsruhe. Because of the considerable distance between my home and Karlsruhe and because I have already experienced the artworks located there, I will plan probably only one trip to Germany at the moment that I have completed the theoretical research and know exactly which knowledge I need to gain from the empirical investigation. It will depend on the location of the other artworks which I am going to examine where my other empirical research will be taking place. If I decide to interview other spectators as well, these interviews will also take place there because I want to interview the people right after or during their interaction with the artworks. The material for the theoretical research is available in the university library itself and in its online catalogues. At the moment I have ordered several articles online and I am also copying the relevant literature so everything will be in my own possession and therefore always available. Because of this there is no need for me to go to a particular location for this part of the research, I can do it at home or in the library.

I will collect my empirical research by writing everything down in a diary. Here I will try to describe exactly how I experience the artworks so that I will have a detailed reflection on my personal interaction and immersion with the different artworks in the end. If I chose to interview other spectators I will record these interviews and write a report and a transcript afterwards to make sure that I will have a complete overview of how these people have experienced the artworks. Of course, there will still be the problem of wrong interpretation but it will at least reduce the risk. During the theoretical part of the research I will make summaries of all the useful material. By doing this I will not get lost in the amount of information which I will read over the months. Moreover, it will also create a nice overview which is useful when I start writing and need to search through my resources.

5) Time table
The total amount of time which is available for my research is about 16 weeks. Within this time period I will have to study existing literature on the subject and the methodology, rephrase my research questions, collect research data, analyse this data, and finally write the thesis.

In order to dive really into the theoretical material I will use the first 6 weeks only for reading literature. I will start by reading the phenomenological material because that is also an important part of my empirical research. Next, I will read literature on interactive and virtual art because these elements are characteristic for the artworks which I am going to investigate. After these 6 weeks I will start collecting data by visiting the artworks. Probably I will first visit artworks closer to home and read relevant literature on them and after that I will visit the ZKM because then I will know exactly what to look for at the institute. This collecting and storing of the empirical data will take about two weeks. During this time I will also have done the interviews if I chose to do them. After this I will start analysing my data and linking the empirical research to the theoretical research. It will be possible that I need to read more literature on the subject so I plan to spend 3 to 4 weeks on this analysis. At this point I will have been working on the project for 11 to 12 weeks so that leaves about 4 to 5 weeks to actually write the thesis. During these 4 to 5 weeks I will first write a draft version during the first two weeks. I will ask people to read this draft version which will contain the structure, research, outcomes, and conclusion so they can comment on it and I can make adjustments before writing the final version. Finally, after 16 weeks I plan on completing and handing in my master thesis.

Here actually an overview of the time table is placed.