What then happens when interaction is not possible: the virtuosic interpretation of ergodic artefacts
Main Article Content
Abstract
Procedural systems allow unique modes of authorship and singular aesthetic experiences. As creators and users of these systems, we need to be aware that their aesthetic potential is not solely defined by interaction but that interpretation, and the capacity to understand and simulate the processes taking place within these artefacts is highly significant. This paper argues that although direct interaction is usually the most discernible component in the relationship between ergodic artefacts and their users, ergodicity does not necessarily imply interaction. Non-interactive procedural artefacts may allow the development of ergodic experiences through interpretation, and the probing of the system by its reader through simulations. We try to set the grounds for designing towards virtuosic interpretation, an activity that we may describe as the ergodic experience developed by means of mental simulation through the development of theories of systems.
Downloads
References
Aarseth, E. J. (1997). Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic Literature. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bogost, I. (2008). The Rhetoric of Video Games. In K. Salen (Ed.), The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games and Learning (pp. 117-140). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Carvalhais, M. (2010). Towards a Model for Artificial Aesthetics: Contributions to the Study of Creative Practices in Procedural and Computational Systems. (Ph.D), Universidade do Porto, Porto.
Carvalhais, M. (2012a). Artificial Aesthetics as Tulpas: Regarding Narratives as Thoughtforms. Paper presented at the Avanca | Cinema, Avanca.
Carvalhais, M. (2012b). Unfolding and Unwinding, a Perspective on Generative Narrative. Paper presented at the ISEA 2012 Albuquerque: Machine Wilderness, Albuquerque, NM.
Carvalhais, M. (2013). Traversal Hermeneutics: The Emergence of Narrative in Ergodic Media. Paper presented at the xCoAx 2013, Bergamo. http://2013.xcoax.org/pdf/xcoax2013-carvalhais.pdf
Cramer, F. (2001). Program Code Poetry. Retrieved from http://netzliteratur.net/cramer/programm.htm
Crawford, C. (1987). Process Intensity. Journal of Computer Game Design, 1(5). Retrieved from http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/the-journal-of-computer/jcgd-volume-1/process-intensity.html
Douglas, J. Y. (1994). How Do I Stop This Thing?: Closure and Indeterminacy in Interactive Narratives. In G. P. Landow (Ed.), Hyper / Text / Theory (pp. 159-188). Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Galanter, P. (2003). What is Generative Art? Complexity theory as a context for art theory. Paper presented at the Generative Art, Milan. http://www.philipgalanter.com/downloads/ga2003_what_is_genart.pdf
Galanter, P. (2008). Complexism and the Role of Evolutionary Art. In J. Romero & P. Machado (Eds.), The Art of Artificial Evolution: A Handbook on Evolutionary Art and Music. (pp. 311-332). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72877-1_15
Gazzaniga, M. S. (2011). Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain. New York: Ecco.
Hofstadter, D. R. (1995). Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies: Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought. London: Allen Lane.
Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. Paper presented at the Challenges in Games AI Workshop, Nineteenth National Conference of Artificial Intelligence, San Jose, California.
Kirkpatrick, G. (2011). Aesthetic Theory and the Video Game. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Kwastek, K. (2013). Aesthetics of Interaction in Digital Art (N. Warde, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Leong, T., Howard, S., & Vetere, F. (2008). Take a Chance on Me: Using Randomness for the Design of Digital Devices. Interactions, 15(3), 16-19. https://doi.org/10.1145/1353782.1353787
Levin, G. (2010) The Manual Input Workstation: Documentary Collection/Interviewer: K. Kwastek. La Fondation Daniel Langlois.
Lloyd, S. (2006). Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on The Cosmos. London: Jonathan Cape.
Murray, J. H. (1997). Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Ramachandran, V. S. (2011). The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist's Quest for What Makes Us Human. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Reas, C. E. B. (2008). Process Compendium. Retrieved from http://reas.com/compendium_text/
Reich, S. (1968). Music as a Gradual Process. In P. Hillier (Ed.), Writings about Music, 1965–2000 (pp. 9-11). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ribas, L. (2012). Sound-Image Relations and Dynamics in Digital Interactive Systems. Paper presented at the Artech 2012, 6th International Conference on Digital Arts, Algarve.
Ribas, L. (2014a). On Performativity as a Perspective on Audiovisual Systems as Aesthetic Artifacts. Paper presented at the INTER-FACE : International Conference on Live Interfaces 2014, Lisbon.
Ribas, L. (2014b). Performativity as a Perspective on Sound-Image Relations and Audiovisuality. In M. Carvalhais & P. Tudela (Eds.), Mono #2: Cochlear Poetics: Writings on Music and Sound Arts (pp. 29-50). Porto: i2ADS.
Shermer, M. (2011). The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies — How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths. New York: Times Books.
Simon, J. F., Jr. (1997). Every Icon. Parachute.
Thayer, P. (2009). Sleep.
Thayer, P. (2009-2014). Microcodes. Retrieved from http://pallthayer.dyndns.org/microcodes/
Zielinski, S. (2006). Deep Time of The Media: Toward an Archaeology of Hearing and Seeing by Technical Means (G. Custance, Trans.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Zunshine, L. (2006). Why We Read Fiction: Theory of Mind and the Novel. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press.