Embodied by Design: the Presence of Creativity, Art-Making, and Self in Virtual Reality

Home , Figure space, Interactive art, Physical art, Room scale, Tilt Brush

Embodied by Design: The Presence of Creativity, Art-making, and Self in Virtual Reality

Dissertation

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the

Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Jessica Pissini, M.A.

Graduate Program in Arts Education

The Ohio State University

2020

Doctoral Examination Committee:

Co-Chair: Christine Ballengee-Morris, PhD

Co-Chair: Dana Carlisle Kletchka, PhD

Shari Savage, PhD

Vita Berezina-Blackburn, M.F.A.

Matthew Lewis, PhD

Jessica Pissini

2020

Abstract

From computational and scientific viewpoints, virtual reality (VR) is a well- researched technology, platform, and mode of communication. However, from an arts perspective, virtual reality has very few, if any, defined parameters as an artistic medium.

This study aims to explore the technical affordances and the experiential and creative phenomena of art-making in virtual reality in an effort to establish VR as a contemporary artistic medium framed within an arts and museum education context. The embodied, open-ended play of art-making with the virtual medium presents a different kind of user experience than most other VR applications, which deserves alternative ways of classifying the immersive elements of virtual art-making. By using the social cognitive framework (Bandura, 1986) to guide my research, I consider the dynamic relationship between environment, person, and behavior in order to understand not only the technical elements, but also what type of immersive process and embodied creativity virtual artists experience and what types of art can they make. Through a phenomenological framework, design-thinking approach, and an arts-based research methodology, this study analyzes data collected from participants and uses data visualizations to bring the research to life and make it accessible for all audiences and fields of study. Additionally, this project aims to discover how artists and educators can use the virtual medium to inspire creativity and impactful art experiences within museum spaces in ways that transport the visitors from viewer-of-art to maker-of-art.

Dedication

Dedicated to my supportive, encouraging, and very patient parents and husband, and to my creative mentors, all of whom have influenced my life, thinking, and art- making in substantial ways. I am grateful for you all!

iii Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my co-advisors, Dr. Christine Ballengee Morris and Dr.

Dana Carlisle Kletchka, for their guidance, thoughtful feedback, and patience throughout this entire research project, and also for their kindness and encouragement that was most definitely needed.

I would also like to thank Dr. Shari Savage for her support of my research and creative projects, and also for her friendship and guidance navigating the complex path of academia. I am also very thankful for Vita Berezina-Blackburn, MFA, and Dr. Matthew

Lewis, who have inspired and guided my creative endeavors at Ohio State throughout course projects and this research.

Additionally, I am thankful for my department, Arts Administration, Education, and Policy (AAEP), for their support and funding over the years, and also for the

Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design (ACCAD) at Ohio State for welcoming me into their creative spaces. The collaboration between AAEP and ACCAD made this project possible and helped me re-define my roles as an artist, designer, and educator, for which I am eternally grateful.

Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends who have encouraged me throughout my graduate studies and who have been along for the ride. I am so appreciative of and motivated by your love and support.

iv Vita

2005 ……………………………………………… Hickory High School

2008 ………………………………………………B.A., Integrative Arts, International

Arts minor, Pennsylvania State

University

2009 ………………………………………………B.A., Classical History & Archeology,

Pennsylvania State University

2010 – 2012 ………………………………………Graduate Assistant, Mendes

Excavation, Tel El’Ruba, Egypt,

Pennsylvania State University

2015 ………………………………………………M.A., Digital Art History, Duke

University

2016 ……………………………………………… Graduate Research Assistant, Nasher

Museum of Art, Duke University

2016 to present ……………………………………Graduate Teaching Associate,

Department of Arts Administration,

Education and Policy, The Ohio State

University

Fields of Study

Major Field: Arts Education

v Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii

Dedication ...... iii

Acknowledgments ...... iv

Vita ...... v

List of Tables ...... ix

List of Figures ...... x

PHASE 1: Project Details & Overview ...... 1

1.01 Research Problem & Research Questions...... 1

1.02 My Roles, Perspectives and Philosophical Framework ...... 4

1.03 Research Phases and Design Thinking Approach ...... 9

1.04 Overview of Theoretical Framework and Literature ...... 12

1.05 Overview of Analytical Framework and Methodologies...... 18

1.06 Definitions, Scope and Limitations...... 23

PHASE 2: Foundational Research ...... 27

2.01 Social Theories...... 27

2.02 Environment: Design Theories & Affordances ...... 31 2.02.a Software and Algorithms...... 34 2.02.b Hardware...... 35 2.02.c Space Configuration...... 39 2.02.d Behaviors and Interaction Patterns...... 41 2.02.e Immersion and Presence...... 46

2.03 Person & Behavior: Experiential Phenomena...... 53 vi 2.03.a Embodied Cognition, Somatics & the Mind-body Problem ...... 55 2.03.b Creativity and Flow...... 59 2.03.c Divergent Thinking...... 63

2.04 Virtual Arts & Museum Education ...... 65 2.04.a Aesthetic Principles of Virtual Art ...... 66 2.04.b Constructivist Learning Theory in Museums ...... 71 2.04.c Place Holder Project...... 74 2.04.d Chalkroom...... 75 2.04.e Museums and Tilt Brush...... 77 2.04.f Cleveland Museum of Art ARTLENS...... 79

PHASE 3: Artistic Exploration of the Medium ...... 81

3.01 Creative-Based Methodologies ...... 81 3.01.a Research-led Practice...... 85 3.01.b Arts-based Research...... 86 3.01.c Design (Arts)-Informed Research ...... 91

3.02 Methods & Data Collection ...... 92 3.02.a Environment: Test Scenarios...... 93 3.02.b Person & Behavior: Participant Population...... 98 3.02.c Creative Background Survey...... 100 3.02.d Observation of Interaction and Artworks...... 101 3.02.e Interview and Feedback...... 103 3.02.f Data Visualization...... 103

PHASE 4: Reflection & Analysis of Data ...... 105

4.01 Age Groups & Survey Data ...... 107

4.02 Observed & Documented Data ...... 113 4.02.a Environment: Tools and Brush Usage...... 114 4.02.b Person and Behavior: Creative Approach Patterns...... 120 4.02.c Artworks: Form and Content...... 129 vii 4.02 Observation Notes & Interviews with Participants ...... 146

4.04 Researcher Reflections on Art-making ...... 174

PHASE 5: Conclusions & Implications...... 190

5.01 Summary of Original Research Problem & Research Questions ...... 190

5.02 Creative Affordances & Spectrum of Immersive Experiences ...... 192

5.03 Conclusive Description of the Creative and Embodied Experience ...... 205

5.04 Proposed Aesthetic Principles, Form and Content of the Virtual Medium ...... 214

5.05 Proposed Position in Art Museums...... 218

5.06 Final Concluding Thoughts...... 227

References ...... 230

Appendix A: Interview Questions ...... 239

Appendix B: Pre-VR Interaction Survey & Questionnaire ...... 240

Appendix C: Analysis Worksheet...... 241

viii List of Tables

Table 1. Chart of creative and research methodologies...... 84

Table 2. Breakdown of VR brushes ...... 116

Table 3. Reorganized categories of brushes ...... 117

ix List of Figures

Figure 1. Concept map and visualizations of research components, workflow, frameworks, and methodologies. A high-resolution version can be found here https://www.jessicapissini.com/dissertation (2020)...... 4 Figure 2. Researcher positionality visualization from concept map (2020)...... 5 Figure 3. Design Thinking visualization and flow (2020)...... 10 Figure 4. Breakdown and visualization of Research Phases from concept map (2020). .. 11 Figure 5. Concept map Visualization of Social Cognitive Theory (2020)...... 12 Figure 6. Visualization of Research Methodologies from concept map (2020)...... 20 Figure 7. Visualization of methods and data collection from the concept map (2020). ... 21 Figure 8. Six degrees of freedom (Six degrees of freedom, n.d.)...... 37 Figure 9. Person interacting in Placeholder project (Laurel et al, 1994)...... 74 Figure 10. Chalkroom Installation at MASS MoCA (Anderson, 2017)...... 76 Figure 11. Still image taken from Studio Play video on Cleveland Museum of Art site. (ARTLENS Gallery, n.d.)...... 79 Figure 12. Visualization of Phases and breakdown of methodologies (2020)...... 83 Figure 13. Purple spiral in second VR environment (2020)...... 96 Figure 14. Third VR environment (2020)...... 97 Figure 15. Example Participant Evaluation Sheet (2020)...... 106 Figure 16. Visualization of Survey Results (2020)...... 110 Figure 17. Visualization of survey results for 18 & Under group (2020)...... 110 Figure 18. Visualization of survey results for 19-29 age group (2020)...... 111 Figure 19. Visualization of survey results for 30 & Older age group (2020)...... 111 Figure 20. Screenshot of brushes in Tilt Brush (2020)...... 115 Figure 21. Visualization of individual brush use (2020)...... 119 Figure 22. Visualization of teleport and scale usage in both the Incomplete Figure and Art Installation Environments (2020)...... 123 Figure 23. Visualization and comparison of the average use of scale and teleport tools in the Art Installation environment (2020)...... 127

x Figure 24. Content types and categories of the participant group in the three test environments (2020)...... 130 Figure 25. Snapshot of swirl brush strokes and movements made by participant (2020)...... 132 Figure 26. Snapshot of an abstract immersive space created by a participant (2020). ... 133 Figure 27. Snapshot of doodle made by participant (2020)...... 135 Figure 28. Snapshot of abstract object made by a participant (2020)...... 137 Figure 29. Snapshot of a realistic object (boat) made by a participant (2020)...... 137 Figure 30. Snapshot of character created by participant (2020)...... 138 Figure 31. Line graph of data results pertaining to the artwork content from the whole participant group (2020)...... 140 Figure 32. Content of artworks made by participants in the 18 & Under group (2020). 143 Figure 33. Content of artworks made by participants in the 19-29 age group (2020). ... 144 Figure 34. Content of artworks made by participants in the 30 and older group (2020). 144 Figure 35. Collaborative Art Installation space made by participants (2020)...... 150 Figure 36. Collaborative Art Installation space made b participants (2020)...... 151 Figure 37. P17's modified art environment (2020)...... 170 Figure 38. Prototype VR environment #1 with Poly objects (2020)...... 180 Figure 39. Prototype VR environment #1 with Poly objects (2020)...... 180 Figure 40. Prototype VR environment #2 with Poly objects (2020)...... 181 Figure 41. Prototype VR environment #2 with Poly objects (2020)...... 181 Figure 42. Third prototype environment, Art Installation test scenario (2020)...... 182 Figure 43. Third prototype environment, Art Installation test scenario (2020)...... 183 Figure 44. Third prototype environment, Art Installation test scenario (2020)...... 183 Figure 45. Spectrum of Immersive Experiences (2020)...... 204 Figure 46. Spectrum of Creative Approach (2020)...... 213 Figure 47. Spectrum of Creative Approaches (2020)...... 217

xi PHASE 1: Project Details & Overview

1.01 Research Problem & Research Questions

Virtual reality, as a platform for learning and creativity, has the potential to unlock the restraints on ways we embody knowledge and can inspire a new generation of thinkers. It can encourage people to see beyond the limitations of our physical world and can enhance experiences with virtual works of art. Yet, the research field of virtual reality

(VR) is and has been heavily dominated by technical viewpoints and scientific agendas, and it lacks consistent research contributions from fields like the arts (Kim, 2016), which can offer diverse perspectives and ideas. I am not suggesting that virtual art projects are rare—there have indeed been many creative and arts-infused pieces throughout the last half century, some of which have greatly influenced this study. But, those of us in the arts who work with virtual reality need to establish our voice and presence alongside the technical research community and distinguish VR as an artistic medium beyond that of a supplemental creative tool existing solely for the aid of other technical fields. Therefore, through the lens of an artist-researcher and arts educator, in this study, I aim to explore virtual reality art and the active engagement of virtual reality art-making in an effort to expand the conceptual and perceptual boundaries of VR as a creative and immersive platform, and to show how it can be a powerful artistic medium, mode of communication, and form of art expression in the art museum education field.

The term virtual art is extremely broad and includes various forms and media.

From the perspective of a designer or VR application developer, the creative process of developing a multifaceted VR experience could certainly be considered an artistic

1 practice, or contemporary medium, in itself. However, while I acknowledge the complexity of the creative process and artistic work that goes into developing 3D- modeled environments or VR applications, this project does not focus on that type of design process or virtual art, nor does it look at other forms of virtual art, 2D and 3D, created via design software and computer screens. Instead, it looks at virtual art made while immersed in virtual reality and with the creative tools and affordances of the VR platform. In the current market of consumer VR products, several creative applications exist and offer various forms of art-making and design-based experiences. While a survey of all creative or VR art-making applications would be an insightful endeavor, this study specifically focuses on one application, Tilt Brush, which is owned by Google

(https://www.tiltbrush.com/) and allows the user to draw, paint, and, by extension sculpt, works of art from within the virtual platform—thus creating a whole new contemporary medium of art.

In general, the term medium from an arts perspective, can refer to both “the type of art (e.g. painting, sculpture, printmaking), as well as the materials an artwork is made from” (Tate Museum, n.d.). Essentially, a medium is the means used to conceptualize an idea. As an interactive platform, virtual reality is the tool: the material and the means that artists can use to conceptualize their idea and, therefore, it is the medium under investigation in this study. Other artistic virtual reality applications may have different tools or brushes, but overall, each application is a slight variation of the same virtual medium, in similar ways that ink, marker, or pencil all fall under the umbrella of drawing as a traditional artistic medium. Analogue drawing and painting mediums, however, have

2 been restricted to two dimensions on flat paper or canvas until now, with the emergence of virtual reality.

Making virtual art from within a three-dimensional VR space, as opposed to the confines of a computer screen, is a different type of creative approach that produces a new type of virtual art product. The Tilt Brush application, specifically, offers a space for immersive art exploration and movement that does not have physical world limitations— like gravity or the presence of our body getting in the way. Additionally, and more broadly, it affords a new set of rules and aesthetics that is currently underdeveloped and insufficiently researched, especially from an arts perspective. In an effort to examine both the creative process and product of VR art-making, the following sequential questions have guided my research and the ways I position virtual art in the fields of arts and museum education:

• What does immersive VR technology afford the artist while creating from within the platform? • What are the experiential phenomena that happen during virtual reality art- making? • What are the creative phenomena and art products created during virtual reality art-making? • What are the aesthetic principles that define the VR art medium? • Where and how does VR art and art-making fit within arts and museum education?

In the remainder of this first section, I position the study through defining my roles, lenses, and frameworks, while also offering an overview to the theories shaping this study and the methodologies used to collect and analyze data, artwork, and feedback

3 from participants. The following infographic concept map depicts the workflow of this project as a whole and details the research components, questions, and goals, in addition to the overall frameworks, structure, and methodologies used to conduct this research.

1.02 My Roles, Perspectives and Philosophical Framework

Throughout the initial phase of this study, I found myself, like many other scholars, taking on the roles of several contributing team members as if this were a

4 collaborative project between neighboring fields. As the primary researcher, I bring three additional voices to the conversation, all with distinct qualities, abilities, and perspectives. It was important for me to establish a role for each one of these voices and to designate tasks and objectives to stay organized and better understand my positionality in this project. The additional three voices or perspectives represent my inner artist, designer, and educator; each one wanting something different from this project or driving specific components within the workflow. After some time and reflective writing, the voices have settled into their own clear sound, which has allowed for a continuous and harmonious internal discussion as a hybridic researcher.

Figure 2. Researcher positionality visualization from concept map (2020).

5 Designer and Artist. Everything I do in my life—whether personal, professional, or academic—is grounded from a designer's perspective, which I greatly underestimated going into this project. To some, it may seem redundant or strange to differentiate between an artist and a designer since the terms are synonymous in most fields or industries. While I acknowledge there are many similarities and shared qualities between both roles, I feel distinct differences in the creative approach are important to identify and position for this study. From my experience, artists thrive on the creative process and embrace ambiguity, while designers are driven by the creative product and tend to plan out every aspect so that ambiguity cannot exist. Austin Knight, a product designer for

Google, says, “as a designer, your work must be informed by multiple sources of data, which are almost always outside of yourself,” and “as an artist, your sole source of data and inspiration can be yourself” (Knight, n.d., paras. 6-11). Simply put, designers approach their work objectively and artists approach it subjectively. It has taken me a lot of time and effort to understand and engage with my creative work in both an objective and subjective approach, as Knight describes. Through this study, on a personal level, I have found and can distinguish the difference between both inner perspectives of designer and artist, which will impact future work beyond this study. I will detail that journey and process in later phases of this dissertation, but it is important to offer some context as to how I differentiate the two and how it influences my perspectives on this project.

Educator. Over the years, I have been in many situations that would certainly qualify me as an educator or teacher, but it has taken me most of graduate school to own the role with confidence and realize the influence it has on how I relate and communicate

6 with others. Throughout the early phases of this project, my educator perspective was timid, but constantly nudging me to consider the audience and the human element of this project. The educator voice consistently asks what my research might teach or offer to individuals outside of academia, keeping me semi-grounded within arts education and museum education fields.

Together, my various roles and perspectives—artist, designer, educator and researcher—have allowed me to not only position myself within this study, but they have also given me multiple lenses from which to view and interrogate theories, methods, and ideas. From a broader philosophical framework, however, I also view my work through three inter-dependent world views: constructivism, postmodernism, and the aesthetic intersubjective paradigm.

Constructivism as a broad philosophical framework proposes that we construct meaning and then continue to reconstruct meaning through our lived experiences (Leavy,

2017). We participate in a continual process of learning and re-learning, shaping and re- shaping, adapting and re-adapting to our world. Constructivist philosophies suggest that truth, or meaning, is subjective and personalized through our experiential experiences

(Hookway, 2016). In Dewey’s work Democracy and Education (1916), he suggests that learning is a "continual reorganization, reconstruction and transformation of experience"

(p. 50). It is through the continuous cycle of change and growth that we make, or construct, our own meaning. This project aims to understand virtual reality as an artistic medium which, when used by artists, offers a creative platform for the discovery of one’s truth through artistic expression and meaning-making like any other artist medium in the physical world.

7 The postmodern belief system relates to constructivist world view by its clear stance against universal and modern viewpoints on education and human experiences that stem from the Enlightenment tradition (Schwandt, 2007). Fundamentally, postmodern ideas oppose the concept of an absolute truth, and, in fact, completely “distrust” the

“totalizing discourses and metanarratives” (Schwandt, 2007) of generalized society and culture. According to postmodernists, our reality is purely subjective and centers around the individual perspective (Schwandt, 2007). Therefore, a postmodern perspective is crucial for this study in order to consider non-western theories on embodiment, truth, and creativity that do not fit within the Enlightenment model of scientific and ultimate truth.

The final framework to shape and influence my perspectives in this study is the aesthetic intersubjective paradigm, which Leavy (2017) defines in her work as a:

Philosophical belief system, developed at the intersection of the arts and sciences,

that proposed the ability of the arts to access that which is otherwise out of reach;

values preverbal ways of knowing, including sensory, emotional, perceptual,

kinesthetic, and imaginal forms of knowing. (p. 255)

Because virtual reality exists at the intersection of science, technology, and art, this study examines art and art-making through an arts-based approach, which values sensory experiences that scientific or technical research cannot quantify. Our interactions and interpretations of digital media and virtual communications are not only subjective experiences but also inter-subjective experiences, holistically shaped by our social and symbolic interactions (Schwandt, 2007). The aesthetic intersubjective worldview helps to frame many of the moving parts of this research, specifically regarding the relationship

8 between embodied, cognitive, and creative experiences as ways of knowing that other fields outside of the arts cannot access so easily, if at all.

Together, constructivism and postmodern perspectives, and the aesthetic intersubjective paradigm create a holistic and multifaceted personal worldview that centers around the relationship of truth and experience: 1) The constructivist perspective addresses how we construct meaning and truth through personal and social experience

(Dewey, 1934, 1997, 1998; Leavy, 2017; Schwandt, 2007); 2) the postmodern perspective opposes absolute truth (Schwandt, 2007); and 3) all while, the aesthetic intersubjective perspective addresses how the arts afford us access to these meaningful experiences through sensory and embodied ways of knowing (Leavy, 2017; Schwandt,

2007). Together, all three world views have informed my personal philosophy as an artist and educator and have framed the perspectives within this study.

1.03 Research Phases and Design Thinking Approach

This study as a whole has shapeshifted several times in my attempt to organize multidisciplinary research and perspectives. As a designer, I naturally categorize most things into sequential layers, lists, or phases that dig deeper and deeper into the task at hand before jumping into it. For this project, I constructed a plan that divides the workflow into phases, each engaging with the theory and practice of art-making in different ways and with different people. While I detail my research methodologies in

Phase 3, it is worth mentioning here that I have loosely approached my work from a design thinking perspective in regard to my creative production and workflow.

9 Design thinking “is a human-centered approach to innovation that draws from the designer's toolkit to integrate the needs of people, the possibilities of technology, and the requirements for business success” (Brown, n.d., para. 1). There are many variations of design thinking approaches, but, in general, the process involves a series of phases that:

1) empathize and define a problem; 2) ideate or conceptualize multiple ways to solve the problem; 3) prototype possible solutions; and 4) test or implement your final solution to the initial problem (Brown, n.d.).

Figure 3. Design Thinking visualization and flow (2020).

From my background as a designer, I see similarities between the design thinking and traditional academic research approaches. Therefore, this dissertation’s structure flows in sequential phases in place of chapters, in an effort to remain consistent to my natural style as a designer and parallel the steps I took to conduct the art-making components of this project. However, it is worth mentioning that all of my thinking and

10 reflections were consistently on-going and were in no way confined to the beginning or end of a specific phase. Likewise, theories, perspectives, and assumptions changed throughout all of the phases as the research evolved. The use of phases has simply been a helpful way to organize and structure my workflow, like a visualization tool, especially in regard to positioning my roles, perspectives, and methods of inquiry.

Figure 4. Breakdown and visualization of Research Phases from concept map (2020).

In PHASE 1, my goals are to situate the study (including my perspectives, frameworks, and lenses), define my research problem, ask questions, and narrow my project’s scope in preparation for the arts-based practices. During PHASE 2, I offer a foundation and review of research, theories, and projects, all of which have influenced the art-making components and the outcome of this study. PHASE 3 details the methodologies, the arts-based approaches, and the interconnected and working components of my artistic journey, in addition to the participants’ experiences, through and within the virtual medium. In PHASE 4, I reflect and analyze the collected data from my own practice and from participant interaction in regard to our art-making processes and our creative artifacts. Lastly, in PHASE 5, I combine the knowledge gained from 11 theory, the experience gained from practice, and the understandings gained from reflection, all in an effort to conclude my findings, define virtual reality as an artistic medium, and to recognize the experiential and creative phenomena that happen within that medium.

1.04 Overview of Theoretical Framework and Literature

While I acknowledge that my broad art lens shapes this study in every phase, I also chose to apply a specific theoretical framework to help guide the research, practice, and analysis. The Social Cognitive Framework, which stems from Social Cognitive

Theory (Bandura, 1986), suggests that “learning occurs in a social context with a dynamic and reciprocal interaction of the person, environment, and behavior” (LaMorte,

2018, para. 1). Therefore, in my journey to investigate the virtual art medium, the immersive process, and experiences of virtual art-making, I have positioned my work to closely examine three interconnected, interdependent, and contributing factors of environment, person, and behavior.

Figure 5. Concept map Visualization of Social Cognitive Theory (2020).

12 The environmental element and spatial conditions encompass the totality of the virtual space, interactive tools, and abilities afforded to the viewer while immersed in virtual reality. The person element is both the physical presence of a human and also the cognitive, conceptual, and perceptual experiences one has during their interaction in VR.

Lastly, this study views the behavioral element as an extension of the embodied cognition, and specifically involves the interactive movements and reactions to visual stimuli that contribute to the active expression of communicating through making. All three components dynamically work together and cannot function in isolation. The environmental affordances dictate a person’s actions, both cognitively and behaviorally

(Barker, 1968; Gibson, 1966). Likewise, our embodied cognition and interactive behaviors with virtual objects and tools affect and change the environment. The immersive and embodied art-making process occurs through the relationship between the virtual environment, person, and behavior, while the virtual art product exists at the epicenter of all three elements.

Initially, I underestimated just how interconnected and influential each component is on the other and how critical it is for this study to consider and view them both individually and in conjunction with each other. Overall, Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) is a practical and helpful framework for this study because of the dynamic and intersectional nature of art-making, cognitive phenomena, and virtual environment.

Therefore, this dissertation explores each component in depth throughout the remaining phases as a way to remain consistent within social cognitive theory and framework.

Additionally, to position my study within the discourse of scholarly literature, I refer to several other theories and research from the technical computing fields, social sciences,

13 and the arts, all of which have become the foundational research driving and inspiring the artistic components of this project.

As part of the larger theoretical body of literature referenced in this study, I look to the theories that stem from ecological psychology and visual perception proposed by

Roger Barker (1968) and James Gibson (1966) in an effort to understand the complex relationship between humans and their environments, specifically virtual environments.

The concept of affordances (Gibson, 1966) in relation to human perception parallel similar semiotic concepts of sign and signifier and how we know and understand our environments (Barricelli, Gadia, Rizzi, and Marini, 2016; Chandler, 2007; Peirce, 1877;

Sebeok, 2001;). Therefore, the semiotic theories of codes and conventions that shape human experience and how we perceive the world help to frame the study from a broad perspective. But a dive into specific design-based and behavioral theories is also critical to this research.

To understand and define the parameters of virtual reality as an artistic medium and creative experience, I first look to the extensive research already conducted on VR as a technical platform in an effort to understand the complexities of the integrated system, as well as to find the voids in the media design theories that do not consider things from an arts perspective. In Phase 2 of this dissertation, I deconstruct the literature, design theories, and components of VR systems, all of which stem from technical research in computer science, media design, and game design fields (Adams, 2004; Bjork and

Holopainen, 2005; Jerald, 2016; Mestre, 2005; Sanchez-Vives and Slater, 2005; Slater et al., 2008; Slater and Wilbur, 1997; Zhang, Perkis, and Arndt, 2017). I touch on what VR designers and developers refer to as immersion, or the “objective technology that has the

14 potential to engage users in the experience” (Jerald, 2016, p. 56). Immersion is sometimes easily confused with or conceptualized as the subjective experience known as presence

(Jerald, 2016; Sanchez-Vives and Slater, 2005; Slater et al., 2008; Slater and Wilbur,

1997), but immersion in no way defines the subjective human experience; instead, it is an assemblage of the designed and developed components of a VR system that generate the conditions and potential for feelings of presence. Simply stated, immersion is the technology while presence is the feeling or experience.

Various members of the virtual reality research community suggest that several types of immersion exist depending on the combination of VR technologies and the overall intended design (Adams, 2004; Bjork and Holopainen, 2005; Jerald, 2016;

Mestre, 2005; Sanchez-Vives and Slater, 2005; Slater et al., 2008; Slater and Wilbur,

1997; Zhang et al, 2017). Of the classifications that I will detail in Phase 2 (page 46), researchers categorize immersion into spatial, narrative, tactical, and strategic types, which indicate the general interactive intentions of the VR environment—though they in no way define the subjective experience (Jerald, 2016; Zhang et al, 2017). For example,

VR games that have a storytelling and role-playing agenda would fall under narrative immersion because their designed components aim to position the user within a role that is part of a larger narrative. Likewise, other games or applications designed as a quest or challenge might have the tactical or strategic immersion labels. Virtual reality applications and games can have more than one type of immersive approach—most of which do. However, as an artist and researcher, I am not confident positioning VR artmaking under the current immersion categories because the active engagement in an artistic practice can have diverse intentions and outcomes different from those of games,

15 quests, or other VR experiences. Therefore, in this dissertation, I suggest alternative ways of classifying and considering creative and open-ended immersive experiences.

Additionally, both creative flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1996, 2014) and presence can result from an immersive process—though it is impossible to prove. Some researchers in the technical community suggest that flow-states, or just flow, can occur in any type of interaction or engagement where our attention is completely focused on the immediate activity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996) (e.g., relatedly, video games). However, because virtual reality art-making is such a new medium and different type of experience, the specific immersive combinations of the hardware and software—in addition to the open-ended nature of making art—have been under researched in relation to presence and creative flow, revealing a gap in the literature from an arts perspective. Therefore, in this study, I aim to fill that void by studying the connections between presence and creative flow and by considering the conditions and configurations of design elements, affordances, and user responses.

This study has also been greatly influenced by past and contemporary VR research projects, museum installations, and interactive gaming applications, specifically those conducted and exhibited by the Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and

Design (ACCAD) at The Ohio State University, virtual reality Placeholder Project conducted by Brenda Laurel in (1993-94), Laurie Anderson's Chalkroom installation at

MASS MoCA (2017), and various VR museum installations—all of which have offered engaging virtual art experiences to public viewers and have laid a foundation for the legacy of virtual reality art and making. I will detail these projects in section 4 of Phase 2 and detail how they have influenced my research on virtual art-making.

16 In regard to the relationship between person and behavior, or cognition and virtual reality art-making, I explore embodied cognition theories and the complexity around the mind-body issue by reviewing the history of Western and Eastern perspectives on embodiment. I first look at the ideas that stem from the Western tradition of Dualism as suggested by Renee Descartes (1960) and later discussed by Howard Robinson (2017).

Next, I continue within the Western tradition by detailing the embodied cognition theories proposed by John Dewey (1925, 1966, 1981), along with his fellow philosophers

George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (1999). To position this study within the context of the mind-body relationship from a holistic Eastern perspective, I also look at ideas surrounding somatics—specifically the research conducted by Thomas Hanna (1983,

1984, 1988) that investigates the mind-body relations in contrast to Western ideas of dualism (Hart, 1994), all of which also relates to embodied experiences of one’s self and behavior in virtual reality.

Within the context of behavior as mentioned in the social cognitive framework, I look to theories surrounding creativity, creative cognition (Finke, Ward, and Smith, 1992;

Torrance, Glover, Ronning, and Reynolds, 1989), and creative flow (Csikszentmihalyi,

1975, 1996; Doyle, 2017); all of which directly connect to theories and assessments on divergent thinking (Amabile, 1983, 1996; Guilford, 1950, 1954, 1959; Torrance, 1966,

1980). The Torrance Tests of Creativity (1966, 1980) inspired the test environments and scenarios of this study. A review of creativity and cognition literature helps position new perspectives on virtual environment affordances, new behaviors, and abilities, and helps set a foundation for how to analyze the product and process of art-making in VR.

17 In the last section of the literature review, I position the technical, environmental, personal, and behavioral elements in the arts and museum education fields by looking at contemporary aesthetic theories proposed by Terry Barrett (2003, 2008, 2011), who breaks down ways to understand art and aesthetics beyond value, judgement, and criticism—because art is much more than just beauty, and, beauty is subjective.

Additionally, in this section of the literature review, I touch on constructivist learning theories from a museum perspective by discussing the work conducted by George Hein

(1995, 2002, 2005) to understand the modern shifts of museum experiences to be more visitor-centered, and how VR may fit into a museum space. Lastly, I round out the review by discussing past and current VR art projects, installations, and applications, in addition to other contemporary museum installations, interactive galleries, and creative maker spaces that do not technically include virtual art-making, but could be viewed as models or examples of where virtual art-making might exist one day in an art museum.

1.05 Overview of Analytical Framework and Methodologies

The art-making experiences, creative artifacts, and feedback that I gathered from participants, in addition to my own art-making experiences, cannot be measured through quantitative methods alone because they are purely phenomenological by nature.

Therefore, as a general analytical framework, the phenomenological structure offers this project a theoretical grounding through the study of “various types of experiences ranging from perception, thought, memory, imagination, emotion, desire, and volition to bodily awareness, embodied action, and social activity” (Smith, 2016, para. 8). Simply, the phenomenological approach offers a foundation for the study of a phenomenon, or lived

18 experience, which is then expressed through a descriptive analysis—not through charts, numbers, or quantifiable data. In my study, I view the activity or behavior of art-making in virtual reality as the phenomenon under investigation because it is an activity unlike other art-making approaches from our physical and analog reality (Chambers, 2013;

Creswell, 2013).

Typically, the phenomenological framework positions research and data through two questions or lenses: “what have you experienced in terms of the phenomenon...” and

“what contexts or situation have typically influenced your experiences of the phenomenon” (Chambers, 2013, para. 1). In this study, I seek to find answers and descriptions about the experiences of virtual art-making, or phenomenon, and I also look at ways to describe the affordances and aesthetics of the medium—the contexts that have influenced the experiences of art-making. Phenomenology as a framework and approach offers both structure and freedom, allowing for exploration and play within the chosen methodology and methods like arts-based practices as forms of inquiry.

This study aims to define the parameters and understand the experiences of virtual art-making as an active phenomenon, so engagement in an arts practice and participation within the medium under investigation is critical to the research. Therefore, the overall research methodology of this study is grounded within the practice-based or arts-based tradition which, in general, positions the active and creative process as a form of inquiry and as the driving force of the research. Artistic practices—from the subject matter down through the general frameworks, lenses, and methods—heavily influence this project.

The interdisciplinary nature of this research topic has made the effort to define methodologies challenging due to interchangeable terminology and many variations of

19 similar yet different approaches. However, this study employs several methodologies depending on the research phase and flow, in addition to the relationship between the informed components.

Figure 6. Visualization of Research Methodologies from concept map (2020).

For example, art-making in any medium can be a creative practice that informs the research outcome. However, foundational research done during a literature review and conducted before the art-making may indeed influence and inform the creative practice as well. Therefore, this study structures creative elements through a Research-Informed

Practice methodology, in addition to Arts-Based Research and Design-Informed

Research methodologies. As a practicing artist and creative individual, engaging in various artistic practices as modes of inquiry (Leavy, 2015) has felt natural and practical for myself as a researcher, artist, and designer, and is appropriate to answer the research

20 questions driving this study and engage in creative methods of participant data collection, reflection, and analysis, which I briefly overview next.

Figure 7. Visualization of methods and data collection from the concept map (2020).

For this research, I engage personally with the art medium as one set of data, and also invited participants to make virtual reality art so that I may collect data of their experiences. During my own creative sessions, I engaged with themes of embodiment, self-perception in VR, and non-human abilities. As shown in the previous figure, each participant entered three VR environments; I created, as an artist-designer, two of the three VR environments that participants experienced. The first environment was an empty and blank space with the default visual settings configured by the Tilt Brush application. The second environment appears exactly the same as the first but includes a purple spiral in the shape of a sphere, which participants used as a starting point. This environment was inspired by the Incomplete Figure Test from The Torrance Tests of

Creativity (Torrance, 1966), which offer a vague, incomplete shape and ask a participant to create an artwork using the shape as a starting point. The third environment is a more immersive and visually stimulating space that feels like an art installation piece. I

21 encouraged each participant to explore and engage in the artwork in whatever way they wanted—essentially making art from art. In Phase 3 of this project, I will discuss the virtual spaces and participant interactions in greater detail along with the methods and data collection.

To gather data of live interaction and art-making, for myself and with participants,

I documented the creative process using two types of video cameras. The first was a stationary video camera set up in the VR computer lab that captured live interaction and body movement. The second camera was a screen grab on the computer display that captured the first-person perspective of each participant (including myself as participant- researcher). Through the video documentation and live interaction, I was able to observe in real time how each participant interacted with the virtual medium and also re-watch my own experiences. Additionally, each participant filled out a Creativity Survey at the beginning of each session that offered general feedback on their art-making skills, interests, and experiences to compare and analyze with others as to how those prior social experiences may have influenced their virtual reality art-making approach and product.

Lastly, after each participant concluded their virtual reality art-making session, I conducted informal interviews to gather reactions, feedback, and personal reflections on their experience. Both the survey and interview question forms may be viewed in the appendix of this study. With the data and information gathered from participants and myself, I looked for anomalies that set virtual reality art apart from other art mediums and art experiences. In my analysis of the collected data from the surveys, the videos, and the final artworks, I found themes and patterns relating to the following categories:

22 • Semiotic / Social Codes • Age / Generation • Tool / Brush Usage • Movement • Creative Approach • Content of Art • Perception / Agency

1.06 Definitions, Scope and Limitations

The term virtual experience is an extremely broad and somewhat vague expression that can encompass various types of active or passive interaction with a technological platform, including the use of any digital or virtual medium like VR or AR systems, gaming systems, a computer, or mobile devices—certainly not limited to those.

In this study, I view the term virtual reality experience, or VR experience, as a subclass and specific type of the broad virtual experience—one that utilizes a VR head-mounted display. To go even further, scholars like Brenda Laurel (2017) have identified a subclass of virtual reality experience, which she calls immersive virtual reality experience, that includes complex motion-tracking virtual reality platforms. While I do not use the term immersive virtual reality experience in this study because I believe it is redundant, I do agree with Laurel that there should be a distinction for non-motion-tracked and motion- tracked VR experiences (both of which include VR head-mounted displays). In this study, I only use and reference motion-tracked VR systems for the art-making and data collection, so the immersive element from Laurel’s terminology should be implied and understood, and therefore not needed in my description. In the following chapter, I will offer more details by reviewing VR systems and their immersive affordances.

23 The last term in need of clarification is affordance, which is extensively used within the VR design community and research, and also in this study. Initially the term was developed and used by James Gibson in his work The Senses Considered as

Perceptual Systems (1966) to refer to the types of things offered or afforded to us from a specific environment. In a later work, Gibson (1979) offers the following definition:

The affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it provides

or furnishes, either for good or ill. The verb to afford is found in the dictionary,

the noun affordance is not. I have made it up. I mean by it something that refers to

both the environment and the animal in a way that no existing term does. It

implies the complementarity of the animal and the environment. (p.127)

Later, researchers like Donald Norman (1988) expanded on the term affordances to refer not only to the things an environment offers, but also the things that technologies offer or afford us to use. Virtual reality blurs the line between environment, technology, tool, objects, and artifacts. Therefore, in this study, I combine both Gibson’s (1966) and

Norman’s (1988) definitions and view the term affordance as what any entity affords or offers the user—whereas the entity can refer to things like an environment, objects, technology, tool, or an artifact. In the context of virtual reality and art-making, this research focuses on the types of things the virtual medium affords or offers the artist regarding their physical and cognitive creative processes.

A lot of the research and ideas from this study could easily be directed toward augmented reality and similar gaming platforms that use various headset devices and controllers. Augmented reality (AR) experiences allow the user to see and be in a real

24 physical environment while viewing some type of layered virtual content through a screen or headset device. However, AR is not fully immersive like virtual reality.

Therefore, this project specifically looks at immersive and motion tracked VR art-making via the HTC Vive and the Oculus Quest, both of which are VR headsets and should not be confused with augmented systems.

Likewise, the Tilt Brush application is not a game, nor does it have any set requirements, conditions, or intentions other than for creative and artistic exploration. If desired, one could use the platform to design a game-like space or interactive element; however, that is not the intention of this project either. While I will reference game design theories, ideas, and projects as part of the foundational review of the literature, I do not intend to use the Tilt Brush application for gaming purposes nor is this dissertation intended to challenge or discredit game design theories.

Regarding other limitations to my work, I recognize several closely related academic fields that use and research virtual reality, specifically, in therapy, disabilities theory and research, training, and medical fields. Though I may reference and apply theories from similar studies and/or from the social sciences, I do not intend for my work to parallel projects designed for training or medical purposes. I also recognize that the practice of virtual art-making is not applicable and/or accessible to every person, especially to individuals with certain physical disabilities like immobility or blindness.

While an exploration of disability theories and perspectives in relation to virtual platforms could be a rich study, they are not in the scope of this work.

Lastly, the participant group, includes central Ohioans between the ages of 4-54 years old. I acknowledge that they may not represent a broad demographic spectrum

25 compared to other areas of the state and country. This study also touches on how a virtual reality environment may or may not be neutral platform that represents and/or connects with all races, genders, and sexual orientations. The Tilt Brush application does not offer a virtual representation of the user’s body, but it does challenge critical ideas about identity, which has influenced my thinking in regard to the use of avatars and characters in the context VR. While I will touch on this subject again in Phase 4, I do not plan to explore the topic of identity through a critical lens—though I believe there certainly is a need in the VR community for such research.

26 PHASE 2: Foundational Research

2.01 Social Theories

To begin understanding any type of art-making and or creative process, one should start with the connections to cognitive, behavioral, and social theories that shape our experiences with art and our perceptions of ourselves. As mentioned earlier, I use the

Social Cognitive Framework as a general foundation to this study and to provide structure to analyze the interconnected elements of environment, person, and behavior.

The social cognitive framework stems from the Social Cognitive Theory as proposed by

Albert Bandura (1977, 1986) and closely parallels the earlier ideas presented by Roger

Barker (1968) and James Gibson (1966, 1979), both of whom researched ecology and perception in relation to humans and environmental settings in the mid-20th century.

Their ideas intertwine with the semiotic theories of social codes, understood as conventions that shape how we see the world. In the following paragraphs, I will further explain these social theories in an effort to show how interconnected, cognitively and behaviorally, we are to our environments and how artists can use these theories to better understand reactions and experiences in virtual art spaces.

The Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), an extension from Albert Bandura’s (1986) earlier idea known as Social Learning Theory (1977), suggests that “learning occurs in a social context with a dynamic and reciprocal interaction of the person, environment, and behavior” (LaMorte, 2018, para. 1). In addition to exploring the relationships and interconnected-ness of the three components, SCT emphasizes how past social experiences influence the person and their behavior (LaMorte, 2018). Generally, fields like psychology, education, and public health, among many others, use SCT to study

27 behaviors in controlled social environments as a way to better understand how an individual acquires information. The knowledge gained through the social experience or environment then influences future behaviors as part of a reciprocal learning process between person, behavior, and environment (Bandura, 1986). In many ways, SCT presents similar ideas to the earlier research conducted by Roger Barker and James

Gibson on how one’s environment influences their perception and understanding of an experience, in addition to how researchers position the term affordance.

While I apply theories from neuroscience and cognitive research to my work, I do not intend to prove or make any correlations between brain activity that may happen in a physical environment with brain activity that may happen while engaging with virtual environment. Instead, I use these theories to formulate a lens from which to position and view art-making as a behavioral and cognitive phenomenon—which in this study, happens within a virtual environment. Ecological psychology reaches a bit deeper into fields like neuroscience, in addition to the umbrella field of cognitive psychology, and looks at the intersection of environment, affordances of objects and environments, behavior, visual perception, and proprioception, all of which contribute to the body’s internal communication system through one’s senses.

To break down ecological psychology, I first look to the work of Roger Barker and James Gibson, both of whom were American psychologists researching ecology and perception in the mid-20th century. Barker (1968) suggests that human behavior is

“situated” within certain contexts. For example, within a fixed setting, humans act in a certain way, like at church or at work versus being at home or out with friends. Similar in thinking, Gibson (1966) suggests that an environment, which affords certain actions onto

28 humans, influences human perception. Through the perception of our visual world, we know and understand it and how to behave in it. Both theories claim that a connection exists between humans and their environments and that both are reliant on each other

(Barker, 1968; Gibson, 1966, 1979).

In a more recent study, neuroscience researchers claim that human and animal brains contain an inner GPS system that maps out an environment through all of the senses, not just vision (Lewis, 2014), furthering Barker and Gibson’s initial ideas about the interconnected relationship of person, behavior, and environment. According to the study, researchers collected data from rats’ brain activity while the rats walked in a physical environment and then in a virtual space. The researchers suggest that the virtual reality space was not able to offer the same smells, feels, or sounds that the physical space offers, which resulted in different mental maps and reactions from the rats. The mind map created for the virtual spaces only tracked steps like a pedometer and did not mentally construct the outline of the virtual environment as the rat’s brain did for the physical space (Lewis, 2014). Our bodies, and those of most animals, have an inner sensory communication system known as proprioception (Green, 1993). Influenced by the work of many researchers before him, Charles Scott Sherrington coined the terms proprioception, interoception, and exteroception in the early 1900s (Burke, 2007).

Proprioception is a part of our brain’s operating system that recognizes the physical body in relation to the environment, which helps the brain to enable movement through the space (Sherrington, 1906). The exteroceptors (organs like eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and skin) and the interoceptors (inner organs and nerves) work together to notify the brain

29 about the outer environment and the inner workings of the body so that it can function within a space (Sherrington, 1906).

Virtual reality presents a challenge to the proprioceptive process because, in most cases, the VR user cannot see their physical body while in the virtual environment. While they can certainly feel, sense, and control movement, happenings outside the body do not always align with happenings inside the body which is the general cause for motion sickness (Jerald, 2016). However, despite the complexity of our body’s interconnected neural system, external social factors and affordances of the environment heavily influence our perception of the space we are in and of our self. Through his term affordance, Gibson (1979) further describes the relationship between humans and the environment by suggesting that when humans perceive a specific object or element within an environment, they unconsciously see the affordances of that object beyond its physical qualities; they know what that object can do or offer them, and react accordingly, sometimes unconsciously from habit and conditioning. For example, if we see a coffee mug, we see and know that object through its affordances as a drinking vessel, not just for the material or color. In relation to my study, social and ecological theories relate to the ways in which the virtual environmental affords an action or prompts a certain type of behavior that we have been conditioned to know from our physical world. However, a virtual space may have different limitations and affordances than our physical world, like the absence of gravitational forces, which can challenge our shared codes and understood social conventions, and, therefore, influence our perception and behavior in new ways.

30 According to Daniel Chandler (2007), codes, conventions, and beliefs act as a framework that helps us to understand and construct signs and meanings (p. 147). In short, codes, or socially agreed upon conventions, help us make sense of the world and shape the ways we know and understand things around us (Chandler, 2007), in similar ways to how our past social experiences influence or shape us and our behaviors according to Social Cognitive Theory. Semiotics is an extremely complex and large field of study, too large to cover in its entirety in this dissertation. However, it is important to note that, in general, semiotics is the study of human relationships and experiences with the visual world through signs, symbols, and codes—in addition to so much more.

Everyone’s worldview, perspectives, and codes differ in some capacity from each other because people come from diverse backgrounds, cultures, and social experiences, all of which influence and shape the beliefs they have, and by extension the beliefs they bring into a new environment—physical or virtual. Our codes and social conventions help us to organize, value, and understand our surroundings and then navigate through the spaces

(Barricelli, et al 2016; Chandler, 2007; Lee, n.d.; Peirce, 1877; Sebeok, 2001). In a semiotic context, social conventions are significant when we interact with and respond to art, especially in a virtual space. But in order to break down the elements that influence one’s experience with virtual art, I next look at the virtual environment through a review of virtual design theories understand the technical and creative affordances.

2.02 Environment: Design Theories & Affordances

Interactive virtual reality applications, installations, and environments are generally created through the same software and processes that game and media designers use for their products. Therefore, the fundamental theories that shape the video

31 game and computing design process have also bled into the realm of virtual reality, therefore influencing the ways researchers and designers create VR experiences.

Furthermore, society has been conditioned to accept and expect a specific type of experience with digital and virtual media, stemming from the contemporary consumption of video games and the shared media design approaches by developers. Gamification, which is “the process of understanding and integrating game mechanics and design techniques” (Hlavac and Strawn, 2018) into other non-gaming media, has become part of the accepted and expected experience of virtual reality. As an educator, I recognize how gamification within VR can create new ways to communicate and can enhance a learning experience. However, as an artist, I question how gamification influences the virtual art- making process through the presence of a flat screen.

The majority of video games occur through the presence and use of a screen. By extension, some might suggest that our social interactions worldwide by using touch screens are an interactive experience similar to playing a video game with a hand controller; the interaction on the screen engages our hands, or at minimum our fingers, and our minds. An interactive experience does not necessarily mean an embodied or active experience. The presence of the physical screen or monitor, regardless of device, acts as a colorful barrier inhibiting an embodied experience because it distances the body from the virtual content, and, in some ways, constraints any creative endeavor to a flattened 2D electronic canvas. Every type of computer, phone, or device that displays information and virtual art through a screen offers the viewer a glimpse into a virtual world from outside physical reality, creating a semi-disembodied or completely disembodied experience with virtual content. Thus, if the use of a flat screen limits our

32 experience with virtual art, then immersive virtual reality environments could open up new possibilities once we better understand the design elements’ affordances.

I think of VR design as a complex cooking recipe made by the chef-designer, who prepares various combinations of hardware and software ingredients, and cooks them in specific ways that produces a particular kind of eating/consuming experience. A user consumes that VR dish through a prepared process of immersion, and subjectively reacts to the flavors through feelings of presence. Although the overall design process is much more complicated than a few steps to a recipe and eating a meal, the analogy has helped me to see the bigger picture and process of VR design as well as to focus on the important hardware and software components, or interaction ingredients, that contribute to virtual reality experiences and art-making. In this study, I am most interested in understanding the interactive experience of virtual art-making as an universal phenomenon of VR design that can become a framework to understand a new genre and medium of contemporary art. Luckily for this study, the VR systems and the Tilt Brush application that I use to make art are both highly developed commercial products. Skilled designers and programmers have spent several years perfecting the hardware, software, and algorithmic codes of the VR systems used in this study and have produced an intricate product that I do not attempt to recreate. In the following sections, I break down the specific elements that contribute to the design process and product of VR environment design as a way to understand the cognitive and behavioral experience of virtual art-making; the following sections do not represent the design process and components of every VR application, game, or program developed.

33 2.02.a Software and Algorithms.

While not a programmer, I understand and recognize the importance of software and algorithms to the overall design, flow, and experience of a VR environment. Within the software of a VR application or program, long strands of code and algorithms designate a set of rules programmed for the computer to read and calculate, which then pre-determine options for the interaction between a human and a virtual environment. A designer must determine the parameters, capabilities, and affordances of their intended product and translate them into algorithms that consider possible options and outcomes of the interaction. For example, if a user moves or behaves in a specific direction, the algorithms must be programmed in a way for the computer to react and respond, virtually and visually in a seamless operation. When software codes break down or when algorithms are not configured properly, the user may experience a lag or visual disconnect from their physical interaction. Designers refer to this lag as latency (Jerald,

2016).

In regard to the relationship between the user, the hardware, and the software, it is important to thoroughly understand latency, which Jerald (2016) defines as “the time a system takes to respond to a user’s action, the true time from the start of movement to the time a pixel resulting from that movement responds” (p. 171). If a VR user rotates or moves their head but the virtual scene seems to lag or visually blur in an unnatural way, the latency can negatively reduce or break the connection between what the user visually processes and what we sense with our physical body, possibly causing motion sickness

(Jerald, 2016). Latency could happen within the best and most advanced VR platforms, and, at times, has occurred in this study; fortunately, only through minimal quick glitches

34 of the system that had little effect on the artists. As previously mentioned, designers have tested, developed, and continually update the Tilt Brush application to minimize any glitches users may experience while making art. While I do not have control over the code or algorithmic components of Tilt Brush, I recognize that virtual art-making is dependent on the relationship and communication between the software and the hardware components, like the system’s headset and hand controllers, which I will detail next.

2.02.b Hardware.

A virtual reality experience can do more than communicate content, it can give the user a tool to generate their own ideas through creative inquiry and embodied art- making, if designed in such a way that allows for full body movement and interaction.

Motion-tracked VR systems operate through sophisticated and highly developed software and hardware and are dependent on several factors—headset, hand-controllers and the tracking units—functioning cohesively as one unit. The following breakdown is not universal for each VR system available on the market; in this project, I specifically used the HTC Vive and later the Oculus Quest, both of which are different system configurations but, in the end, offer the same full body motion-tracked experience.

Head-mounted displays (HMD) have come a long way in the last several decades and are now produced at a consumer level. Virtual environments viewed and transmitted through head-mounted gear can offer the highest amount of immersion (Jerald, 2016) and can create a sense of presence like no other digital or virtual technology. In terms of art- making, HMD can offer a new perspective and abilities unlike any other medium. Many factors must be carefully considered and implemented correctly to minimize negative

35 side effects of wearing an HMD due to the movement afforded by the advanced hardware. In situations that allow for position and motion-tracking of the HMD, wires might be attached to the headset, which, at times, may limit the view and interactive functions of VR platform. However, the HMDs used in this study offer a first-person perspective with motion and position tracking capabilities that were significant to embodied and immersive experiences for the artists and gave them a direct view and control of the virtual interaction (Jerald, 2016). An advanced HMD like the HTC Vive and the Oculus Quest’s operate with six degrees of freedom (6DoF), a common feature of current VR systems and a popular concept within game and media design research.

The degrees of freedom (DoF) of any object are the ways in which that object can move within a virtual space (Jerald, 2016; Snyder, 2016; Stankovic, 2015; Weis, 2018).

A head-mounted display in a VR system can have either 3-DoF or 6-DoF, with a noticeable and felt difference between the two in regard to the first-person perspective of the user and the ways in which one interacts in the space. While an HMD with 3-DoF will only track rotational movement around a fixed central point, represented as yaw, pitch, and roll (Jerald, 2016; Snyder, 2016; Weis, 2018), a 6-DoF headset will track translational movement along the x, y, and z axes in addition to the rotational movement

(Jerald, 2016; Snyder, 2016; Weis, 2018). The following image shows the difference between 3-Dof and 6-Dof systems and the directional affordances.

Figure 8. Six degrees of freedom (Six degrees of freedom, n.d.).

Three-DoF systems result in a fixed camera view that affords the user the ability to look around by rotating their head in any direction from a fixed position but does not allow for more natural or organic movement in six degrees (Laurel, 2017; Snyder, 2016).

On the other hand, a system with 6-DoF can track the rotation and linear movement of the headset and body through the help of lighthouse sensors stationed around the physical space, like with the HTC Vive, or through built-in cameras that recognize the layout of the physical space, like with the Oculus Quest (Snyder, 2016; Weis, 2018). In addition to the HMD, several other hardware components like hand controllers contribute to the virtual art-making experience.

Hand-held VR controllers in a VR system can significantly change and enhance the immersive and interactive experiences for artists compared to VR systems that do not use controllers or to other forms of virtual art-making. Similar to head-mounted displays, hand controllers typically have 3-DoF or 6-DoF depending on the system’s configuration 37 and can be used as a tool to interact with virtual objects or directly with the scene.

However, when the VR system tracks controllers with only 3-DoF, the viewer sees a fixed virtual representation of the controller’s position in x, y, z coordinates, but not rotation or tilt. Typically, viewers mentally adjust to the slightly unrealistic representation of the controllers and are able to make the connection between the virtual controller and their physical hand position, giving them some level of control with their body movement

(Jerald, 2016).

Some controllers offer haptic feedback felt in the hand, which is a direct communication from the virtual interaction to the user (Jerald, 2016). The use of controllers in VR can certainly enhance the level of interactivity and therefore enhance the immersive process and learning, but I question how the controllers’ visual representation in VR influences the embodied connection to the hardware. While touch and grip of the hand controller allow for direct interaction through our motor senses, I wonder how a user processes the visual representation of the controller, and how this can influence their art-making process. For example, designers choose how to visually represent the controllers within the virtual environments in various ways: as a replica of the physical controllers, as a virtual hand or shape, or even as a virtual hand holding the controller, which is most realistic to what the user feels. Regardless of the visual representation, the controller is sometimes the only indication of a user’s physical hand and motion in the space, which becomes an important feature of the interactive experience and immersive and process. While there are benefits and disadvantages of each approach to representing a controller, I am focused on how the physical controller acts as or becomes an extension of the user’s body over time in the virtual space. If this

38 does occur, when and how does this happen? Does it influence the creative approach or movement? I will address this critical idea in Phase 4 as it connects directly to studying virtual reality art-making and self-perception.

In the Tilt Brush application used in the study, via the HTC Vive and the Oculus

Quest, the visual representation of the controllers is fixed and designed in a way that does not include a reference to a virtual hand or body, but instead represents artistic tools. One of the controllers, typically for the non-dominant hand, acts as a palette with a color selector, menu of brush types, and several interactive controls and settings, which I will show and detail more later. The other controller for the dominant hand functions as the main art tool that directs the art-making and interaction in the space. Because of the intricate controls through the software’s algorithms and the vast array of artistic settings and options, the controllers require some time and practice to understand and master, in addition to becoming familiar with creating art in three dimensions through tracked movements and full body gestures.

2.02.c Space Configuration.

Unrestricted motion in space, both physical and virtual, is a key element to creative inquiry and virtual art-making. Tilt Brush functions through advanced 6-DoF systems and specific room-scale configurations and offers several ways to move within the space. Full body motion is the most common and most natural to users. However, for advanced VR applications and programs, there are several ways to create motion, or at least the sensation of movement, within the virtual space which happens by moving the environment around the viewer. Designers and researchers refer to the unnatural

39 movement of a virtual space as vection, or the illusion of self-movement (Jerald, 2016).

We also experience vection in our physical world in certain scenarios. For example, vection happens when one is seated in a stationary car next to a car pulling away in reverse (Jerald, 2016). When the other car moves backward, at times, the stationary viewer can have a sense of self-movement forward, though they are completely still in their parked car. In a virtual context, when a user observes a virtual reality environment in either 3-DoF or 6-DoF, designers may build in options or ways for the environment to move around the viewer, giving the illusion of self-movement in VR (Jerald, 2016). The different types of VR system configurations, to which the VR design community refers as

Seated VR, Standing VR, and Room-scale VR, produce specific interactive and immersive experiences and can afford various types of movements, natural or unnatural.

One of the main ways in which researchers and designers have differentiated between VR systems relates to how the user physically interacts and moves in the space through sitting, standing, or walking. The labels of Seated VR, Standing VR and Room- scale VR directly link to the degrees of freedom that each system affords and the ways in which the viewer interacts with and through the hardware’s affordances (Jerald, 2016).

The majority of mobile 3-DoF VR systems are categorized as Seated VR or Standing VR because they lack motion and position sensors and they typically require some type of controller device to move around the virtual space. The viewer’s body may be completely stationary, in typical gaming fashion on a couch or chair, yet the controller allows for movement within any virtual environment. I do question whether seated or standing VR experiences would be classified as immersive or non-immersive virtual reality due to the little or complete lack of body movement. However, regardless of the hardware’s

40 affordances, seated and standing VR experiences differ in some ways from room-scale

VR, where the user’s body motion drives the virtual movement and interactive experience.

Room-scale VR or position tracking (Jerald, 2016) VR systems offer 6-DoF through HMDs and motion tracking sensors, all of which create a unique type of immersive virtual reality experience through full body interaction. The viewer’s body movement drives some, or all, of their experience in the virtual environment, producing a transaction of actions and reactions between the human motion captured by the hardware and the computer-generated media. While there may exist interactive and creative VR applications that work with non-tracked VR systems, Tilt Brush operates through a room- scale system and affords very specific types of actions and movements within the virtual space and with the tools.

2.02.d Behaviors and Interaction Patterns.

Kwan Min Lee describes in his article, Presence, Explicated, (2004) three general types of behaviors afforded in a virtual reality system through various configurations of hardware and software: perception, manipulation and interaction. Through the behavior of perception, users simply observe the virtual space and interpret the visual elements with or without interactive movement or controllers (Lee, 2004). Lee (2004) says that the behavior of manipulation allows the user to make changes directly and indirectly to objects within the scene usually through the use of a hand controller. Interaction, on the other hand, occurs when the user and the virtual environment, or virtual objects,

“mutually affect” each other in some interactive way (Lee, 2004), which again can be

41 through use of a hand controller or their body movements. The three types of afforded behaviors—perception, manipulation and interaction—can happen in combination with each other and can influence the immersive process and art-making experience. The action and behavior of perception happens naturally in any type of VR system through the minimum 3-DoF configuration. Even mobile versions on cell phones afford this type of action. Advanced VR systems like the HTC Vive and Oculus Quest afford all three behaviors, though all three behaviors are dependent on the design of the application, game, or program, and level of engagement from the user. The Tilt Brush application affords all three behaviors, but specifically offers unique interaction patterns and techniques, which I will detail next.

User interaction, a key VR function that occurs through various afforded actions, configures into several categories of interaction patterns and techniques unique to certain movements and abilities (Jerald, 2016). In general, broad categories of interaction types help designers focus their work in particular ways to achieve certain levels of interaction within VR (Jerald, 2016). An interaction pattern is a “generalized high-level interaction concept that can be used over and over again across different applications to achieve common user goals,” while interaction techniques are grouped within patterns and are

“more specific and technology dependent” (Jerald, 2016, p. 278). There are too many interaction patterns and techniques to discuss in this section, many of which Tilt Brush does not afford. Therefore, I only highlight and review the ones I find most relevant to this study and to the creative process of virtual art-making: selection patterns, walking patterns, automated patterns and viewpoint selection patterns, all of which involve

42 interactions and movements with the human hand, and controllers in the hands, walking, teleportation, and scaling the viewpoint or perspective.

If a designer has the hardware and software capable of tracking hand-controllers, he or she may look to the Selection Patterns and try out one of the several options: Hand

Selection Pattern, Pointing Pattern, Image-Plane Selection Pattern, or Volume-Based

Selection Pattern (Jerald, 2016, p. 279). The Hand Selection Pattern, which incorporates several ways to select, touch, or move objects within a virtual environment (Jerald, 2016) is the most commonly used feature of Tilt Brush. As mentioned in the previous section, there are several ways to visually represent hands and hand movement within a virtual environment, likewise with the visual representation of the whole body. While I am interested in the differences between the Realistic and Non-realistic hand interaction techniques, both of which can influence the interaction through the immersive action of physical hand movement (Jerald, 2016), Tilt Brush offers a non-realistic hand technique with the software’s default representation of the controllers and virtual art tools. The interaction through the hand selection patterns can be done seated, standing, or through full body motions that incorporate walking patterns.

The Walking Pattern, which includes the Real Walking technique, can greatly enhance the interaction, immersion, and virtual art-making experience (Jerald, 2016).

While most room-scale VR systems and applications do not track leg or foot motion specifically, the general position tracking of the HMD moves and correlates to the body’s position through natural walking motions (Jerald, 2016). Walking in virtual environments can at first feel unnatural, depending on the visual design of the space. But, through time and an increase in comfort levels, a user may learn to move and walk naturally in the

43 same ways they would in a physical environment. However, due to restrictions of available and trackable space, some VR systems may only afford a small navigable area.

In the scenario of a large virtual environment with a short physical space allowance to walk or move, designers and developers will program options for unnatural movements like using the controllers to rotate and navigate in ways similar to how a mouse cursor drags around a 3D model on a computer, or virtually teleporting to spaces that exceed our walkable limits.

Teleportation, which Jerald (2016) groups under the Automated Pattern, is a way to relocate into a new virtual scene without physically moving (Jerald, 2016). One drawback to teleportation is the potential for motion sickness that a user may feel if the

VR application is not designed nor balanced properly. Jerald (2016) suggests fading in and out with a several second delay to give the mind and body time to adjust to the new surroundings, instead of a quick, abrupt change in scenery. Teleportation is a great way to incorporate movement into the experience, if restricted to small physical spaces or with

Seated or Standing VR systems that use controllers but do not afford walking or motion.

Fortunately for this study, the Tilt Brush application has a teleport control setting built into the system that offers infinite expansive space for creative inquiry and exploration.

However, the teleport movement does happen quickly, sometimes throwing people off balance and causing some uneasiness at first. In relation to a unique and non-human approach to art-making, teleportation and manipulating one’s viewpoint or perspective are among the most intriguing affordances of the Tilt Brush application, in addition to many other programs that include these features.

44 The viewpoint selection pattern gives the user control to change their view through altering the scale and perspective of the VR environment. A virtual space may be presented in a realistic-human scale or non-realistic scale by either enlarging or shrinking the virtual environment in ways not humanly possible or observable in the physical world. Viewpoint selection patterns offer unique types of interaction, usually through controllers, giving the user direct control of their viewpoint and the ways in which, they interact directly with the virtual content (Jerald, 2016). Both the teleportation feature and the viewpoint selection pattern would also fall under what Jerald (2016) calls magical interaction techniques that allow humans to do things in VR that are not physically possible. Any type of unrealistic or non-human ability afforded to a user in VR creates a platform that engages them in new ways that physical world experiences could not. The art tools and brushes are equally as magical because they incorporate virtual representations of materials and particles like bubbles, ink or fire, among many others that are not affected by gravity or each other.

In general, the specific interactive features of Tilt Brush afford a truly unique type of immersive approach to art-making. They also challenge researchers in their efforts to define and categorize non-human and open-ended types of immersive experiences as compare to those designed for games and other VR applications. In the next section, I discuss immersion, as the combination of design elements and technology that can offer various types of immersive experiences depending on the goals and intents of the VR applications.

45 2.02.e Immersion and Presence.

According to Jerald (2016), immersion “is the objective technology that has the potential to engage users in the experience,” and is the “objective degree to which a VR system and application projects stimuli onto the sensory receptors of users in a way that is extensive, matching, surrounding, vivid, interactive, and plot informing” (p. 64). In other words, immersion is the objective technology that is psychologically felt or experienced when viewers interact in VR, and it is achieved by substituting “virtual sensations” for “real world sensations” (Mestre, 2005, p. 2). The immersive process of a virtual reality experience directly relates to the technologies—hardware and software— and the presentation of the design components (Jerald, 2016). Additionally, immersion has been categorized into several groups so that designers can focus and develop specific components of their product to influence the user’s experiences in certain ways depending on their intentions and resources.

The classifications of immersion recognized and used by VR designers and developers in many research fields includes spatial immersion, narrative (or emotional) immersion, and tactical/strategic immersion (Adams, 2004; Bjork and Holopainen, 2005;

Zhang et al, 2017). Spatial immersion can refer to the immersive process afforded by visually stimulating and spatial qualities of a virtual scene (Zhan, et al, 2017). And depending on the design of the environment, various levels of spatial immersion can occur within both simple VR systems like 360 VR movies and in complex VR worlds with interaction and motion tracking (Zhang et al, 2017). Narrative immersion, also referred to as emotional immersion (Bjork and Holopainen, 2005; Zhang et al, 2017), is defined by Ernest Adams (2004) in game design theory as the type of immersive process

46 that occurs when a user becomes invested in a story and usually sticks around to see the ending. Through narrative immersion, a user may also identify or empathize with characters of any type (Zhang et al, 2017). Similar to movies and books, VR is a powerful media platform that can immerse a user through narrative elements and engaging storytelling. Compelling content can be an extremely important aspect to VR experiences, especially those that aim to educate and create empathy. However, depending on the affordances of the VR system, body movement can make for a different type of interactive storytelling experience. Tactical and strategic immersion have typically been defined as separate types of immersion by other researchers, but I see related qualities that lead to similarly achieved outcomes. Therefore I have combined them into one category for this study. Tactical/strategic immersion involves some kind of action or plan resulting in an achieved goal, usually some kind of victory like in a game

(Adams, 2004). Whether it is a tactical moment-by-moment action of a fast-paced sequence of events or more of a strategic cerebral stimulation that involves meaningful and well-thought-out planning, these types of immersion pull the user into the experience through challenging and engaging interaction, both physically and mentally (Adams,

2004). Generally, tactical/strategic immersion occurs within gaming and entertainment

VR applications and have branched into educational VR programs that function through game-like learning.

While immersion is dependent on the hardware and software affordances of a VR system and leads to specific behaviors and interaction patterns, I question where and how virtual art-making as an interactive process, specifically in Tilt Brush, relates the current categories of immersion and how the design process of an open-ended application

47 challenges the common trends and perspectives on VR design. One can consider the art- making application in relation to spatial immersion because of the designed environments and adaptable settings the Tilt Brush application offers for open-ended art-making. But spatial immersion does not necessarily require action or interaction by the user because it happens by default of the visual rendering in virtual details and space—which is very minimal in Tilt Brush. Narrative immersion happens when the user becomes part of a story or relates emotionally to a character. So, unless the artist creates their own visual story, which very well can happen as I will touch on later, the application and configuration of Tilt Brush does not have a pre-determined storyline or any pre- determined narrative element for a user to experience.

Additionally, as an artist, I can attest to the fact that some art-making endeavors may feel strategic or tactical at times, but those instances happen by design and by choice of the artist’s efforts and through the use of art tools. Unlike VR games that have a quest- like mode and pre-determined goals or outcomes, art-making is an open-ended process and sometimes does not have a specific goal or outcome in mind. In Tilt Brush, any tactical or strategic interactive elements happen specifically by the intentions of the artist, not due to the technology’s pre-determined action or sequence. The application does not have any set goal or ideal outcome, and instead offers a blank virtual canvas for open- ended creativity. Therefore, the designed configurations of an opened-ended VR experience and the interactions of virtual art-making challenge the technical categories of immersion currently used by the VR research community to understand the immersive qualities of the platform. Thus, as part of this study, I look to fill the void in the literature

48 by establishing an alternative way to consider and position open-ended immersive VR art-making experiences, and by extension how it relates to flow-states and presence.

Over the last few decades, VR developers and researchers have tested many scenarios and prototypes in an effort to understand which virtual design elements may elicit a sense of presence, through immersion, and what components may prevent or break presence or even make viewers sick. This study in no way aims to prove or disprove the feelings or experiences of presence and flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996) one may have while making virtual art. Presence is a subjective feeling and experience which is difficult to objectively measure in any quantifiable way and uncontrollable from my position as the artist-researcher in this study. However, a brief discussion on the topic of presence and its classifications within the research community is critical to for understanding the creative process and behavior of virtual reality art-making. In section

2.03b (page 58), I will touch on the connection between presence and creative flow

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996) in relation to creativity and cognitive theories.

The degree to which one feels present during a virtual reality experience ultimately depends on both the subjective human element and immersion (Jerald, 2016).

Humans feel a sense of presence within the real physical world because our bodies react to the environment, to the physical objects, to sounds and to other social beings through our senses (Jerald, 2016), all of which affects the way in which we perceive and know our body and self. The psychological process of “how the user subjectively experiences the immersion is known as presence” (Jerald, 2016, p. 62). The fundamental goal of most

VR developers is to create a sense of presence in some capacity within their virtual environment “such that the real world is temporarily forgotten” (Jerald, 2016, p. 62). A

49 virtual reality experience temporarily blinds the user from the physical world, if properly designed, and can create a sense of being there (Jerald, 2016; Mestre, 2005; Sanchez-

Vives & Slater, 2005; Slater et al, 2008; Slater & Wilbur, 1997) within the virtual environment.

Many attempts have also been made to record human responses of presence: neurological and physical responses and through questionnaires (Mestre, 2005). Yet, because presence is a subjective feeling and experience, it is almost impossible to generalize and truly measure. The following explanation from the International Society for Presence Research (2000), cited by many researchers in the field, remains vague as to how presence is measured:

Presence (a shortened version of the term “telepresence”) is a psychological state

or subjective perception in which even though part or all of an individual’s

current experience is generated by and/or filtered through human-made

technology, part or all of the individual’s perception fails to accurately

acknowledge the role of the technology in the experience…at *some level* and to

*some degree*, her/his perceptions overlook that knowledge and objects, events,

entities, and environments are perceived as if the technology was not involved in

the experience.

Though the definition of presence is fairly clear, the phrase “at *some level* and to

*some degree*” specifically highlights the ambiguity of the concept and how to measure it. In an attempt to understand the phenomena of presence within a virtual environment, researchers have begun to classify and label categories of presence, possibly connected to

50 immersion categories as previously mentioned. The types of presence that I find relevant to this study are physical-presence, social-presence, interactive-presence, and self- presence, all of which I discuss next.

The first kind of presence relates to how a user feels and reacts to a virtual environment which Jerald (2016) refers to as the illusion of being in a stable spatial place. Other scholars like Lee (2004) simply label it a physical presence. For this study, I remain consistent with Lee’s title and refer to physical presence which he describes as a feeling when the virtual objects “are experienced as actual physical objects” or when the virtual environment feels like a physical environment in “either sensory or non-sensory ways” (Lee, 2004, p. 44-45). I believe there is a direct link between spatial immersion, as previously mentioned, and physical presence both of which relate to the virtual environment: the former being the design and technology of the virtual environment and the latter being the resulting feeling of experiencing the immersive qualities of virtual space.

The next kind of presence, the illusion of social communication (Jerald, 2016), or social presence (Lee, 2004), refers to the communication and interaction a user may have with other characters or avatars, whether verbally and through body language. A user may feel present within a VR experience when they do not notice the “artificiality” of the characters (Lee, 2004, p. 45). Social presence can occur in any type of VR experience that may incorporate characters or some type of responsive creature. While Tilt Brush does not include any such characters or avatars in the design of the application or environment, artists may create them in their work and feel a sense of social presence through their storytelling, an interesting topic which I will detail later.

51 Though Lee (2004) does not recognize a presence felt through physical interaction, Jerald (2016) describes the illusion of physical interaction as another way to feel present within VR through interactive gestures and movements. I call this category interactive presence for consistency. He suggests that the “user should feel a solid physical response that matches the visual representation” (Jerald, 2016, p. 67). With audio or haptic feedback, a user may feel a direct response from the virtual environment which helps to elicit a strong sense of presence through their interaction. In a way, I view interactive presence as an extension of spatial presence through direct feedback from the environment or as an extension of social presence through a direct response from a character while making them in Tilt Brush. Additionally, I see a direct link from interactive presence to the ideas surrounding flow-states or creative flow

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996).

The final type of presence is self-presence (Lee, 2004) or what Jerald (2016) refers to as the illusion of self-embodiment. Both scholars, Lee (2004) and Jerald (2016), describe this type of presence as the perception felt by a user in regard to their body representation and identity within the VR space, whether virtually represented as an avatar or with no visual body in the virtual space. In addition to the design and immersive technology, I believe that the previously mentioned types of presence—spatial, social and interactive—also directly influence self-presence and the ways in which users perceive themselves within the virtual space.

The awareness of self, movements, and behaviors during virtual art-making also correlates to a sense of agency. Tilt Brush does not offer any type of visual representation of the body or evidence of physical movement except for what a user sees and does with

52 the hand-controllers, which offers a challenge to the idea of self-presence—as in, how do we perceive ourselves when our body is not visually represented? Furthermore, how does the body’s virtual representation and physical movement directly or indirectly influence the immersive processes related to how a user becomes part of the story or the space?

How does virtual interaction, directly or indirectly, affect sense of presence in any of the classifications—spatial, social, interactive or self? Additionally, through an awareness of their interaction and self, what are the restrictions or affordances from the interaction that elicit a sense of agency and awareness over one’s control in the space? I address these complex questions in Phase 4, section 2 of this dissertation and discuss the participant feedback and response from myself as an artist-researcher.

As mentioned in the beginning of dissertation, affordances of a virtual reality environment must be studied while looking at the unique and interconnected relationship they have with a person and their behavior. In the review of the previous design theories and research, I continually reminded myself that the virtual environment is much more than just an interactive space to stand or move in—it is a reflection of and interaction with our self. In the next section, I extend the perspective of virtual environmental affordances to the context of cognitive and behavioral phenomena, specifically in regard to theories on embodiment and creativity.

2.03 Person & Behavior: Experiential Phenomena

It is evident through the previous review of VR technical components and theories that human physical interactions are key factors that enhance immersive experiences in

VR. I question, however, what really happens during VR interaction in regard to the

53 embodied cognitive and behavioral process. In VR, one is not “done unto, but doing”

(Laurel et al, 1994, p. 118). The specific type of “doing” in VR is different from other types of passive digital media like watching a film where the viewer or audience cannot act upon the media (Laurel et al, 1994). And, with other digital art mediums, the user may feel disconnected to the content because of the barrier with a disembodied computer screen. The immersive VR experience becomes a series of movements and reactions, directly and indirectly related to what our body senses through physical motion and what our conscious and subconscious mind sees through the VR headset. The “relatively unconstrained” (Laurel et al, 1994) body movement and ability to control some or all of the experience can generate an entirely new level of interactive immersion and engage the user in a creative and embodied art-making experience.

One of the first VR demonstrations I ever experienced in a graduate course allowed me to feel something without actually touching anything. The experience was the first time I had put on a 6-DoF motion-tracked HMD and physically moved within a virtual environment, which included an ordinary type of room similar to an office with a table, and a few avatars walking around. After a moment exploring the space, I remember asking the instructor if I could walk through the virtual furniture; I proceeded to take a few steps through a virtual table in the center of the virtual room. The avatars were unaware of my presence or movement in the room, and nothing happened in the space that prevented me from moving through furniture or barriers. In fact, it appeared uneventful and ordinary in those few seconds of movement. However, the feelings in my body at that moment were unlike anything I have ever experienced. My skin crawled in a way as if an internal alarm went off warning me that something was wrong—as in I

54 should not be able to walk through what my mind and body perceived was a table. I do not remember walking slowly at the time, but it felt as if I had weights on my ankles or an internal force making it difficult for my legs to move in that direction. My stomach and, by extension, my entire torso, felt as if a knife made from pop-rocks candy split me in half, though not in a painful way or one that made me sick, but in a tingling playful sensation. Every nerve ending in my body felt on edge, yet nothing physically touched my body and the walking movement took one or two seconds. It was a very real experience that I felt through my sense of sight and not touch. The visual cues and the physical movement from my body around virtual objects in the virtual office scene made the table feel real, at least real enough for my internal alarm system to go off telling my body that I should not be walking through visible objects. There is an incredible connection between our minds and bodies when we are in VR spaces that can push the boundaries of embodied and creative multi-sensory experiences in ways that our physical world cannot. In the following sections, I will review theories and research centered on cognitive and behavioral phenomena related to embodied cognition and art-making experiences that engage the mind and body to create inquiry.

2.03.a Embodied Cognition, Somatics & the Mind-body Problem

With two different perspectives on the matter, one of Eastern philosophies and the other of Western thought, the complex conversation centered around the relationship between mind and body has evolved through many traditions and theories. The dynamic and holistic relationship between the mind and body can be better understood by clarifying and separating mental properties like consciousness, emotional experiences,

55 perception and intentionality from physical properties of the body like size and color

(Robinson, 2017). Howard Robinson (2017), a philosophy professor at Central European

University, breaks down the mind-body problem into the following set of questions:

1. The ontological question: What are mental states and what are physical states? Is one class a subclass of the other, so that all mental states are physical, or vice versa? Or are mental states and physical states entirely distinct? 2. The causal question: Do physical states influence mental states? Do mental states influence physical states? If so, how? 3. The problem of consciousness: What is consciousness? How is it related to the brain and the body? 4. The problem of intentionality: What is intentionality? How is it related to the brain and the body? 5. The problem of the self: What is the self? How is it related to the brain and the body? 6. The problem of embodiment: What is it for the mind to be housed in a body? What is it for a body to belong to a particular subject?

The eastern philosophical stance stems from a holistic perspective of the mind and body as a single entity comprised of two unified parts, the mind and body (Hanna, 1986).

In contrast, the western theory of dualism goes as far back as Plato and Aristotle but was revised in the seventeenth century by Renee Descartes (1979) who views the mind and body as separate entities. Descartes was a “substance dualist” who pursued the idea that there “were two kinds of substance: matter, of which the essential property is that it is spatially extended; and mind, of which the essential property is that it thinks” (Robinson,

2017, para. 21). Part of the question in Descartes’ philosophy was how the substance of the mind could mix with matter, a physical substance (Robinson, 2017).

56 More recent perspectives on the mind-body problem blur the lines between the holistic and dualistic views which branch into embodied cognition theories. Specifically,

John Dewey (1969) proposes the idea that the mind is not only housed within the brain as a separate entity and combination of different substances, but that the mind can be found elsewhere within the body which eludes to a more holistic connection on how we think, feel and sense through the body:

The brain is no more the organ of the mind than the spinal cord, the spinal cord no

more than the peripheral endings of the nerve fibers. The brain is undoubtedly

most closely and most influentially connected with the life of the soul, but its

connection is of the same kind as that of every part of the nervous system (p. 96).

Dewey’s ideas, which have greatly influenced the ongoing research of embodied cognition, suggest that “the body is directly involved in cognition rather than secondary to cognition” (Leitan & Chaffey, 2014, p. 3). Dewey even goes on to claim that “higher cognitions emerge from organic activity—such as feeling, perception, object manipulation and bodily movement—and involve a higher degree of complexity” (Leitan

& Chaffey, 2014, p. 4). I am most interested in the previous mention of bodily movement as a way of knowing or as a part of our human cognition because it is through movements and gestures of the mind and body in harmony that create works of virtual art, and any art for that matter.

Similar to Dewey’s ideas, Thomas Hanna’s concept of soma within his somatic theory embraces a holistic perspective of a united mind-body life force. Somatics as a theory and practice is a complex body of research that aims specifically at the

57 “integration of body-mind processes, learning through experience” and “embodied process of internal awareness and communication” or what Hanna refers to as soma

(Green, 1993; Hanna, 1986). Hanna (1983) offers a more detailed definition to breakdown the complexities of how he understands soma and somatics:

SOMATICS: 1. The art and science of the inter-relational process between

awareness, biological function and environment, all three factors being

understood as a synergistic whole: the field of somatics. 2. The study of the soma,

soma being the biological body of functions by which and through which

awareness and environment are mediated. It is understood that the word soma

designates any living organism, animal or plant. It is also understood that all such

somas have, to some degree, the capacity for awareness (sensorium) of the

environment and intentional action (mororium) in the environment. 3. The

common usage somatics relates to somas of the human species, whose sensoria

and motoria are relatively free from the determination of genetically fixed

behavior patterns, this allowing learning to determine the inter-relational process

between awareness, biological function and environment. (p. 1)

I believe that the concept of soma, as described by Hanna as an “embodied process of internal awareness and communication (Green, 1993; Hanna, 1986) within the theory of somatics is an interesting model to apply to embodied virtual reality art-making experiences. It not only pulls in ideas and theories of embodied cognition, but it opposes the traditional binary thinking of Western society which is a limited way of knowing and learning that aims to organize the world in dualistic manner of “valid versus invalid, good

58 or bad, right or wrong, true or false” (Schwandt, 2007). Many know that the binary approach to teaching and learning, like standardized testing as one example, can limit the ways in which students learn or experience the world by solely focusing on the content or end result of that experience (Schwandt, 2007). Instead, open-ended art-making through embodied movement and interaction in VR can offer new opportunities for divergent thinking processes and new waves of creativity not possible in our physical world.

2.03.b Creativity and Flow.

Creativity, as both a cognitive and behavioral phenomenon, is a complex topic that up until about the mid 20th century, was overlooked and ignored by fields like psychology and education (Hamlen, 2008; Mehta & Dahl 2019; Wissink, 2001) until J. P.

Guilford (1950) pointed out the void in contemporary research. Since then, creativity, as the concept and process that we view and define today, has been redefined several times over the last half century. An early conceptualization by Freud (1959) suggested that creativity was a subconscious process which occurred in opposition of or in the presence of internalized struggle (Hamlen, 2008; Jung, 1923; Kris, 1952; Lee, 1940). In later definitions and more contemporary research (Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1976; Selby,

Shaw, and Houtz, 2005), creativity was viewed as a “developmental issue, and a positive part of natural growth as opposed to a subconscious conflict” (Hamlen, 2008, p. 5). Other theories see creativity as a personality trait and view it within the context of environmental factors like feeling safe, free, and having the circumstantial affordances to produce something original (Amabile, 1989; Selby et al, 2005; Torrance, 1966) —again connecting person, behavior, and environment.

59 In an effort to breakdown and understand creativity that occurs while making art in a virtual environment, I look at the sequential process and the cause and effect of that experience. According to a recent study, which examined the ability to think creatively in relation to unusual and ordinary experiences, Ritter, Damian, Simonton, van Baaren,

Strick, Derks, and Dijksterhuis (2012), suggests that “comparisons with various control groups showed that a diversifying experience defined as the active (but not vicarious) involvement in an unusual event increased cognitive flexibility more than active (or vicarious) involvement in normal experiences” (p. 961). Similarly, one could view virtual artmaking as a diversifying or unusual experience in contrast to a normal or ordinary art experience common in our physical world. The study also suggests that it is not enough to just view something unusual, but rather the key to expanding our creative minds is to actively engage and participate in diverse experiences that push us out of our comfort zones (Ritter et al, 2012). Interaction within any virtual reality environment is, for most people, a new and unusual experience regardless of the application or program.

Therefore, if using the cognitive flexibility model as described in the study (Ritter et al,

2012), the unique experience of a virtual artistic medium that is freed from the laws of physics should liberate expand one’s creative mind exponentially. To take that theory a step further, where and how does the creative thought occur—in our conscious or unconscious mind—and does one produce a higher level of creativity while in VR?

According to Mehta and Dahl (2018), “conscious thought induces more focused thinking,” while “unconscious thought activates cognitive exploration that is more associative, broader, and more divergent in nature, which then leads to a higher level of creativity” (p. 32). In relation to virtual art-making, unconscious thoughts and feelings

60 can manifest through the embodied reaction and movement of the creative process which then expands the cognitive possibilities in divergent ways. In other words, a diverse experience, like virtual art-making, increases our cognitive ability to think creatively while an unconscious mind stimulates our divergent thought process through embodied interaction, all of which contributes to an increase in creativity and or original production

(Mehta and Dahl, 2018; Ritter et al, 2012).

The concept of creativity is evidently complex which in recent decades has only been made more convoluted and denser through the flux of research from various fields.

In the technical scholarship that focuses on the immersive qualities and experiences of virtual reality, researchers have linked theories surrounding immersion, presence and flow-states, or just flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1996), that one may reach while interacting in VR, typically through entertainment and gaming platforms. However, from an arts perspective, there has been an underestimated and scarcely-researched correlation made between open-ended immersive VR art-making and creative flow

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1996) which has several distinct properties that differentiate it from other types of flow-states one experiences outside of the arts and creative domains– like the presence and flow experienced in a video game or sporting event (Banfield and

Burgess, 2013; Doyle, 2017; Mace, 1997).

The term and concept of flow was presented by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in 1975 through his work and research in psychology which has influenced many perspectives and theories in various fields that study cognitive and behavioral phenomena (Doyle,

2017). Csikszentmihalyi (1975, 1996) suggests that when we enter a state of flow that we let go of the “usual self-consciousness of everyday life” (Doyle, 2017, para. 2) and that

61 we actually transition into another reality that gives us a sense of effortless absorption into the activity at hand and can ultimately lead to blissful experiences (Csikszentmihalyi

1975, 1996). However, the moments of creative flow that happen while making art in virtual reality result in more than just happy or blissful feelings. Creative flow in VR art- making offers a cognitive and behavioral state that can untap creative energies unlike anything we can do or create in the physical world. But from an arts perspective, it is important to recognize the specific properties and elements of creative flow that set it apart from other flow-states that happen in VR gaming and various entertainment experiences which align with the current categories or immersion and presence as described in the previous sections.

Researchers who have continued Csikszentmihalyi’s work (e.g., Banfield and

Burgess, 2013; Doyle, 2017; Mace, 1997) suggest that all flow-states regardless of field or domain share properties and characteristics of “taking place in a reality outside the everyday, effortless attention, action and awareness merged, balance between skill and challenge, time distortion, spontaneity, non-distractibility and no self-consciousness or personal fears” (Doyle, 2017, para. 9). But creative flow differs from other flow-states through the additional properties and characteristics of “unclear goals, uncertain feedback, the possibility of surprise, and rapid meaning-making: (Doyle, 2017, para. 8).

The additional properties that set apart creative flow from other flow-states have a consistent theme of open-ended-ness and ambiguity that one would expect to happen in art-making processes—not a surprising outcome. However, from an arts perspective, the main reason why such a disconnect exists between VR art-making and the technical theories of immersion and presence is that the majority of VR experiences are not open-

62 ended. In fact, they typically have a pre-determined outcome or goal with some flexibility built into the algorithms that give an illusion that the user’s experience is unique. The user interaction of a VR game or entertainment application that is not arts-based offers a very specific type of cognitive experience and flow-state which aligns more with convergent thinking processes that focus on one goal or outcome. While VR art-making offers another kind of cognitive experience and creative flow-state that allows for divergent thinking processes and outcomes.

2.03.c Divergent Thinking.

One of the ways in which researchers test for creativity is through engaging participants in divergent thinking activities where “cognition moves in multiple directions making new, original possibilities more likely” verses convergent thinking that typically results in a “single correct answer” (Doyle, 2017, para. 13). Returning back to Guilford’s

(1950, 1954, 1959) proposition and perspectives on creativity, he suggests that creative abilities in the form of divergent thinking can be assessed in both quantity and quality.

For example, he looks at quantity in relation to fluency or how easily the ideas seem to flow from one’s imagination, which can be measured within a specific timeframe and compared with others (Guilford, 1959; Pinheiro & Cruz, 2014). In relation to the quality of divergent thinking abilities, Guilford (1959) looks at the diversity and originality of ideas.

Expanding on Guilford’s initial work, Torrance (1966) generated a test that assesses students, in kindergarten through graduate school, for creativity and divergent thinking in relation to “fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration” which has gone

63 through revisions over the years but is still known today as Torrance Tests of Creative

Thinking (Cooper, 1991, p. 196). While the assessment includes both verbal and figural tests (Cooper, 1991; Torrance, 1966), I am most interested in the component known as the Incomplete Figure Test which, as mentioned earlier, encourages students to look at a simple shape on a piece of paper and then complete the figure by drawing what they imagine from that initial shape or figure. It is not my intention in this study to test or assess participants by offering them a score on their creativity levels. Instead, I look to the Torrance Test of Creativity as an activity and way to inspire creativity in virtual reality art-making. Therefore, I asked participants to engage in a mock-up version of the test, in three dimensions, as one way to explore the creative affordances of the VR artistic medium in relation to quality and quantity, or fluency and flexibility of the virtual art products (Torrance, 1966).

A later creativity theory offered by Amabile (1983) suggests a direct relationship between creativity and one’s motivation to complete the task and their relevant skills.

While I do believe the final product is an important piece to study when considering the medium in which it was created, I also feel that using Amabile’s theory (1983) to assess the participant’s personal motivations and creative skill levels, or comfortability, in a creative setting is also equally important in understanding the experiential phenomena of art-making in VR. The tools and brushes in the virtual art medium offer new abilities and artistic affordances that quickly engage the user in a fun an interactive experience, which at times can increase levels of motivation. In regard to artistic skills, each person may enter the virtual space with various abilities that in some ways help the participant adjust quicker to the new platform. However, creating art in VR is unlike any medium which

64 even the most advanced artists must learn from scratch. Regardless, Amabile’s research has inspired some of the ways in which I analyze the participant experience in relation to what they bring to the virtual space. In a qualitative research project grounded in a phenomenological structure, it is extremely important to recognize that each participant brings various lived experiences and knowledge to the study that must be taken into account as factors that may influence their art-making and final product. Therefore, I combine the theories presented by Guilford (1950, 1954, 1959), Torrance (1966) and

Amabile (1983) into a multifaceted lens in which to examine both the process and product of virtual reality art-making in relation to quality, quantity, fluency, motivation and existing skill levels.

2.04 Virtual Arts & Museum Education

So far in this review of literature, I have looked at technical design theories that break down the virtual reality platform and interactive affordances, and also brought into the discussion the cognitive and behavioral theories that help explain a user’s embodied and creative experience while interacting in VR—all of which covers the environment, person and behavior. However, while the majority of this study aims to look at the experiential phenomena of virtual reality art-making, it also intends to describe the virtual art product made during the creative and embodied experience in virtual reality, and where or how these types of virtual artworks might fit within the larger fields of arts and museum education. To be clear, this study will not survey all virtual artworks, such as various types of media and platforms like video games, 3D models, and applications, among many more. Instead, this project specifically looks at artworks created by

65 participants in VR using virtual art tools offered by the Tilt Brush application. Since I have already addressed the interactive affordances of the VR platform in the earlier technical section (page 31) of this literature review, this portion looks at the aesthetic principles of the VR artworks, specifically regarding the formal qualities, materiality, and the content of the artworks.

2.04.a Aesthetic Principles of Virtual Art

The broad and complex study of aesthetics centers on the philosophy of the arts and generally aims to understand one’s tastes, experiences, and perspectives on beauty and art in our world (Zangwill, 2019). While humans have reflected on the concept of beauty for centuries, whether in art or nature, the 18th-century works like Hume’s Of the

Standard of Taste (1757) and Kant’s Critique of Judgement (1790), among many others, positioned art, aesthetics, and beauty within the Enlightenment context of truth, judgment, and pleasure. Their work further cemented Western viewpoints and standards in the art and museum world, which are still intact today. Willingly or not, the current art museum world operates under structures that classify and distinguish works of art as having value over other less valuable artworks and mediums (Barrett, 2008). Simply put, the artworld as a community defines what is art and what is not. While this study does not look to the classifications and definitions put forth by the art world as criteria for defining the experience and creative products made in virtual reality, the limited perspective of the art community does in fact influence where and how virtual artworks exist in the world.

66 Most of the virtual artists using virtual reality media in their work have struggled to find a place in contemporary museums for various reasons, some for technical limitations; though, a handful of recent exhibitions have been able to accommodate the new media of VR art. The art world’s canonical traditions and standards have shaped, classified, and defined the perspectives of contemporary digital and virtual art, all of which at some point center back to the discussion and critique on aesthetics, and by extension, logistics. While this study operates through a postmodern lens in regard to my personal perspectives and clear stance against universal truths, I do not intend to critique or assign judgment on the aesthetics of the artworks created by participants or of the other Tilt Brush artworks available on the application. Therefore, a review of aesthetic theory involving outdated views on morals, tastes, and judgements is not relevant nor productive for this study. However, I do use the term aesthetics in this research which refers to the aesthetic principles, or the ontology, of the virtual medium—more specifically the qualities of its existence and form that help us to better understand the conceptual or expressive meaning of the artwork.

Regarding form, if viewing art within the Formalists approach, one might give

“sole importance” to the composition or the “perceptual elements of an artwork” (Barrett,

2008, p.107). However, that is not to say that Realists or Expressionists are not interested in the form of an artwork– they very much are but in different ways (Barrett, 2008).

According to Barrett (2008), “Realists want the use of form to be subservient to, and not distracting from, what a work of art truthfully shows about the world,” while on the other hand, “Expressionists want the form of a work of art to embody the emotion articulated and communicated in the medium” (p. 107). Whether or not an artist aims for hyper-

67 realism in their work or expressive abstractness, their conceptual motives directly influence the creative process and the form of the art product. But what is the form of virtual art?

In the visual arts, form is generally understood through its materiality and how it has been assembled or configured within the artwork (Barrett, 2008, 2011). Therefore, our preconception of form, which is embedded in the physicality of art, complicates our understanding of virtual art, or virtual-ness that is not of physical matter—though the form of virtual environments and artworks can be experienced through multiple senses.

Through this study of virtual reality art-making and artworks, I offer my analysis of the virtual form and the aesthetic principles of the medium. However, while recognizing both the form and the aesthetic principles is a good start at breaking down the virtual art medium, Barrett (2011) also suggests looking at several other components including subject matter, process, and the context in which the art is made in order to gain a general understanding of an artwork and medium. Therefore, in the analysis of the virtual art aesthetics, I consider:

• The medium through foundational research on the affordances of VR, as mentioned in the earlier section; • The creative process as observed through participant interactions and artworks; • The subject matter of the artwork as documented in the participant interactions and artworks; • The general context of the virtual reality experience as designed in the Tilt Brush application and through my prompts as the researcher; • The form through this current foundational research on aesthetic theory and through reflection on the participant artworks.

68 Unlike most visual artworks in museums that are final products and stagnant objects, the versatile form of virtual art has the ability for constant change and manipulation— virtual art is never finite or static. Additionally, the unique interactive quality and affordances of virtual art’s form complicate matters even more when considering the authorship and originality of virtual artworks that have been remixed or made collaboratively. However, contemporary digital and virtual art offer new levels of social interaction and engagement, not only in the making process but also in the artistic dialogue between artists and viewers—at times blurring the line between both roles in the context of museum galleries and non-gallery online spaces.

According to Freire and McCarthy (2014), “our digital culture is increasingly interactive, networked, and participatory, which means that the media are perceived but also appropriated, manipulated, and exchanged” (p. 29). Additionally, Sweeny (2005) suggests that “the operations of the computer challenge many traditional concepts of originality, creativity, and authorship” (p.27). Many digital artists borrow other digital artifacts (or parts of someone’s else work), modify it through a creative art-making process and then claim it as their own, blurring the lines between authorship and ownership of the digital art. Regarding the digital tools used and issues surrounding ownership, Sweeny (2005) states:

The development of new image processing technologies draws into question the

person that made the image, the technologies that were used in the production of

the image, the possibilities for circulation and reception through digital networks,

and the cultural and social implications of such networks. (p. 26)

69 Digital artifacts are so easily appropriated, modified and adopted under new ownership

(Freire & McCarthy, 2014) because of the internet which has enabled this borrowing epidemic to occur. But what if we, as artists, were able to turn this issue into a collaborate process of artmaking?

In this research project, I ask participants to make art from my art, or to contribute to the virtual art in whatever ways they felt inclined to do. Virtual reality art-making has the potential to challenge limitations and restrictions on authorship of virtual artworks in similar ways to the “open source movement” in which “online communities of programmers dedicated to free-software development and innovative code writing”

(Freire and McCarthy, 2014, p. 30) pushed for free, easy access, and distribution of developed work. Artists using the Tilt Brush application or other VR art-making platforms have the opportunity to collaborate and remix each other’s artworks once published online, and of course they have the choice to keep their work private. However, in terms of collaborative idea generation, communication, and creative processes, virtual reality art shared through online communities is unlike any other collaborative art medium, which, by extension, makes the situation even more difficult for museums to exhibit rapidly evolving art. In a way, one might suggest that virtual reality art is ephemeral, like that of street art or graffiti, which changes and may only occur once. But unlike traditional ephemeral art, virtual artworks, as well as many other digital mediums, have the ability to make infinite copies and retrace steps backward in time. Virtual reality art is truly a distinctive contemporary medium with innovative affordances that offer not only artists a creative experience unlike other art mediums, but in regard to museum

70 visitors, VR applications like Tilt Brush have the potential to engage viewers in constructivist learning experiences

2.04.b Constructivist Learning Theory in Museums

When one considers the complex historical tradition of the art museum and the analogy of the art museum as a temple, it is sometimes hard to imagine how VR can work in such a place that is structured, object-oriented, and grounded in the physical world with physical art and material culture. However, I believe the modern shift in museum education that focuses more on the visitor’s experience near and far (Freeman, Adams

Becker, Cummins, McKelroy, Giesinger, and Yuhnke, 2016; Hornsby, 2007) encourages the use of technology in art museum galleries, making space for virtual reality, open- ended inquiry, and constructivist learning. Virtual learning experiences in the context of museum spaces offers so much potential beyond using VR to recontextualize objects and content. Designers and educators can easily get caught up in the “wow” factor of the hyper-realistic visual aid that VR can offer within a museum context. In many instances where a museum offers a VR experience, more times than not, it replicates or re-creates something that exists, or once existed, in our physical world. Aside from offering a new perspective, what about using VR to generate and foster creative thinking through constructivist learning experiences? A fellow designer once told me to think of what VR can offer beyond virtually replicating the physical world. I refer back to his statement almost daily in regard to my work, and I think that museum educators, designers, and artists using VR could also benefit from the same thinking while developing meaningful and impactful of VR experiences.

71 Virtual reality in a museum can not only add to the existing richness of the gallery experience, but it can also reach across the globe and engage learners with limited access to art and museums. However, some VR museum installations appear to be a visually stimulating extension of a poorly structured, content-driven educational system that is under the presumption that knowledge exists “independently of the learner” in an ideal form (Hein, 1995, p. 1). On the other hand, constructivist learning theory centers on the process of learning beyond the existence of knowledge as an independent entity (Hein,

1995). In other words, constructivist learning theory suggests that both “knowledge and the way it is obtained are dependent on the mind of the learner,” who constructs their own experience and knowledge as they learn (Hein, 1995, p. 4-5). While many art, history, and science museum VR installations use the platform to re-contextualize objects, art works, culture, people, places, historical moments or scientific concepts, they enforce a one-directional and pre-determined outcome for the viewer to ingest or obtain the knowledge presented in VR. These types of educational experiences are not all bad can offer entertaining visual perspectives that books or watching a video on a computer screen cannot. But they are limiting in regard to creative thinking, idea generation, and in having the ability to construct one’s own experience.

The game-like platform of educational VR installations in museums can make learning easier, fun, more accessible, and more engaging for some individuals through the interaction and exciting visuals of the medium. However, I question how content- driven VR experiences offer viewers a space in which to think critically or creatively, or how such a pre-determined experience can encourage the viewer to construct their own learning process and knowledge. Additionally, within the context of art museums and art

72 experiences, sometimes the goal is not for a learned outcome, but simply an experience that changes perceptions or makes viewers feel something special. When one considers constructivist learning experiences in the context of art museums, viewers construct their own art experience with the help of educators who facilitate them and offer content in a way that is open-ended and malleable. Therefore, VR developers and artists should aim to create educational applications and art installations that are both content-driven by the designer and content-generated by the user through a balance of structured yet open- ended exploration. Art educators know the value that open-ended inquiry and art-making have in the development of creative-critical thinking, an important and fundamental skill that content-driven, formal educational factories, like some schools, ignore and overlook.

Therefore, it is important to carve out a space within contemporary art museums for virtual art-making and interactive viewing—not just for the artists or medium’s sake, but also for the potential immersive and impactful experiences a viewer can have in VR.

Throughout the research process and Phase 2 of this study, I observed and studied many virtual reality art installations and interactive museum exhibitions, some of which I personally visited, that have shaped my perspectives on where and how VR art-making may one day fit in the arts and museum education fields. While the following descriptions of projects and exhibitions only scratches the surface of the VR design, development, and exhibition, they do offer insight on how researchers, artists, and public institutions have made attempts to offer virtual reality experiences.

73 2.04.c Place Holder Project.

Documentary video on the Placeholder Project: https://vimeo.com/27344103

Figure 9. Person interacting in Placeholder project (Laurel et al, 1994).

The Placeholder Virtual Reality Project took place in 1992 and was a collaborative research project directed by Brenda Laurel and Rachel Strickland, a filmmaker and media designer, that explored “multi-narrative action in VR” (Laurel et al,

1994). While the current VR hardware and software differs from the technology in early

1990s, the interactive project components stand out as a predecessor of virtual art and creative inquiry. The Placeholder Project relied on storytelling and audio, both live audio and some recorded audio, both of which influenced the interactive nature of the experience and pulled the user into the VR space. Laurel (1994), says that the core of the

74 project centered around “narrative activity” and allowed the user to freely explore the environment, becoming part of the story as one of the virtual characters. Each user was given the choice to embody one of the four Critters—Crow, Spider, Fish or Snake—each with different viewpoints of the VR environment and interactive features within the space. Referring to the embodied critters as “smart costumes,” Laurel et al (1994) states that the virtual characters removed “direct visual evidence of the participant's primate body and substituted iconic non-mammalian representations that moved through space in accordance with their actions, and by a series of sensory transformations” (p. 125)

Because the critters’ bodies move and behave differently from human bodies, the user’s movements echoed those of the animals. For example, users would flap their arms as if they were flying like the Crow. As for the visual elements of the VR environment, the

Placeholder project did not need a visually realistic environment for the user to virtually walk in because the experience centered around interaction and narrative, not hyper- realistic rendering. While I recognize that the Placeholder project is very different from virtual art-making in Tilt Brush, I look to it for the open-ended play and creative inquiry embodied through the user’s interaction in the virtual scene.

2.04.d Chalkroom.

Chalkroom, 2017, MASS MoCA: Laurie Anderson Virtual Reality Installation: http://massmoca.org/event/laurie-anderson/

Interview with Laurie Anderson on Chalkroom: https://vimeo.com/233785242

Figure 10. Chalkroom Installation at MASS MoCA (Anderson, 2017).

Renowned artist Laurie Anderson collaborated with new media artist Hsin-Chien

Huang to create two separate virtual reality experiences on display at MASS MoCA, as of 2017. Anderson’s works explore her past creative endeavors and personal experiences through stories in the multi-media platforms. One of Anderson’s two VR art installations at MASS MoCA begins with the viewer positioned in a virtually rendered airplane that slowly disintegrates, leaving the viewer floating in virtual space surrounded by objects that the viewer can grab on to through motion tracked hand positions (Markonish, 2017).

Anderson narrates the entire experience through her own voice, telling the viewer about her story of survival from a plane crash in the 1970s (Markonish, 2017). The second of the installations begins with the viewer sitting in a physical gallery space, which is dark

76 room illuminated by texts and sketches swirled together, covering every inch of the walls, ceiling and floor. When the viewer puts on the headset, they initially see a virtual copy of the physical gallery space, but then move through a virtual environment decorated with words and drawings influenced by her earlier artworks from 1996 displayed at the

Guggenheim in New York (Markonish, 2017). Like her other installation, Anderson narrates the viewer’s trip through the virtual space, offering a new platform of virtual storytelling. And, the viewer has hand controllers that provide some level of upper body movement and engagement in the virtual space. The viewer’s perspective appears like a fixed position, but the headset actually operates in 6-DoF (degrees of freedom), with both seated and standing options. The viewer can fly through the various spaces, but the act of flying requires little interaction other than positioning the controllers in certain directions.

Each virtual room offers a distinct narrative and interactive element, which gives the viewer some control over their experience, but is still pre-determined with limitations as to what the user can and cannot do in that space. Some of the interactions feel creative through movement and gestures, but the overall experience is not one intended to be a space for art-making—it is instead a space to view and experience the work of Anderson.

I include this installation in my review of technical elements because it is an example of a semi-open-ended experience with virtual art, and also because it is an example of how virtual art can be situated in museum space, which I will detail more in Phase 5.

2.04.e Museums and Tilt Brush.

Several design-based organizations, including Google, have embarked on collaborative Tilt Brush installations or artist-in-residency programs, bringing together

77 artists of various backgrounds and mediums to create virtual works of art and expansive artistic environments. The installations are available for public viewing through access to

2D online platforms, or in a studio/gallery with a VR set up, and the results are beautifully crafted creations that viewers can simply view as works of art. Through

Google and Tilt Brush’s efforts, the virtual artworks have become a public installation that can communicate and teach through observation. But the viewers, like those who visit a museum gallery, are not driving the creative inquiry because they are limited to only looking at virtual art versus making virtual art.

The Franklin Institute, Philadelphia’s science center, recently installed several educational VR platforms in their galleries, one of which mentions the use of Tilt Brush as part of a new exhibition. However, viewers watch an artist in real time virtually paint something in the VR application which is projected onto an IMAX screen (Melamed,

2016). Similar to content-driven learning or learning through observation, the museum viewer is part of the audience and not in the role of maker.

Another institution that briefly sparked my high hopes for Tilt Brush application use is the Louisiana Art & Science Museum with their Art After Hours event. The museum hosted a special event with several local tech companies demonstrating their innovative work and offered viewers a glimpse into the art and history of animation

(Tiblier, 2016). TurboSquid, a commercial international 3D modeling company based out of New Orleans, put together a Tilt Brush demo for the museum event that allowed viewers to create their own work of art. While there is no documentation as to the content of the demonstration or user prompts, the interactive demo was displayed within a special event exhibition featuring animations in gaming and film. Regardless, unlike the previous

78 Tilt Brush installation at the Franklin Institute, LASM (via TurboSquid demo) puts the viewer in control and offers a platform to potentially think creatively through virtual art- making. However, as an art educator, I question how LASM and TurboSquid presented the Tilt Brush demo to viewers—whether with educational content or rather only as an art-making space for entertainment purposes, playing into the “wow” factor of VR. The fine line between using art to imitate or supplement content instead of using art-making as a tool to generate content brings into question the value of these kinds of VR experiences in the museum space. Additionally, because the museum used Tilt Brush as part of a demo during a special exhibition, I also question the length of time that each user may have had in VR. To have a meaningful experience in any virtual space, but especially in Tilt Brush, a user needs time to learn the tools and become comfortable in the environment. A few minutes in a quick demo of the application will in no way allow for such a meaningful art experience.

2.04.f Cleveland Museum of Art ARTLENS.

Figure 11. Still image taken from Studio Play video on Cleveland Museum of Art site.

(ARTLENS Gallery, n.d.).

The Cleveland Museum of Art recently concluded a several year renovation project that not only revamped the physical structure of museum spaces but also created a new interactive space that combines technology, art, and open-ended inquiry. Originally title Gallery One, the newly branded ArtLens gallery space includes various interactive experiences that put the “viewer into conversation with masterpieces of art, encouraging engagement on a personal, emotional level” (ARTLENS Gallery, n.d.). Additionally, according to their site, the museum also offers an ArtLens Studio space for creative and interactive art-making in various digital mediums that “allow visitors to experiment with traditional artistic techniques in a playful, gesture-based way” (ARTLENS Gallery, n.d.).

While I am unaware of any virtual reality interactives in the current ArtLens gallery, exhibition, or studio space, I am most intrigued at the types of open-ended inquiry and creative experiences the museum has offered for visitors with works of art. These types of experiences are not only fun and engaging but also appear to be rooted in constructivist learning theory and have a visitor-centered foundation—exactly the type of creative space in which VR art-making could thrive.

80 PHASE 3: Artistic Exploration of the Medium

3.01 Creative-Based Methodologies

My research workflow has gone through an intricate series of researching, designing, making, reflection, data collection, and analysis, not in isolation of each other, but through overlapping and fluctuating bursts of creative inquiry. Through the writings of Patricia Leavy’s, specifically in her two books Method Meets Art (2015) and Research

Design (2017), and through graduate coursework engaging in arts-based research, I have come to see how the arts can be a dynamic inquiry process (Leavy, 2017). I value art- making as a mode of discovery, which is why I chose to engage in the reflective and cyclical process of researching-through-making. In general, the arts-based research methodology allows for me to take on the roles of both artist and the researcher.

However, arts-based research is complex and multifaceted, making it difficult to fit within a single structured methodology, especially one that has many variations depending on the field of study.

Through continuous reading and development, I have structured my research from a combination of arts-based or practiced-based methodologies, where art-making or a creative practice of some kind informs the research outcome. However, as an artist, it would be foolish to overlook how the foundational research done in the early stages of this project truly impacted my thinking and creative processes. Therefore, I also engage in research-led methodologies, where the research informs the art-making. Lastly, as an extension of arts-based research, arts-informed research methodologies typically focus on how the arts can influence the presentation, style or form of the research product.

81 While the written component of this research is not necessarily presented in an artistic format, I have engaged in creative design work through infographic visualizations of my research, which has been extremely informative to the research process and has resulted in a creative artifact concept map.

By using a general design thinking approach to this study, I have not only divided the research and making processes into various phases for the sake of organization and planning, but also to understand and visualize what happens in each phase and how they dynamically influence the following sequential phases and results. Through the visualization and design process of the infographic concept map, I was able to pinpoint specific moments when the research informed the making and when the making then informed the final research outcome which has been extremely helpful in understanding the methodologies I engage with in this study. The following figure compiled from segments of the original concept map depicts how the phases influence the next and where the specific methodologies are employed in this study:

Figure 12. Visualization of Phases and breakdown of methodologies (2020).

While I have condensed my methodologies into three categories—arts-based research, design-informed research, and research-led practice—in my descriptions of each, I also briefly cover several other methodologies that operate through a similar process with slightly different names depending on the field of origin. After reflecting on the visualizations and general workflow of research and art-making phases, I noticed how portions of my research employed arts-based, practice-based, practice-led, design- oriented and design (arts)-informed methodologies, while other parts aligned more with research-oriented design or research-led practice. Even though I position this study through an arts lens, I recognize the likeness to other design or technical research processes that fall under different names but engage in similar forms of creative inquiry.

83 The following table outlines the specific methodologies that I cover in the following sections that have shaped the way I condensed my thinking and structured the methods for data collection and analysis. The methodologies in blue employ research processes that inform the creative products or art-making, while the methodologies in yellow operate through creative processes that inform the research product or outcome.

Table 1. Chart of creative and research methodologies.

Process: Product: The means used or The component influenced Method and/or Approach implemented as a way to and informed by ideas generate new ideas and generated through the inform the product process

Research informs the creative Practice is informed by Research-Led Practice practice research

Research is conducted and The design product is Research-Oriented Design used to inform the design influenced by the research product Art-making informs the Research is informed by the Arts-Based Research research artmaking

Research is informed by the Art-making or creative Practice-Based Research art-making or creative practice informs the research practice

Design practice informs the Research is informed by the Design-Oriented Research research design practice

Creative practice and design Research is presented in a Design-Informed Research influences and inspires the creative format inspired by (Arts-Informed Research) presentation or format of the the arts and design practices research

Practice is advanced and Creative practice informs and Practice-Led Research informed through advances the practice participation in the practice

84 3.01.a Research-led Practice.

Research-led practice and research-oriented design, both approaches that exist in the technical and design fields, center around the “creation of new products” (Fallman,

2007, p. 195) through supportive research, opposite of arts-based and practice-based methodologies that employ some type of creative practice to inform the outcome of a study. Research-oriented design, specifically, is a process that generates new ideas and informs the design of a product, while broadly speaking, research-led practice works similarly through an initial research process that influences a creative practice or design process depending on the field and project.

In this current study, the foundational research includes theories on the technical aspects of virtual reality, theories on embodiment, cognition and behavioral phenomena, and theories on aesthetics in art, all of which have influenced my perception of virtual art-making, my creative decision making during the art-making process, and, ultimately, the creative VR artwork and final products . I became aware of this influence during moments in my virtual art-making sessions when I noticed changes in my creative approach were directly linked to ideas and theories I had read prior to the interaction in

VR. Additionally, the core research in the literature review impacted my interpretation and reflection of the artworks—both my own and the ones made by participants.

Therefore, as an artist-researcher, I recognize and understand that my creative work is directly linked to the research and theory I have studied so far, all of which solidifies the hybridic role of artist-researcher and demonstrates how research can be complex yet extremely rich when conducted through both theory and practice.

85 3.01.b Arts-based Research.

Elliot Eisner (2003) wrote, “to know a rose by its Latin name and yet to miss its fragrance is to miss much of the rose's meaning. Artistic approaches to research are very much interested in helping people experience the fragrance” (p. 10). For the entirety of my life, I have learned and explored the world through art making and through an arts- based lens. So, in regard to this research, it only made sense to approach it through and with an art-making methodology. However, just because a person makes an artwork or designs a product within their study, does not always indicate that they engage in arts- based research. The aim of this project blurs the lines between the research and the art- making because they are at times one in the same. For example, in some moments, I have had to ask myself if I am a researcher who uses art-making to benefit my research, or am

I an artist who conducts research to benefit my artwork?

Traditionally within arts-based research (ABR) approach, the researcher implements art-making as a way to generate new ideas (Leavy, 2015). Leavy (2015) positions ABR as its own research paradigm with its own distinct set of guiding

“substructures” and features, and recognizes eight ABR genres or subcategories, devoting a chapter to each, which include narrative inquiry, fiction-based research, poetry, music, dance, theatre, film, and visual art. In comparison to the objective and deductive quantitative research framework, and as an extension of the subjective and inductive qualitative research framework, Leavy (2015) states that “arts-based research pushes the inductive model even further, as artistic inquiry requires openness to the spontaneous and unknown” (p. 20). Leavy (2015) also considers that in order to conduct ABR, one has to think and act as both a researcher and artist, being open to and comfortable with

86 ambiguity. In her most recent book, Research Design (2017), Leavy suggests that ABR is an approach that intertwines theory and practice and is extremely focused on the inquiry process, not just the product. Openness within the research process allows for ideas to develop in ways that may not, or cannot, be predicted and for outcomes that scientific research may not, and cannot, produce.

In his article, On the Differences between Scientific and Artistic Approaches to

Qualitative Research, Elliot Eisner (2003) breaks down the major differences in approach between scientific and arts-based research that is extremely helpful in context of the creative methods and current study. Eisner (2003) suggests that scientific research is conducted objectively with a focus on validity and data that can be quantified in ways to support the conclusions without bias from the researcher. While, on the other hand, artistic research focuses on subjective experience and meaning, and “seeks to exploit the power of form to inform” (Eisner, 2003, p. 8). Additionally, the “role that emotion plays in knowing is central” to the subjective approach of arts-based research, whereas within scientific research, emotional objectivity and detachment is ideal (Eisner, 2003, p.10).

Remaining consistent within the postmodern approach to learning and research, Eisner

(2003) further details the clear difference between scientific and artistic research in regard to how both research methods approach the concepts of truth and knowing:

Artistic approaches to research are less concerned with the discovery of truth than

with the creation of meaning. What art seeks is not the discovery of the laws of

nature about which true statements or explanations can be given, but rather the

creation of images that people will find meaningful and from which their fallible

and tentative views of the world can be altered, rejected, or made more secure.

87 Truth implies singularity and monopoly. Meaning implies relativism and

diversity. Truth is more closely wedded to consistency and logic, meaning to

diverse interpretation and coherence. (p.11)

In their book, Arts Based Research (2012), Eisner, together with Tom Barone, claim that ABR opens up possibilities instead of narrowing down to one truth, and does so from multiple perspectives. They also suggest the importance of finding a theoretical balance between “contemplation” and “action” during the research and inquiry processes

(Barone and Eisner, 2012, p. 149). Because ABR can encompass so many types of creative inquiry, it is difficult to standardize and simply as a methodology. But, for that same reason, ABR can be adopted and shaped to fit so many types of qualitative research projects—this one included. Likewise, because ABR, broadly speaking, is flexible and adaptable, it is also employed in various other fields outside the arts and exists in similar variations under different terminology. Practice-based research and design-oriented research, typically used within design fields, both indicate the use of a creative process of inquiry that informs the research outcome or product—though with slight adaptations which I detail next.

There are many similarities between ABR, practice-based research (PBR), and design-oriented research (DOR), specifically related to the ways in which they all incorporate a creative practice or making process related to the field that informs the research at hand (Rolling, 2010). Within these three methodologies, a clear distinction between the research product and the creative process generates new ideas about or for the research. Practice-based research and Design-oriented research approaches, typically used within design or social science fields, among many others outside of the

88 arts, seek to generate new knowledge and ideas through a design or creative making process (Fallman, 2007; Rolling, 2010). Different research fields adopt or create different names for their methods, but the core functions remain generally the same. In fact, many scholars claim that “arts-based research is practice-based research,” (Rolling, 2010, p.

105) confirming that the discipline-specific methods closely parallel each other.

However, after some further reading, I noticed that reflection on the artworks, or artefacts is a key feature of ABR, more so than practice-based research (Candy, 2006).

In her guide to practice-based research, scholar Linda Candy (2006) from the

University of Technology, Sydney, discusses the differences:

In design research, for example, where the nature of practice is a major research

topic and is often conducted by research specialists rather than design

practitioners, the emphasis is on achieving new knowledge about the nature of

practice and how to improve it, rather than creating and reflecting on new

artefacts. By contrast, in the visual arts, the emphasis is on creative process and

the works that are generated from that process: the artefact plays a vital part in the

new understandings about practice that arise. (p. 3)

All three methods, arts-based, practice-based and design-oriented research, are methods used to gain or create different perspectives, to generate new knowledge and to inform research through some kind of practice or creative process relevant to the discipline. Additionally, as an extension of the arts-based and practice-based research approaches, I also see similarities in what other fields claim as practice-led research, which may be the broader umbrella term for all of the creative arts and practiced-based methodologies. However, the distinct features of practice-led research—because of the 89 synergistic relationship between research as my practice and practice as my research— add another paradoxical element to this study.

Practice-led research operates and functions by combining both research and creative practice as part of the process. Essentially, practice-led research is not only a creative practice that informs a research outcome, but it is also a creative practice that ultimately informs the practice as a larger entity for future use of that practice. The primary concerns of practice-led research are with the practice itself and generating new ideas that benefit the practice (Candy, 2006). Linda Candy (2006) states the main differences between practice-based and practice-led research as:

• If a creative artefact is the basis of the contribution to knowledge, the research is practice-based. • If the research leads primarily to new understandings about practice, it is practice-led. (p. 3)

In other words, practice-led research is a process and way to “advance knowledge about practice, or to advance knowledge within practice” (Candy, 2006, p.1). Therefore, when positioning a practice-led research methodology into this study, it generally aligns with the other arts-based and practice-based approaches that utilize creative means to inform the research outcome. But the creative means, the VR art-making experiences in this circumstance, will further inform and influence the future practice and medium of virtual art-making, for myself and any of the participants who continue to engage in the medium. The practice, therefore, informs future practice in the medium and, by extension, aims to advance thinking and theory in the field of VR art-making. In contrast, however, to arts-based, practice-based, and practice-led methodologies, similar yet

90 different approaches like research-oriented design or research-led practice contrast by flipping the orientation and relationship between research and art-making, or practice.

3.01.c Design (Arts)-Informed Research

While researching various creative and arts-based methodologies, I came across the arts-informed research approach, which is similar to ABR in the ways the arts can inform one’s thinking; however, it differs in relation to the use, or non-use, of actual art- making as a means of inquiry. Instead, arts-informed research looks to ABR for inspiration at using creative approaches in their own work (Eisner, 1997; Rolling, 2010).

More specifically, Rolling (2010) claims that “arts-informed research is not practice- based research,” nor is it ABR, because practice-based and arts-based research centers around "how form accesses and shapes research content" (p. 105). While arts-informed research looks at “building research on a foundation of studio-based practices” is about

“a way of representing research that nevertheless remains firmly rooted in qualitative methods” (Rolling, 2010, p 105). In other words, ABR employs creative processes as a way to generate new research ideas and outcomes while arts-informed research utilizes creative processes as a way to present or compile the research in a non-traditional, qualitative way. For example, writing a paper in a creative novel-like format engages and presents the work in an artistic way that differs from tradition writing formats and styles.

If thinking broadly within the gray area between arts-based research and arts- informed research, one could view the infographic concept map I designed during this project as an artistic artifact made through a design-based practice. At times during the creative process, my experience as a graphic designer controlled my decision-making,

91 which then pre-determined some of the visual and aesthetic qualities of the concept map.

However, when I engaged through a more open-ended creative mindset, like an artist, the interactive design process of visually organizing theories and research components of the study informed my thinking in ways that I could not have anticipated. There were also impactful moments of reflection in the creative process that at times as a designer, I have skimmed over because of my product-driven mentality. While I certainly engaged in an arts-based and creative method of inquiry, which happened to be grounded within design software, techniques, and principles, I also look at the creative result of my efforts as an artistic and design-based presentation format that displays and embodies the research of this study in ways that a formal written paper could never do. Therefore, I chose to re- title the methodology to design-informed research because I engage in a creative design process and present my research through an infographic visualization format that many would not consider as art, but a design-based product. As previously mentioned, there is a fine line between art and design fields, and likewise between an artist and designer. The line is even thinner between my roles of designer and digital artist, where I use design software daily in my creative work, regardless of creative intentions and outcomes.

Nonetheless, the creative work requires significant time and energy, and has informed my thinking and the outcome and presentation of this research in profound ways. Therefore, in this study I modify the term arts-informed research to design-informed research to better fit this body of work and the style in which I create meaning.

3.02 Methods & Data Collection

To remain consistent with the social cognition framework, which considers the environment, person, and behavior as the three key components under investigation, in

92 addition to the broad research methodologies that I employ in this study, I look next at the specific methods and processes used to collect and analyze data from participant experiences of making virtual art and my own as an artist-researcher. During the process of developing the scenarios in which I wanted to analyze participant interaction, I experienced a challenging moment between the intentions and expectations of my designer and artist perspectives within this project. While my hybridic role of artist- researcher primarily controlled the majority of the research and creative work in this project, my designer and educator voices surfaced in incompatible moments when it came to designing spaces and interactives for the participants. At times, it was challenging to exist as both an artist interested in the process, and designer interested in the product. Additionally, from the research and experience of using VR in museum settings, I, as both a designer and educator, had preconceived ideas and plans for what I wanted the participant test scenarios to look like and how they should function. However,

I also wanted to create a meaningful artwork to which viewers could respond, requiring an open mind and approach with little focus on the end result. I knew that once I had the test scenarios in place, I would utilize various methods to collect data which include surveys, observation, video documentation, and interviews. But I needed the spaces first—and I needed to be mindful and intentional on the design of the environments in order to be able to collect and analyze the data that would enrich this study.

3.02.a Environment: Test Scenarios.

To recap the affordances of the Tilt Brush application previously mentioned in the technical literature review, the technologies offered allow the user to observe the space

93 and create artworks through manipulation and interaction with the virtual content. The hand controllers that operate as virtual brushes and a palette of tools and settings allow the user variations of interaction types and patterns including the hand selection pattern, teleportation and automated patterns, viewpoint selection patterns, and the walking patterns within the virtual space. It is no surprise that the Tilt Brush application offers such advanced tools, abilities, behaviors, and interaction patterns since these types of immersive experiences are now common and expected in virtual reality. However, now that we have the advanced platforms, how can we as artists and designers—and by extension, educators—use them to our advantage to create interactive and collaborative virtual art experiences that are not stagnant replicas of disembodied in-gallery art experiences?

To prepare for participant interaction in Tilt Brush, I used the artistic tools, settings, and virtual brushes to create three scenario environments with the intention to inspire and promote creative inquiry through variations of prompts. Additionally, my goal with the all three was to offer participants open-ended art-making experiences that occur in spaces with varying presentations of visual stimuli to better understand the participants’ comfort levels within virtual environments and with virtual art objects. I named the three test scenario environments as follows: Blank Space, Incomplete Figure, and Art Installation.

In the first VR environment, Blank Space, other than changing a few lighting and environmental effects, I did very little to the default environment that Tilt Brush offers when you first step into the application. Tilt Brush includes several options for environments or backdrops that range from solid colors like white, black, or pink, in

94 addition to a few unique spaces like a snowy landscape with an undecorated snowman or the vast emptiness of space with only the moon as reference. However, for this specific test scenario, knowing that some participants would be entering VR for the first time ever, it was necessary to offer them a simple virtual space with a floor. Although gravity does not exist in Tilt Brush, the initial feeling of floating in outer space or not having a floor to visually ground your senses can be alarming to some. Therefore, I chose to use the default landscape that has a blank ground—purple in color—and distant mountains with a night sky overhead. No other visual elements permeate the scene except for the hand controllers. I intended for this space to be blank and empty so that participants had complete freedom to explore the art tools and get accustom to the feel of being in an immersive virtual environment. I encouraged them to doodle and create whatever came to mind, with no direct prompts or restrictions in this space.

The second test scenario, Incomplete Figure, appears identical to the first virtual space, but also includes a purple spherical spiral in the center of the space, which I added using the tools and brushes. While there are minimal visual stimuli, the intentions and prompt for participant interaction changed in this environment. Inspired by the Torrance

Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT), as previously discussed, I planned to offer participants a simple shape or abstract figure from which they would create a work of art.

Typically in the TTCT, the students would draw on a flat piece of paper—limiting the work to two dimensions. Since virtual reality offers us three dimensions of workable space, I created a three-dimensional shape. After several variations, I settled on the purple spiral because of my own fascination and experiences in Tilt Brush with the 3D tools and shapes.

Figure 13. Purple spiral in second VR environment (2020).

I asked participants to use the shape as a starting point and to create a work of art from it in any way they wanted. Again, each participant had complete creative freedom with their creative approach and work—some of whom decided to not directly respond the purple spiral. While I used the TTCT as inspiration for the design of this scenario, I do not intend to assess the participants creativity in the same ways that the TTCT do in their formal testing. Instead, I use it with the intention of inspiring creativity through minimal visual stimuli and an open-ended prompt.

The final test scenario space, Art Installation, proved to be the most difficult of the spaces to create because it was the most involved and required both planned-out and open-ended approaches. My intention with this space was to immerse the participants in

96 virtual art of my own creation in the same way a visitor might experience an art installation in a museum gallery. Inspired by Surrealist artworks from both the Modern and more recent digital art movements, I wanted to create a space that could not exist in our physical reality—one that was abstract, colorful, and engaging to a viewer.

Figure 14. Third VR environment (2020).

As depicted in Figure 14, I created the central hand-shaped feature and flower in response to the ideas of self-perception and embodiment—one of the many moments where the theories and literature about embodied cognition influenced my art-marking.

Aside from the behavioral phenomena of art-making in virtual reality, one of the other topics that I aim to investigate in this study is one’s self-perception while in VR without the visual representation of a body. My conceptual motivations for my art centered on

97 embodiment, self, and how one grapples with existing in physical and virtual spaces at the same time.

While I tried to create work with an open mind and approach by allowing the tools and process to dictate the art, my inner designer voice struggled with the ambiguity knowing that I was also creating an interactive space and experience for participants. I dealt with a lot of back and forth movement, mentally, through shifts in my thinking and approach while creating this space. Ironically, my intentions for the participant prompt never changed from the beginning. I wanted participants to view my art and add to it, starting a creative and visual conversation that tied back to the themes of self and embodiment and, by extension, creating a sequential collaborative piece. However, even with the general prompt in mind form the start, I struggled at times to design and produce this space. It never felt finished—a feeling to which most artists can relate. Nonetheless, I turned it over to participants to add to and finish it in their own ways, which I detail in

Phase 4, section 2.

3.02.b Person & Behavior: Participant Population.

Once I finished the three VR environments, I invited participants to interact and make virtual art while I observed and documented their creative processes and final products. The participant population consisted of folks from the Columbus, Ohio, metropolitan area, most of whom had connections to The Ohio State University through my home department of Art Education and Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and

Design (ACCAD), which is also where the participant sessions took place on campus. In total, eighteen individuals participated in this study and contributed artwork and their

98 feedback on their experiences. The ages of participants ranged from 5 to 54 years old; I had invited older individuals, but they declined to participate. My intentions with collecting ages from each participant was to look for trends and patterns related to generational connections and differences in creative approaches, comfortability in the virtual space, and adaptability in relation to the learning curve of a new digital tool.

To simplify the analysis, I divided ages into three groups: 18 and under, 19-29, and 30 and older. I did not organize the age groups according to traditional labels like

Millennial or Gen Z—instead, I grouped them according to the technology use and trends of their adolescent years, using the release of the iPhone in 2007 as a key point for technology use in classrooms and as extensions of our social interactions (Jackson, 2018).

As of the time of this project, the 18 and under group would have been born around 2002, right as smart phones and tablets became popular in the early 2000s; they may not ever remember a time prior to smart devices, which would have influenced their social and educational environments as children. The middle group of 19 to 29 years old would have been born roughly between 1990-2001, which was the era of internet evolution for consumers at home and in school. But, by the time smart phones became popular in 2007, they would have been older children or teenagers, and might possibly remember life before smart devices, which again, would influence their perceptions. The last group, 30 and older, born before 1990, would have grown up and gone through some, if not all, schooling prior to heavy internet usage and prior to smartphones being released in the early 2000s—all of which would impact their perceptions in various ways that the other two groups may not relate to. I am interested at looking how all three groups react to the

99 virtual environment differently and if there are observable trends and patterns that may occur with their art-making approaches.

Beyond examining age, I made the intentional decision not to collect information about the participants’ race, gender identity, or sexual orientation. While I am certain a lot of compelling conclusions could be drawn that connect one’s identity to their artworks in terms of both the form and conceptual components, this study specifically does not aim to analyze the data in that way. Additionally, one of the interesting factors of this VR application is how one’s body appears invisible by design. Other than the controllers, there are no indicators or visual representations of a human body in Tilt Brush. Therefore, the application creates, by default, what appears to be a neutral space where race and gender are not visible indicators of the participant’s virtual self. While I recognize that these parts of our identity shape our experiences and perspectives in our physical world, I wanted, for a brief moment, to look solely at the participants’ creativity and the art they make without being constrained to identity classifications or allowing our labels to dictate our experiences in those moments. However, as I will discuss in Phase 4, section 2, it is impossible to truly erase self-perceptions and lived experiences from our minds even if entering a neutral virtual space.

3.02.c Creative Background Survey.

Prior to participants interacting in virtual reality, they filled out a quick survey that rated their experiences and interests in varied creative mediums on a scale from 1-5.

A full version of the survey can be found in the appendix of this dissertation. My intention with this survey was to gather a brief understanding of their skills, interests, and

100 comfort levels with art-making and how that might translate to creative approaches in virtual reality. For example, a fellow digital artist noted that I physically move my body around my VR subject instead of using the controllers and settings to move the objects and scene around my point of view in the same way one would manipulate a 3D model on a computer screen. With my background in photography, I am used to moving my body around the subject of my photos which may influence how I create three- dimensional artworks in VR. Therefore, my goal with the survey data is to look for trends, patterns, and connections between other creative processes and artistic mediums that can help us better understand the virtual medium in terms of affordances and creative approaches, and also how to encourage interaction and meaningful experiences that build from prior experiences users bring to virtual reality. With the data gathered from participants, I use Tableau and Domo data visualization programs, to help me visually configure the survey results and information, so that I can cross-examine the participants’ prior artistic skills and experiences with other forms of data that I observed and documented during the participant interaction.

3.02.d Observation of Interaction and Artworks.

Due to the arts-based and phenomenological approaches to my research, my methods of data collection are grounded in those related methodologies, one of which is in-person observation during live VR interaction. My observation process was multi- layered and reflective since I also had to observe myself as a participant-artist through recorded videos. For the participant observations, I took on the role of facilitator and, in some ways, became part of their experience through my help with moving cords and

101 offering instructional feedback on how to use the controllers as art tools. Because of the required attention and assistance I offered during each participant session, I relied on several video recording and documentation set-ups to capture all aspects of the participants’ interactions in physical and virtual spaces.

When thinking about possible ways to record movement, video recording is the immediate and probably most effective option since it offers the ability to replay and view multiple times. During the sessions, while I observed in person and made note of interesting details when possible, I also used three different types of video capture: live video capture of physical body movement in the computer lab via my GoPro camera, video of the participant’s first-person perspective view in Tilt Brush via the computer screen capture, and also the Tilt Brush video function inside the virtual space to capture the final products. With the video capture inside of Tilt Brush, I had the freedom and option to walk around any artwork, which was extremely useful for documenting the final creative product and noticing elements of the artworks that I did not pick up on during the initial observations. My intentions with the video footage were to look for additional trends and patterns related to body movement and creative approaches to art-making in virtual spaces that may draw connections to the survey data, and also to study details about tool usage and how that corresponded to the form of the artworks and the medium’s affordances. Likewise, with the survey data, I also employed Tableau and

Domo to assist in visualizing trends and patterns of the participants’ interactions and creative processes.

102 3.02.e Interview and Feedback.

Immediately after the participant interaction in virtual reality, I conducted informal interviews with each individual to capture their feedback, reactions, and feelings on their experience in a virtual space and making art with non-human abilities. Similar to my own reflections and experiences in VR, the participant perspectives are vital to this research in ways that no other data could satisfy because they offer direct accounts of personal experiences and feelings that cannot be explained by statistical data alone.

During each interview, I referenced a set of questions and prompts that helped guide the discussion and encourage moments to reflect on the experience, but I did not force the conversation to happen according to the order of questions. Instead, I allowed the discussion to happen organically and for the participants to take the lead on their moment of reflection and feedback on their experience. In general, most of the participants answered the questions in some way throughout the interview. The list of questions used in the interview can also be found in the Appendix of this dissertation.

3.02.f Data Visualization.

With the majority of past VR research projects, the data collected has generally been quantitative in nature—like that of physiological responses, heart rates, and breath which are then further analyzed through quantitative methods. In this study, I recognize that some sets of data, like the survey, are quantitative by default. Therefore, I do not want to discredit quantitative data or the value in the ability to combine both qualitative and quantitative in research—a form of triangulation that considers multiple research methods and data sets when investigating a phenomenon. Additionally, through the

103 conversion process, my notes from observations were also adapted into numerical data so that the visualization software could interpret the information and produce the graphics.

In my opinion, data visualization is an effective analysis method, not just for the final presentation of the data but also for the exploration and cross examination of multiple sets of complicated information. In this study, I use data visualization software to identify trends and patterns in the ages and survey information, tool usage and interactive approaches, and the content types and forms of the artworks. The data collected through the interviews was not easily converted into data sheets and therefore not included in the data visualizations. In the next section, I further discuss the collected data and visualizations, in addition to the qualitative feedback from the participants and my own reflections as an artist-researcher.

104 PHASE 4: Reflection & Analysis of Data

In this phase of the research study, I discuss the data collected from participants and generated through visualization software, and I offer my reflections and analysis of the data. Though this is a qualitative and phenomenologically grounded study, the data at times can appear quantitative in nature through my efforts to convert and organize several layers of information. For each of the participants, I created a personal evaluation sheets that include their age group, prior VR usage, survey results, the individual brush usage per category, their use of teleport and scale, and the content of their artworks per each VR test environment. In an effort to keep participants’ names and identifiable information private, I number them in order of their interaction in VR as Participant #1 and abbreviate that label as P1. Additionally, at times when discussing specific individual experiences or when referring to one participant, I use the pronoun they to remain neutral and respect the participants’ identities. The following figure on the next page is an example of the individual participant’s evaluation sheet—each one color coded per participant.

In addition to the individual participant evaluation sheets, I created files that show the totals and cumulative data in all categories through visualizations and color-coding.

In the next sections, I break down and discuss how and why I chose to compile the data in specific ways, and then also present the analysis and cross-examination of the visible trends and patterns that shed light on what happens during the virtual art-making process and what the product looks like at the end of the experience.

105

Figure 15. Example Participant Evaluation Sheet (2020).

106 4.01 Age Groups & Survey Data

As previously mentioned, I divided ages of participants into three groups: 18 and under, 19-29, and 30 and older, which correspond to their potential technology use as a child in relation to the innovations of recent decades. Though almost all of us are now users of mobile devices, that was not always the case for older generations. Therefore, I associate the 18 and under group with youth who had access to mobile devices in primary school, in addition to computers and the internet. The middle group, 19 to 29 years old, I define as youth who only had access to computers and the internet—some of which was spotty access at best. I define the last group, 30 and older, as those who experienced some or all of their primary and secondary education prior to heavy internet usage, computers, and smartphones—all of which may or may not impact how they respond to virtual reality artmaking and content. While this minor data set does not offer much by itself, it did help me to organize and cross-examine other sets of data. Of the 18 participants:

• 11 were 18 & under • 3 were 19-29 • 4 were 30 & older

As with most other technology or devices, digital natives generally had a quicker learning curve, as opposed to digital immigrants since they have had access to the technology from infancy (Prensky, 2001). Therefore, prior to the participant interaction, I also assumed the different ages of participants would impact their experiences in virtual reality. However, the four participants in the 30 and older category had either some VR experience or had some creative background in one or more various art mediums, so there was actually very little hesitancy in the platform as I anticipated. And, the

107 participants’ learning curve for understanding the tools was minimally different than those of the younger age groups. Because the oldest participant in this study is in their mid-50s, there is opportunity for future research to observe older generations, like those over 60, using VR– specifically how making art in virtual reality could impact the lives of senior citizens in positive ways for those with limited abilities. But, for this study, I take into consideration the age ranges of participant, in addition to the survey results which help me understand the social context and conventions that the participants bring into their VR experience and that also effect how they think and behave in a virtual environment.

With the data collected from the creativity survey, and when cross-examined with other data sets, I noticed a few trends among the participants past art-making and technology-using experiences that greatly impacted their experience in Tilt Brush. I also asked participants if they had prior experience in any type of virtual reality platform in order to have some context as to their familiarity. Of the 18 participants:

• 5 participants had prior experience in a 3-Degrees of Freedom type of VR headset, most likely using a mobile version that was not motion- tracked; • 7 participants had prior experience in a 6-Degrees of Freedom type of VR headset, most likely using a room-scale version that was motion- tracked similar to the set-up used in this study; • 2 participants had prior experience in both 3-Degrees of Freedom and 6- Degrees of Freedom types of VR headsets; • 4 participants had no prior VR experience.

108 Similar to the knowledge of one’s age, this data set does not tell us much by itself but is important to have for further analysis of user experiences in VR and also the remaining data collected from the survey.

In addition to questions about prior VR usage, I listed on the survey the following types of artistic mediums and technology uses, and asked each participant to indicate the level of comfort, experience or familiarity with each one on a scale from 1-5:

• Painting (any type of non-digital, oils, acrylic, watercolor, mixed media, etc.) • Drawing (any style or type of non-digital, pencil, pen, marker, charcoal, etc.) • Sculpting (any type of non-digital, clay ceramics, mixed media, etc.) • Photography (any style digital or film) • Videography (any style) • Dance (any style) • Music (any style or genre) • Acting (Film or Theater) • Wood Working (any style) • Metal Working (any style) • Digital Graphic Design (any style or platform) • Digital Drawing (any style or platform) • 3D Modeling (any platform) • Digital Animation (any style) • Digital Coding or Programming (any style or platform) • Video Game Play (any type or platform) • Mobile Device Interaction Comfort Level (tablets, phones) • Desktop Computer or Laptop Comfort Level (Mac or PC)

Below is a visualization of the results from the participant group as a whole which indicates: most individuals favor and/or are more familiar with mobile devices over

109 computers, drawing and painting were among the most popular favored art mediums, and dance and metal-working were the least favorite or least familiar creative mediums. In addition to the visualization of the group’s survey results and totals, I generated charts that organize the survey results according to the age groups to compare the social contexts of each.

Figure 16. Visualization of Survey Results (2020).

Figure 17. Visualization of survey results for 18 & Under group (2020).

110

Figure 18. Visualization of survey results for 19-29 age group (2020).

Figure 19. Visualization of survey results for 30 & Older age group (2020).

The results show slight differences in preferred art mediums and technology; I cannot prove these results stem from their ages or whether or not they are digital natives or immigrants. However, some of the noticeable technology differences in relation to the participants’ ratings of mobile device, computer usage, and video game play may influence other sets of data and analysis. For both the 19-29 age group and the 30 and older, mobile device and computer usage were among the top two highest scores—with only a minor flip for the middle group who slightly favors desktop and computer use over mobile use. But since that group only had three members, I cannot prove or disprove that

111 this slight difference is statistically significant or consistent with other people who fall into this age bracket and did not participate. As for video game play, this technology and activity was not favored by either of the older age groups in comparison to the total survey results since it dropped several positions for both. However, for the 18 and under group, computer and desktop use dropped down several positions while video game play bumped up a few spots in comparison to the total survey results and to the other two age groups—all of which supports the idea that youth born after the invention of smart phones seem to favor and react differently to various forms of digital content.

As for the artistic mediums, the survey results organized per age group revealed some variations compared to when examining the whole group of participants. On average, drawing remained in a fairly high position, which was not surprising since it is one of the first and most basic art skills people learn and practice as children. However, drawing dropped slightly for the middle 19-29 age group, who prefers sculpture and graphic design as their top choices of creative mediums. Again, I cannot prove or disprove if this is accurate for others in this age group without collecting more data, but an interesting connection between computer use and graphic design does arise. Typically, most designers use computers with large screens and various connected hardware to complete their work. And, graphic design is a creative field that most individuals may not explore or even consider until high school or college which could be a reason why it is preferred way less within the 18 and under group. Of the artistic mediums that typically require use of the body through movement and performance—dance, acting, and music— were among the bottom half of the preferred creative mediums, some falling into the lowest rankings. Specifically, with the 18 and under group who favor mobile devices and

112 video games among drawing, they favored dance the least out of all artistic mediums which again, is not surprising—and, may or may not influence the ways the younger participants move within the virtual spaces.

In general, the preliminary survey data offer details and context about the participants’ technological and creative experiences prior to the interaction in VR, but the results were gathered with the intention to use in comparison and through cross- examination of the data observed and documented during participant interactions and art- making sessions, which I detail in the next sections.

4.02 Observed & Documented Data

As previously mentioned, through reviewing the documented participant interaction, I gathered data pertaining to virtual tool use, the artists’ movements and creative approaches, and the content of the artworks. However, it is important to mention that the data sets are my interpretations and estimates that generalize the virtual art- making process, but do not define the experience for everyone who engages with the medium. For these sets of data, I again used visualization software to help organize the information and created a format that categorizes the data in ways easily converted into excel sheets for the visualizations and analysis. For the tools and virtual brushes, I used the names and order of how they appear on the virtual palette, but also created five categories of my own that group the brushes according to their appearance and function which I titled: Art, Luminous, Particle, 2D Material, and 3D Material. For the creative approach of the artists, I specifically looked at how they used the teleport and scale features of Tilt Brush, which influenced the ways they moved in physical and virtual

113 spaces and also how they created details in their artworks. Because each participant interacted differently, I decided on a general ranking scale of Minimal, Moderate, and

Extensive use that I estimated through tallying the use of each teleport or scale feature.

Lastly, for the content of the artworks, I noticed several trends and patterns from the very start of my data collection phase. I thoroughly reviewed and reflected to develop the categories into which the artworks and components of the artworks would fall, those being: Doodles, Swirls, Abstract Objects, Realistic Objects, Characters, and Abstract

Immersive Spaces. In the following sections, I discuss in detail my analysis process, the observed data and their categories that, when cross examined with the previous survey data sets, help me to visualize and better understand the choices and behaviors of participants during the virtual art making experience.

4.02.a Environment: Tools and Brush Usage.

In total, Tilt Brush offers 48 different types of art tools, or brushes, that generate virtual material, some of which appears to resemble physical materials in our physical reality, but also some that can only exist in a virtual space. In addition to a full spectrum of colors and shades, the participants in the study had full access to all 48 brushes which appear in four groups of 12 that users can toggle through and select, as depicted in the image below.

114

Figure 20. Screenshot of brushes in Tilt Brush (2020).

Some brushes have recognizable names, like Wet Paint or Marker, and function in semi- predictable ways according to their names. But some of the unique brushes like Dr.

Wigglez, Hypercolor, and Disco, among many others, offer animated effects and color- changing brush strokes that could only exist in virtual media. Figure 20 shows a screenshot of the second grouping of brushes in the Tilt Brush application, while the following table lists all of the 48 brushes in the order of appearance in the palette’s four groups.

115 Table 2. Breakdown of VR brushes.

Oil Paint Ink Thick Paint Wet Paint Marker Tapered Marker Pinched Marker Highlighter Flat Tapered Flat Pinched Flat Soft Highlighter

Light Fire Embers Smoke Snow Rainbow Stars Velvet Waveform Splatter Duct Tape Paper

Coarse Bristles Dr. Wigglez Electricity Streamer Hypercolor Bubbles Neon Pulse Cell Vinyl Hyper Grid Lightwire Chromatic Wave Dots

Petal Icing Toon Wire Spike Lofted Disco Comet Shiny Hull Matte Hull Unlit Hull Diamond

At first glance, the clusters may seem like a logical order or grouping, but after using the application, I feel other ways of configuring the brushes could make it easier and more efficient for users. While Tilt Brush designers and developers may have had particular reasoning to group the brushes in this specific order, I regrouped the brushes into five categories based on their virtual material and appearance to see what the tools afford the artists and how they may influence the form of the artworks. As briefly mentioned, those five classifications are Art, Luminous, Particle, 2D Material and 3D

Material. While some brushes may be an obvious fit within a category based on their name, it was through my personal experience with the application and though the observation of participants that I noticed how some brushes logically fit together because 116 of their unique functions—and not based on how Tilt Brush displays them in the virtual palettes. The following table is my breakdown of the categories and brushes that I used to analyze the collected participant data and interaction in VR:

Table 3. Reorganized categories of brushes.

Art Luminous Particle 2D Material 3D Material Oil paint Light Fire Splatter Petal Ink Rainbow Embers Duct tape Icing Thick Paint Wave Form Smoke Paper Toon Wet paint Electricity Snow Coarse Bristles Wire Marker Streamers Stars Doctor Wiggles Spikes Taper Maker Hypercolor Bubbles Cell Vinyl Lofted Pinch Marker Neon Pulse Splatter Shiny Hull Highlighter Hyper Grid Matte Hull Flat Lightwire Unlit Hull Tapered Flat Chromatic Wave Diamond Pinch Flat Dots Soft Highlighter Disco Velvet Ink Comet

As mentioned, the majority of brushes appear by name to logically fit under the categories, as designated in the previous color-coded table. The Art brushes resemble familiar art materials that the majority of people may have used at some point in their life—with a few exceptions of course like Velvet Ink. Likewise, the Luminous brushes are exactly as their category suggests—luminous and radiant—some of which offer fun shimmering or glowing effects that are not natural to our physical world. I titled and

117 organized the Particle category based on my knowledge of 3D modeling effects that fall under the same name. However, the 2D Material and 3D Material brushes were toughest to organize and classify because some appear to have a three-dimensional quality through textures and effects. Initially, I had both groups together as one, but decided to separate the truly three-dimensional brushes with the others that are more so a miscellaneous grouping of unique virtual media and 2D textures.

As I initially began to process the data and visualizations, my first attempt to look at the total brush usage of each group showed that the Luminous brushes were by far the most popular and heavily used brush category. However, this higher percentage of use could be due to several factors—one being the attractive electrical nature of the brush effects. But it is important to point out that the five categories of brushes are not evenly distributed –the Luminous group contains the most brush options with 13 total, in addition to the Art group with 13, while the Particle group only includes 6 brushes.

Therefore, if looking solely at the total number of times a brush category was used by participants, then the number could be higher because of the higher amount of brushes included in that group. I did not intend for, nor did I initially consider, the unequal distribution when grouping the brushes into categories based on appearance and effects.

But after some initial analysis of the data, it was clear to me that numbers do not always reveal the truth.

While the categorizing brushes was helpful in understanding their functions and affordances, I also looked at the individual brush totals to gain a better understanding of their usage and popularity. Despite the Luminous category appearing the most popular, the most commonly used brush was Fire, which falls within the Particle group. And, the

118 top Luminous brush, which was Light, is actually the fourth most popular behind Fire,

Diamond and Embers. Below is a breakdown and visualization of individual brush usage from least to most popular.

Figure 21. Visualization of individual brush use (2020).

Additionally, when looking at brush usage in relation to the three age groups of participants, the results varied in several ways, making it difficult to look for patterns in the data. While the Fire brush remained fairly popular among all three groups, the participants in the 18 and Under group used Dr. Wigglez and the Rainbow brush the most, after Fire—none of which were in the top three brushes used by either of the older groups. However, additional configurations of the brush usage in relation to other survey data are necessary for further investigation and understanding of the medium.

In addition to cross examining the brush usage with the age groups of the participants, I looked at the brush data in relation to the participants’ prior experiences in or with virtual reality which, as previously mentioned, I divided into four categories:

3Dof, 6Dof, Both 3Dof and 6Dof, and None—or no prior VR use. Similarly, the brush

119 data again produced variations in results that do not show any consistent patterns or trends. Therefore, more data would be needed to look further into the associations of prior VR experience and brush use. The visualizations can also be found in the appendix.

While I find the different configurations and visualizations of brush usage interesting, at this point it is necessary to layer on several more data sets in order to cross- examine the information for trends or patterns. There were several other visualizations that I ran with the brush usage data, specifically related to the participants’ interests in video games, noted on their surveys—and how their familiarity with video game content may have influenced their choice of brushes. I actually found a potential link with brush use and the participants who ranked video game play as a 4 or 5 versus others who ranked it 3 or lower, but I did not make the connection until examining the content of the artworks. But next, I will briefly touch on the data collected on interactive features of teleport and scale.

4.02.b Person and Behavior: Creative Approach Patterns.

Despite the fact that Tilt Brush application operates through a room-scale and motion tracked virtual reality platform, each participant quickly maxed out their walkable space with sketches and looked for additional ways to move within the virtual space. In addition to the physical movement, the developers of the application built in two other options for artists which helps them to navigate and move around their artworks and environments—those being the teleport and scale features of the app. As mentioned in previous sections, the teleport feature allows the user to point with their controller and instantly move to the location they indicated with the footprint icon. Furthermore,

120 depending on the scale of the environment, the virtual hop can seem like a slight step or a gigantic leap in the virtual space. The teleport tool is represented by an icon on the virtual palette next to other tools like the eraser and straightedge, so it is visible and accessible to users, many of whom find it on their own and use it without instruction or guidance from me, which is not the case for the scale feature.

In addition to making the virtual space seem smaller or larger in relation to the user’s perspective, the scale feature also affords some movement in various directions like the teleport tool; though, it takes some practice because scaling one’s environment is not a natural or linear way to move within or manipulate the space around us. For example, when a user presses the scale buttons and moves their arms up or down, or both to the right or both to the left, the environment responds accordingly as if our perspective is floating in mid-air. However, if the user moves one arm outward, similar to turning bicycle handles, the environment rotates in that direction which can be slightly disorienting, especially if the user has no prior experience manipulating 3D models or digital objects. Moreover, unlike the teleport tool, which is accessible through the icon in the tool palette, the scale feature is not intuitive or accessible without prior knowledge of the button locations on the controllers and the affordances of the platform. Without my guidance, I am certain that none of my participants would have figured out how to use the side buttons on the controllers. In fact, I only discovered the scale feature for myself through watching videos online of others using Tilt Brush. Not only are the scaling motions difficult for most people at first to comprehend and maneuverer, but the placement of the side buttons can be easily overlooked by new users.

121 As a result, the majority of participants used the scale feature to move in a linear direction, with only a few using it to rotate their perspectives. Moreover, for those participants who figured out how to control and rotate the environment through the scale feature in more advanced ways, brief moments arose where the interaction became playful and temporarily distracting from the art-making. The scaling interaction became more about the movement and less about the art—which is not exactly a negative side effect, but something of importance when considering time limitations in certain scenarios like museum spaces. Regardless, my criticism of the difficulties experienced with the scale feature do not suggest that it is an inferior tool or affordance of the application. On the contrary, it is probably the most intriguing and important feature that sets apart this virtual art medium—and by extension other digital 2D or 3D computing mediums—from traditional analog art mediums that exist in our physical world.

However, due to the difficulty, I found it imperative as the researcher to assist my participants while learning the tools for the first time.

During the interactions in the first environment, Blank Space, I offered participants general verbal instructions on how to use the brushes and features, especially when using both controllers to scale the environment because it is not an intuitive process for most individuals. Typically, I would allow for the participants to navigate the tools and features on their own at first, some of whom did, in fact, figure out the teleport tool without any instruction and were able to toggle through the brushes. However, since all

18 participants were unaware of the scale feature, I found brief moments in the first few minutes of their sessions to show them how they could use it for their art-making.

Therefore, to account for my guidance and potential influence on their use of both the

122 teleport and scale during their initial interactions, I did not include data from the Blank

Space environment in this analysis. Nonetheless, the data of participants using both the teleport and scale features in the Incomplete Figure and Art Installation environments provided interesting results when cross examined with the age and survey data sets.

Figure 22. Visualization of teleport and scale usage in both the Incomplete Figure and

Art Installation Environments (2020).

In order to convert my observations and notes into decipherable data for the visualization software, I created another ranking scale that indicates minimal, moderate, or extensive use of both the teleport and scale features. During my review of the

123 documented video of each participant, I kept a record of each time the participant intentionally used the tool to navigate their space or reposition themselves in a substantial way. Notably, I use the word “intentionally” because there were several moments when participants accidently used a tool, so it was important to consider the learning curve of a new medium and workflow.

In addition to observing for use of the tools, I took note of several other types of data at the same time during my review of the footage. Therefore, the tallied results are a best estimate of the general use and movement within the space, which I then converted into one of the three categories or marked as a zero for no use of that tool. In the below visualizations, the bar graph indicates the minimal, moderate, or extensive use on a scale from zero to three. For participants who intentionally used the teleport and scale features

1-2 times per environment, I categorized that as minimal use and is noted as a level 1 on the bar graph. Moderate use indicates 3-5 uses of each tool per environment and is indicated as level 2, while Extensive use is 6 or more times and indicated as level 3.

At first glance, the initial element I noticed was the general increase of usage from the Incomplete Figure environment to the Art Installation environment which was a predictable outcome I also observed during the live interaction with participants. As with any new tool or activity, their level of comfortability and efficiency increases. Since the

Art Installation space was the third and final environment that participants entered, they already had a fair amount of time and experience with the medium which affords them the opportunity to utilize the tools in more advanced ways. Moreover, in real time with participants and in my own experience in Tilt Brush, I noticed the more comfortable we

124 become in the virtual space and with the art tools like teleport and scaling, the less our bodies move around in the physical space.

For instance, participant #2 (P2) is a prime example of how powerful and influential these tools can be for artists. Prior to our session, P2 had never interacted in

VR. While they came into the space with some digital art and design experience, they had very little 3D modeling experience, which, out of all the artistic mediums and practices on the creativity survey, would appear to be the most comparable to the scale function in

Tilt Brush. Even though I showed P2 both features in the first interaction scenario, they only used the tools minimally throughout the Incomplete Figure space—noted as a level

1 on the graph. Through more use and practice with the tools, however, P2 had a brief revelation and moment that turned the visual art-making experience into a performance piece through continuous and playful rotation of the scene. Personally, I am astonished

P2 did not get motion sickness from the fast swirling visuals. After the quick dance-party was over, P2 realized how easy it was to navigate in virtual space with the scale feature which reiterates the importance of constructivist learning. They used the scale tool not just for scaling the environment from small to large but using it to move vertically and horizontally through the virtual objects. As I watched P2 continue to make art in the third environment, I noticed how their body became motionless; the bottom half of their body was as still as a statue for the rest of their art making session, only moving their arms with the controllers which then manipulated their perspective in the virtual space.

Without jumping ahead to the data and reflections from the post-interviews, it is worth mentioning here that, in my interview with P2, I asked them about their experience with the scale tool and if they realized their body was completely stationary once they started

125 to extensively use the tool. They answered with some confusion and astonishment because they did not realize that their movement and creative approach changed so drastically—this coming from the participant who moved extensively—even laying on the ground at one point and tracing their body with the virtual brushes. Overall, the experience of P2 represents the general changes I noticed in the majority of participants who gradually used the tools more but then moved their bodies less. To understand the overall participant use of these tools, I analyzed the numbers to find averages per age group as one way to analyze the data.

For consistency, I chose to only look at the tool usage in the third test environment, Art Installation, because by this point in the participant interactions, each person would have had substantial opportunity to explore and experience the medium, and, therefore, would be making intentional choices with the tools and approaches.

According to the below line graph, the average use of the teleport tool was fairly consistent among all three age groups, hovering in between minimal and moderate use.

However, there is an extreme difference with the scale feature when comparing the three age groups. On average, the 18 and under group actually used the scale tool slightly less than the teleport tool which was closer to the minimal use—level 1 line on the graph. In contrast, both older groups used the scale feature more than teleport tool, with the largest jump in average with the middle group of 19-29. While I recognize that this group was the smallest in number of participants, and that more data may be necessary to confirm these results, I found the difference in average use intriguing, and also considered their creative backgrounds as noted on the survey.

126

Figure 23. Visualization and comparison of the average use of scale and teleport tools in the Art Installation environment (2020).

When considering the survey data in relation to the scale usage, I initially looked at the ranking positions and averages of 3D modeling since that type of creative workflow also has a scale feature and would seem the most logical influence on the use of that tool in Tilt Brush. However, none of the groups, especially the 19-29 age group, preferred 3D modeling since it hovered in the middle to lower end of the survey results.

Nevertheless, after some additional comparisons, I noticed that both graphic design and digital drawing were on the higher and favored end of the survey data for both older groups, while both mediums were on the very low end of the 18 and under survey results.

Therefore, I believe that experience with 2D digital platforms and workflows one’s creative approach in VR and how they respond to the virtual workspace. As previously mentioned, graphic design is not necessarily a creative field that youth engage in, though there are plenty of opportunities for children and teens to create digital drawings which in general require some type of digital platform that zooms or scales the artwork. Therefore,

127 while most younger individuals are extremely tech-savvy and, in general, engaging in various digital platforms like video games, I am curious at their disconnect or disinterest in the scale feature in Tilt Brush.

Another consideration I have taken with these results of the younger participants is the difficulty level with the tool, specifically with the buttons and controllers as I briefly mentioned earlier. Since children and teens typically have smaller hands, it was physically challenging to reach the buttons on the sides of the controllers for several of the participants, especially Participant #9 who was four years old at the time—the youngest of the participants. While I showed each of them how to use the scale feature, most of younger participants engaged with it slightly but then went right back to playing with the brushes and colors with an occasional use of it later in the other VR environments.

Nonetheless, the data and analysis results pertaining to the scale tool, and by extension the teleport tool, were both predictable and yet surprising in some ways.

Through my own virtual art-making experiences and through my theoretical research in the technical design literature, I had anticipated some influence and impact from each tool, especially the scale feature. But until reviewing the participant interactions and analyzing the data, I was not sure how or whom would be impacted the most, and if there were any connections I could make to ages and creative backgrounds. As I previously said, my assessments and observations of the tool usage and creative approaches of these

18 participants may or may not represent every user of Tilt Brush. However, through further investigation and analysis, we have a starting point for understanding the

128 behavioral and experiential phenomena of virtual art-making, and how the creative process influences the creative artifacts—both in content and form.

4.02.c Artworks: Form and Content.

Of all the data collected and analyzed in this study, I was most interested and surprised at the content and subject matter of the artworks. I acknowledge that as a virtual reality artist, my creative work in the third VR test scenario directly influenced the participants’ behaviors and interactions. By contrast, as the researcher, I made every effort to leave the interactive sessions as open-ended as possible and to give the participants as much opportunity to create whatever art they imagined without my additional influence. In my own experience, I found that my artwork and creative workflow flourished when I stopped forcing my intentions on the tools, embraced ambiguity, and simply made art in the moment without focusing on the outcome— another reason why I purposely left the participant prompts as open as possible. The most interesting and engaging artworks created by me and from the participants occurred through play and exploration of the unfamiliar aspects of the tools and medium. In this section, I detail the data and results of the final art products, specifically regarding how the brush usage shaped the virtual form, and how I analyzed the different types of patterns of content and subject matter.

The following visualizations show an initial analysis of the observable and interpretable data relating to the art products per category made by participants as a whole group and also broken down into the three VR test environments.

129

Figure 24. Content types and categories of the participant group in the three test environments (2020).

130 Prior to the participant sessions, I had a structured plan to study specific elements of their interaction regarding the tools and features, as previously detailed, because I knew for what to look based on my own experiences. However, for the content of the artworks, I remained open as to how I would analyze the final products because I could not predict what the participants would make—and I initially overlooked the important of one’s intention when making art. Once I had several sessions and rounds of data collected, I began to notice several recurring patterns and themes that turned into six categories related to what the participants made in the three test environments: Swirls,

Abstract Immersive Spaces, Doodles, Abstract Objects, Realistic Objects, and

Characters.

Throughout later participant sessions, I noticed early-on recurring swirl-type shapes that resulted from the responsive movements within the three-dimensional space of the Tilt Brush application. At times during the participants’ interactions, the audio reactive features of the application offered various musical beats and rhythms which in many instances enhanced and influenced the swirl movements, creating a dance-like art- making response. The musical elements designed in the application also contribute to the multi-sensory and embodied VR experience—making it feel more immersive and interactive which is typically the goal with any contemporary art experience. In addition to the overall popularity of the swirl movements throughout all three of the test scenarios, the highest level of swirl shapes occurred specifically in the second test environment,

Incomplete Figure, which coincidentally included a spiral shape as the initial prompt that may have unconsciously influenced what the participants created in that space.

131

Figure 25. Snapshot of swirl brush strokes and movements made by participant (2020).

Looking back at my decision-making while designing the initial figure for the second environment, I am intrigued that the most popular creative outcome from participants was indeed the same exact shape and movement to which I was also attracted as an artist. I had attempted several other shapes and figures for the Incomplete Figure environment, but ultimately decided on the spiral because there is something special and unique to that kind of shape that feels inviting and natural, and yet unnatural, to how we perceive 3D space around us. As an extension of the swirl shapes and movements, some participants also created abstract immersive spaces in the VR test environments that occurred more so as an embodied response to the brushes and medium—just at a larger and more immersive scale in the scene.

While the abstract immersive spaces were not the most popular response or type of virtual artwork created by participants, they were some of the most surprising results

132 that made me more aware of how important intention is to the art-making process and embodied response—something I initially struggled with in my experience through a back-and-forth mentality between an artist creating a work of art and a designer creating an experience for others.

Figure 26. Snapshot of an abstract immersive space created by a participant (2020).

Through my observations, I was captivated not only by what the participants made, in regard to the form and content, but also how they made the artworks. Aside from the encompassing effects of the participant’s abstract immersive responses, the outcomes typically included particles or luminous virtual materials—made possible by the particle and luminous brushes afforded by the application– and could never exist in physical spaces. Additionally, both the abstract immersive spaces and the swirls were

133 direct results of the immersive affordances of the medium and what appeared, at first, to be a stronger response to through movement versus intentional object-making.

When I use the phrase “lack of intention,” I do not mean it in a negative way, but instead referring to the level of awareness and choice-making in relation to the content of one’s art. In the absence of intention, as I have suggested in the abstract immersive spaces and the swirl scenarios, the participants were more engaged in the physicality of the art-making process and the embodied experience, and therefore did not approach the creative work with anything in mind regarding an intentional artistic object. Similar to varying styles of painting in the physical world some of which put intent in the process and others in the product, a spectrum of creative approaches in Tilt Brush correspond to various levels of intention—all of which are valuable and important, but different.

Immersion, embodiment, creative-flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996), and intention in art- making all influence each other—an outcome I detail further in the final chapter.

To continue with the categories of artworks created by participants, I look next to the doodles and abstract objects that, when considering the spectrum of intention, hover somewhere in the middle. Similar to how humans naturally doodle on paper—whether out of boredom, as a nervous habit, or for fun—I noticed that participants also doodled in

Tilt Brush. The participant doodling was typically done with some intention or awareness of what they were making, but it was also partly an embodied response to the immersive space and interactive affordances. It was playful, which was a characteristic I greatly undervalued in my own experience. The majority of doodling occurred when trying new tools for the first time, and in some cases would be erased or discarded as practice sketches which also indicates to me that the product of the doodle artwork was not the

134 final goal or intention of the artist. Nonetheless, the doodling occurred frequently enough that it was important to document, especially when considering how the doodling slightly decreased over time, which can be seen in the initial visualization of the content categories when moving through the Blank Space, Incomplete Figure and Art Installation environments, in that order. By the time participants entered the third and final test scenario, they would have already tired a good portion of the brushes and have a better sense of how the application functions, which frees up their mental capacity to think creativity and abstractly, and not just focus on learning a tool.

Figure 27. Snapshot of doodle made by participant (2020).

Aside from to the extensive time and practice in the application, the third environment also offered the most virtual stimuli which acts as a silent yet visual prompt and may have also influenced the participants’ reactions and intentions in their art-

135 making. When people doodle in physical world scenarios, the majority of doodling happens in the blank spaces of papers—like in the margins or corners. Therefore, the

Blank Space test environment, which offered the least number of visual stimuli, would have been the most open-ended space for doodling to occur—in addition to it being the first time they try out the virtual brushes. The participant doodles, while not the most visually interesting in comparison to the other artworks created, are extremely important to consider in the general understanding of user experience with this application and in general with the virtual art medium.

In addition to doodling of random shapes and lines, I noticed many cases where participants created abstract objects, which had a bit more intention and thought put into them beyond just doodling. The abstract objects appear as virtual sculptures, consisting of various shapes, colors, and virtual materials that could only exist in VR—in contrast to realistic objects that participants also made or attempted to make. While I acknowledge that all the objects and shapes made in a virtual environment are technically abstract, or by default not realistic in terms of the virtual form, I decided to differentiate the two categories based on what appeared to be the intention of the participants and the level of engagement with the tools. When creating the abstract objects or virtual sculptures, the participants had some control and made some intentional decisions, but at times the art- making was also very much an embodied response to the tools and other visual elements of the VR space. On the other hand, the realistic objects were made with the intention to represent something specific in our physical world which indicates that the participant was driven with goal in mind during the creative process which shifted their experience to be less about the about the embodied movement and response. For example, in many

136 of the cases where participants created stories or scenic spaces, there were elements added to the environment that were intended to resemble realistic objects like plants or houses—or at the very least, they were identifiable by name and intention.

Figure 28. Snapshot of abstract object made by a participant (2020).

Figure 29. Snapshot of a realistic object (boat) made by a participant (2020).

137 As for the characters category of artwork, I noticed that many of the participants at some point created story-like virtual spaces and oftentimes attempted to add characters, figures or animals (Figure 30)—some going as far as naming the characters and then interacting with the them in the virtual space. While the characters category was not the most popular among the whole group, it was nonetheless an interesting type of art production that encouraged me to consider the impact of storytelling through virtual art- making. In general, any type of art is a story told through the medium—whether it is a stationary glimpse into someone’s life or a story that changes through time and movement. Regardless, the creation of characters is central to storytelling especially in

Tilt Brush because it is an individual experience that lacks any type of social interaction.

Additionally, the immersive possibilities of the VR platform enhance the impact of storytelling and can open a space for counter-storytelling by giving voice to those voices who are often ignored.

Figure 30. Snapshot of character created by participant (2020).

138 I recognize that some of the artworks participants created during their VR sessions may not exactly fit within one of the six categories previously mentioned, or by extension they could fall under more than one category. The classifications should not define or limit the possibilities of what a person could make in Tilt Brush. And, it is worth noting that the data I collected and generated through my observations do not take into account every single time someone makes a character or doodled. Instead, I recorded the first instance I noticed a person engaging in a specific type of art-making and producing a creative artifact, which I could then interpret and classify during each of the specific test scenarios. For example, if a participant created one realistic object in the second VR test space, and then proceeded to make several more realistic objects in the same scenario, I only marked off a yes or no on my evaluation sheet that indicated whether or not a person generated that specific type of artwork. The data in the previous group visualization, and the following bar graphs, indicate the yes or no information through either a 1 for yes, or 0 for no. While the general group totals contain interesting data sets, further cross-examinations offer more information pertaining to who might be more inclined to make specific types of art, or how time in the application may influence one’s creative thinking.

As previously mentioned, the most popular artistic outcome of the participant interactions were the swirl movements and shapes as seen by the top bar graph and pie chart in the visualization document. However, when considering the context of those interactions, most occurred naturally as an embodied response to the virtual brush and medium, sometimes done unconsciously or with little intention at creating an artifact.

Therefore, while it is important to consider how individuals may initially react in a virtual

139 space for the first time in most cases, as a museum educator or designer of an art experience, I am also interested in the change over time for all of the art categories. How, through the design of an application or experience, could we better position the virtual affordances and the participant interaction in order for viewers to maximize their experience in a short amount of time? The following visualizations show the rise and fall of specific types of artworks over time throughout the three VR test scenarios in relation to the whole group of 18 participants and also broken down into the three age groups to compare the results. Similar to the previous data cross-examined with the ages of participants, the results do not define the experience or outcome of artworks for the entire population of that age group, but they offer enough information to get a glimpse of varying trends that can be used by designers and educators when creating experiences for specific audiences.

Figure 31. Line graph of data results pertaining to the artwork content from the whole participant group (2020).

140

As seen in the line graph in Figure 31, each of the six categories of artworks have a unique path that rises, falls or remains the same as the participant group progressed through the three test scenarios. Similar to the previous visualizations, the swirls category, indicated by the green line at the top of the chart, remains among the highest or most popular type of participant art category throughout all three scenarios. However, it is important to note that after significant time in the VR environments, a slight decrease occurred of that type of artwork and response, while the majority of other categories increased over time, except for doodles. I considered both categories in relation to the decreasing pattern and noted that both the swirls and doodles artworks seem to be the initial, default human response when entering Tilt Brush for the first time and when engaging with an unknown medium. Both the swirls and doodles occur more so as a natural embodied response and less as intentional art-making. Thus, it would make sense that after time and practice with the brushes, a participant would not only feel more comfortable using the tools but also feel a stronger sense of agency and presence within the virtual space that then makes room for more intentional decision making and creative thinking—all of which may correlate to the rise of the other types of artworks and categories.

When considering the relationship and transition from default embodied responses to intentional decision making in relation to the six categories of artwork, I initially considered the abstract immersive spaces as a larger-scale extension of the swirl category, which appears to occur through playful and responsive movement. However, after analyzing the previous visualization that shows a rise in the abstract immersive

141 space type of artwork over time in the three VR scenarios, more intentional making occurs within this category than I first considered. Speaking from my personal experience and from my observation of participants, once a user has a general understanding of the function and affordances of a specific VR brush, in general, they are easily able to transition from responsive movement with the tool to intentional art-making with the tool over time. Therefore, an increase in the abstract immersive spaces as an art product indicates that the participants intentionally made choices to use the brushes in that way because they would have had ample time to explore and learn the tool, and, in most cases, be past the default, automatic responsive stage of their art-making.

Additionally, the longer amount of time one spends in a virtual reality platform directly impacts our social conventions, in relation to our expectations of how the virtual environment functions compared to our known physical environment. For example, as previously mentioned, the scale feature of the application operates in an unnatural way that disrupts many of our known laws of physics and forces us to quickly relearn and reprogram how to navigate a virtual space. Regarding the abstract immersive spaces that participants created, the increase over time could be due to that it may have taken participants longer to realize how the scale feature operates and how the immersivity of the new virtual environment impacts the art-making experience. The movements and artistic gestures needed to create an immersive space with the artistic brushes, in addition to the realization that it is even possible, come with time and experience in the medium and are not something a participant instantly picks up on when they first enter the virtual space.

142 The increase of the additional visual stimuli in the Art Installation test scenario versus the Blank Space, may have also influenced the rewriting of social codes by inspiring participants and showing them what is possible in this medium. Generally speaking, many factors come into play when considering how or why participants generated abstract immersive spaces later on in their interaction. While this is the general pattern among the group of participants in this study, it does not define the creative approach and art products for every single participant and of every other Tilt Brush user.

To take this analysis a step further, I generated visualizations that cross-examine the content data among the three age groups of participants.

Figure 32. Content of artworks made by participants in the 18 & Under group (2020).

143

Figure 33. Content of artworks made by participants in the 19-29 age group (2020).

Figure 34. Content of artworks made by participants in the 30 and older group (2020).

The doodles and swirls that participants typically make as a responsive movement to the medium generally decline from the start to finish, while other art categories increase, all of which is similar to the whole participant group trend. However, among the other art categories that increased or decreased over time, the youngest group of participants created more characters and less abstract immersive spaces by the end of the third VR test scenario (Figure 32), while both older groups created only a few or no characters but really engaged with the abstract objects and immersive spaces as depicted

144 by the orange and pink lines being among the top (Figures 33 and 34). When considering how the three environments virtually changed from no visual stimuli, to some, and then to a lot, the variations in the environmental surroundings did not appear impact the response from the younger group in the same way that it did with the older groups.

Regardless of the scene, the 18 and under participants consistently engaged in character creation and in general, were locked into a creative story telling mode. At the time, many of the younger participants completely disregarded the Art Installation environment and would teleport to an area that had no visual elements so that they could create their own story from scratch. Whereas the older, adult participants created fewer characters and engaged more with abstract affordances of the brushes and medium and responded directly to the Art Installation piece. Therefore, over time, as participants responded less with doodles or swirls and began to transition more into making intentional art decisions with their work, the difference in artistic approach and production between age groups is important to consider as a designer or educator creating an experience for disparate audiences.

While the previous visualizations have been extremely helpful in the analysis of the data so far, and have offered different ways to cross-examine multiple sets of information pertaining to the participant’s creative approaches, their usage of brushes and tools, and the content of their artworks, the direct feedback and conversations with participants about their experiences have also been especially valuable to this study.

Since interview data is not easily converted into graphs or tables, in the next sections, I detail some the participant experiences in a narrative form through reflecting on my observations of the participants in correlation with their responses during the interview.

145

4.02 Observation Notes & Interviews with Participants

As I began my reflection on the recorded interviews with participants, I attempted to gather notes and information in a structured format similar to the evaluation sheets I used to record data on their interaction and experience. I quickly realized, however, the conversations with each participant occurred in an unpredictable, more organic way because I wanted them to control the discussion and their reflection. While I offered general questions to continue the conversations and encourage each user to be reflective of their experience, as with most interviews there was not a linear or logical flow of information. Therefore, instead of arranging this section into a thematic structure based on questions or topics discussed, I will order it chronologically by participant, highlight the distinct elements of their experiences that could not be shared with the visualizations, and also summarize specific comments or feedback that stood out and influenced my thinking about the virtual medium.

In regard to the youngest group of participants, Participant #1 (P1) truly opened my eyes from the start through their interaction in the medium. What was initially a mistake on my part, actually turned into one of the most interesting participant experiences; since the majority of participants had never used Tilt Brush, I initially made the decision to put them into the beginner mode versus the advanced mode that offers a handful more tools –the main 48 brushes do not change, only the addition of tools.

However, since it is slightly more difficult to operate, I decided to not offer this mode so that participants would not feel overwhelmed. As I was preparing for P1 to arrive, I had been setting the environments in Tilt Brush and working in advanced mode, which I

146 forgot to switch off. When P1 entered the space, I quickly realized my mistake, but did not want to interfere with their workflow nor disrupt their experience, so I allowed P1 to remain in advanced mode with access to the select tool—and I am glad I did.

Throughout the three test environments, P1 created varied stories with diverse characters, some of which were fictional, and some were representations of their family and their dog at home. While P1 did not fully respond to the purple swirl in the

Incomplete Figure space, and they essentially teleported off of the floating Art

Installation to go off into space and create their own story, I was less concerned about them going rogue and more interested in their level of movement and interaction. As with most of the younger participants, P1 quickly picked up on the layout and function of the application, specifically with the teleport tool, and even with the scale tool. They had noted in their survey that they played a lot of video and computer games, which I believe directly influenced how well and how quickly they became comfortable with Tilt Brush.

Unlike older generations who fear technology and shy away from it, P1 had a fearless ambition to learn and try everything in the application. When P1 commanded the selection tool on the palette, the entire experience changed for both of us.

The selection tool does exactly as its name suggests—it selects objects or brush strokes in Tilt Brush, giving the user the ability to move and rotate them in any direction for precise art-making and designing. Additionally, one of the exceptional elements of the select tool is the power to toss away an object in any direction, where it quickly disappears off into virtual space. P1 found this feature absolutely amusing, and quickly turned the tool and environment into an interactive game-like experience where they would create specific objects like arrows and throw them into bullseyes, which they had

147 also sketched. Other times, P1 sketched a prop, like a sword, and held it with the selection tool while proceeding to duel with the other characters in the scene. Almost all of the characters and props were created with little attention aimed at the brush type or in the level of realistic detail. Most of the characters resembled doodle-like stick figures, while the props were generally a quick sketch. The overall experience for P1 became less about intentional art-making and more about the interactive response with the virtual space and affordances of the tools—even though this type of interaction was probably not what the developers of Tilt Brush had in mind. Nonetheless, this application offers a blank canvas for creative exploration and play that may occur in unpredictable ways because of the open-endedness of the platform—something often undervalued in other virtual reality experiences.

When asked what their favorite moment was during their experience, without hesitation P1 said that they liked throwing the shapes and the selection tool the best. I considered their experience and feedback extremely valuable, and entertaining, but I was hesitant to offer the advanced mode going forward for the rest of the beginner participants because I felt that it distracted from the art-making that happened earlier in the first and second test environments. There is certainly room for additional research with the Tilt Brush application in regard to how it could be used for interactive experiences beyond art-making. However, this study specifically looks at virtual art and the virtual medium, so the unexpected data collection experience with P1 solidified my earlier choice to place participants into beginner mode.

In addition to the selection tool usage, I had not expected the solo-interaction for

P1 to quickly became a pseudo-social experience through their creation and play with the

148 characters in their virtual story. Prior to any data collection with participants, I had been extremely interested in the potential for collaboration and social experiences with other humans in the Tilt Brush application but underestimated the impact of social experiences through storytelling and characters which became a type of interaction that many participants engaged in at some point during their experience. However, with the next group of participants, I was able to tip-toe into the realm of collaborative art-making which, again, turned into collaborative storytelling through a virtual medium.

Participants #3-6 (P3, P4, P5, and P6) came to me as a group of four friends, ages

12-14, which offered a rare opportunity to see how this art experience might change with a social or collaborative component. While I did not modify anything with their initial individual experiences in the first two environments, I decided to import them one at a time into the same Art Installation space so that they could sequentially contribute to the same artwork and environment. With the other participants, they only responded to my artwork. But in this scenario, the four participants created a collaborative group artwork as an extension of mine, which quickly changed with each new person entering the scene.

While all four of the participants used the teleport and scale tools, some more than others, they agreed that they liked the luminous brushes the best—even though a good portion of their collaborative artwork used brushes from several other categories. After the first participant of the group added their work to the space, I noticed the remaining three participants would enter the space and directly teleport or move to the spots where their friends created something and they would respond to them in some way—whether it was adding features to the faces and figures or erasing other elements in the scene. After the brief interaction with their friends’ artworks, they all then went off into a new direction

149 and created something of their own. At first, the participants’ artworks appeared to be individual objects that were not connected at all, but it was through their interpretation while making the art that a story emerged, and connections were made in real time to each of their contributions. In a way, the overall storytelling experience felt like a live and collaborative performance art piece where I was the audience—and it was entertaining to watch because it was so unpredictable, yet not surprising at this point in the data collection since the first two participants had also engaged in storytelling. Below are some images of their collaborative story. In short, a giant Patrick Star saves the virtual participants and the green aliens from the asteroid barreling toward their space island.

Figure 35. Collaborative Art Installation space made by participants (2020).

150

Figure 36. Collaborative Art Installation space made b participants (2020).

While a clear trend emerged from the beginning of my data collection phase in regard to the character creation and storytelling, particularly with the younger participant group, I had anticipated for Participants #8 and #9 (P8 and P9) to be no different since they were two of the youngest in the study at ages eight and four, respectively, during the time of their sessions. However, I was surprised, yet again, by their interaction in the Tilt

Brush spaces and their overall experiences. Both participants, who are siblings, came together for their VR sessions, though I did not intend to do any collaborative making as I did with the previous group because of the age difference and knowing that P9 may have needed extra assistance. When P8 entered Tilt Brush in the first VR test scenario, their initial reaction and fearless approach to the technology was similar to the other participants in their age group. However, from the very moment they triggered the first paint brush, their creative approach was entirely about the embodied response to the tools

151 and space. I immediately noticed the swirl movements in which most participants engaged early on in their work as they tried the tools. But the swirl movements continued for P8, as if they were intentional. Until that the moment, I had been so focused on the content and intentional object-making art approaches that I underestimated how an embodied response could be intentional and a creative approach to this medium.

During P8’s session, I did not initially have a name or category for this type of responsive artmaking and artwork, though I later classified it as abstract immersive spaces. While working with P8, and later with P9, I not only recognized a vast difference in approach, response, and outcome, but I also struggled to make any connections with the fellow participants in the younger group in regard to storytelling elements of the art experience—though it was there and just overlooked by me initially. When reviewing the video footage of P8’s physical interaction and also their first-person perspective captured from the desktop screen, a subtle element of story creation did exist—not with the artwork itself, but through P8’s interpretation during moments in creative process and also at the end of the experience when describing what they had made. While the immersive artworks made by P8 are extremely abstract and align more with the traditional formalism category of modern art that focuses on the form, P8 did engage in elaborate storytelling extracted from the artwork in similar ways one may construct a story through interpreting an abstract modern painting depicting shapes and lines.

Reflecting on P8’s interpretation of their own work encouraged me to re-evaluate the ways I also interpret and classify the other virtual artworks made by other participants in relation to the embodied response versus the intentional object-making.

152 In addition to P8, their sibling P9 created abstract immersive spaces during their time in Tilt Brush. However, due to their young age and some limitations with holding and operating the large controllers with small 4-year-old hands, I was not surprised to see the swirls movements and abstract immersive spaces. Because of their young age, I question their cognitive ability to create art at the same advanced that older children or adults do through intentional decision making—whether that intention is aimed at abstractness or object-making. Since P9 was the youngest, and the only participant in the age group to be under eight years old, I cannot claim that their responsive approach and experience would be the standard for all children that age without more data.

Nonetheless, through observation and feedback, the data collected from both P8’s and

P9’s unique art-making approaches and experiences in Tilt Brush broadened my perspectives and influenced my thinking immensely in this project.

The next pair of participants, P11 and P12, also provided extremely valuable art and feedback as a parent-child group; the child was an early teenager in the 18 and under group and the parent was in the 30 and older group, in their mid 50s. Both the parent and child had extensive VR experience and had used Tilt Brush prior to their sessions with me in this study. While I initially considered modifying things to accommodate for their advanced skill level, I decided not to change the prompts but allow them to use the advanced mode to which P1 accidently had access. I was not concerned that the extra tools and features might distract P11 and P12 because they were already comfortable and familiar with the medium. Moreover, because of their comfort level with the medium, I anticipated their feedback would also offer enlightening details and data. Prior to this point in the study, the young participants engaged in discussion during the interviews

153 with me after their VR experiences, but the level of feedback and responses were not overly conceptual or theoretical—which I had anticipated because of their age. However, for P11 and P12, I conducted the interviews together so that the three of us could discuss the experience together, which I believe helped P11 (the child) feel more comfortable reflecting on their responses.

When I asked both participants about their thoughts and reactions to the non- human abilities and affordances of the medium, P11 said that the tools gave them “super powers like a god,” while P12 said they appreciate the unlimited resources and expansive space instead of having to refill the paint or being restricted to a physical canvas, all of which affords the artist to think “beyond a frame.” In relation to the actual controllers and how Tilt Brush software utilizes the hardware, I asked P11 and P12 how they viewed the controllers—as disembodied tools like a standard pen or pencil, or as extensions of their physical body. While P11 suggested that the controllers still felt like tools, which was also a common answer to the question among many other participants, P12 offered a slightly different perspective. They suggested that the controllers and tools still felt disconnected and artificial, but that this medium encourages a quicker process of

“thought to production.” More specifically, they elaborated on the art-making process of traditional drawing with a pencil and suggested that typically an idea has to pass through the muscles and nerves in order for one’s body to control the tool. But, in Tilt Brush, because there is an absence of a visual body, the creative process feels quicker as if the ideas occur in one’s mind, but do not need to pass through the body in order for it to occur via the tool. In addition to this perspective of the controllers and creative process,

P12 continued to say that their awareness is different in Tilt Brush because of the absence

154 of a body representation—suggesting that they were less aware of body movement and gesture and more aware of their ideas; while, during physical art-making in other mediums, they are aware of both ideas and their body gestures.

Next, as I continued to ask questions pertaining to self-perception in Tilt Brush, specifically in regard to the lack of body representation and who they become once they enter the virtual space, P11 stated that they felt “blank” and an “absence of self,” which I thought was a reflective and thoughtful response for such a young participant. On the other hand, P12 said, “I’m not me, but I’m not outside of me,” and continued to talk about their self-awareness of both an internal and external presence. Through a natural and organic discussion, the topic shifted to a perception of what was real or what feels real in regard to virtual reality in general and, specifically, with Tilt Brush when we have the ability to walk through virtual objects.

In most cases with all of the participants, there were moments of realization that they could walk and move through their artwork, which, at times, generated a noticeable difference in creative approach. With both P11 and P12, since this was not their first-time using Tilt Brush, nor VR, I did not notice any of those moments. However, we did discuss how the ability to move freely affects the body and their creativity, and what feels real, or not. P11 brought up the new development of gloves in place of the hand controllers, which they believe would enhance the experience and make things feel more real—which I am hopeful will happen in the future. However, for now, Tilt Brush requires the controllers, but also has built in haptic and audio features that P12 mentioned as significant effects of the medium.

155 In general, P12 suggested that having audio components while in VR will make the experience multi-sensory, which, by extension, can make it feel more real. In regard to art-making in Tilt Brush, many times P12 unconsciously made art according to the sounds and rhythms of the audio-reactive brushes which indirectly influenced their approach and creative product. I reflected on P12’s perspective that the audio can distract from the art-making, and I mentioned in our conversation that I also noticed the distraction occurring during other participant’s sessions. However, while I see and acknowledge the influences of the audio components of the Tilt Brush application, I do not necessarily believe they negatively impact the experience as a whole, nor the data I collected from participants. Many artists and creators listen to music while making art in other mediums, myself included, and they might argue that it helps their creative process and flow. I understand P12’s point that the audio can be a slight disruption in thought, but in most cases, it is a temporary distraction as if the participant transitions quickly from intentional object-making to the playful and embodied response with the tools, and then back to art-making. In most cases with the participants, the noticeable distractions and responses to the audio were short lived, and, thankfully, did not have a negative impact on their entire experience. In general, participants, many of whom stated that they liked the auditory effects, had positive and fun reactions. However, I appreciate P12’s feedback because I had personally undervalued the audio effects in my own making, and, therefore, needed to reconsider their influence with the participants and on the medium as a whole.

Audio effects are significant aspects of this creative VR application and one of the many features that set apart the virtual medium from analog artistic mediums.

156 I next want to return to Participant #2 (P2) who I had previously mentioned in an earlier on page 124, and who, like P12, is also in the 30 and older group. Coming into the

VR session, P2 had never engaged in any type of VR but did have a substantial creative background in several mediums, some digital—which I thought would influence their virtual art-making in Tilt Brush. Aside from the noticeable changes in movement and approach where P2 went from overly active to practically stationary by the third environment, we discussed in the interview several other behaviors and experiences.

When asked about the tools and features, and how they contribute to one’s creativity in the virtual medium, P2 said that they felt the scale and teleport options were “game changers” and stood out to them as defining elements that we do not have in other analog mediums. Though P2 was among the oldest participants in the study, their comfortability with digital technologies and video game play contributed to the short time it took them to learn how the tools and platform functioned. Moreover, they even suggested that the virtual medium felt more natural than a computer mouse or digital stylist, which was interesting considering the size of the hand controllers in comparison to other art tools.

In regard to P2’s awareness of the brushes and tools in Tilt Brush, they mentioned that the palette controller in their left hand felt substantially heavier than the right hand’s controller, which was the virtual brush. I had not considered the weight of either controller feeling different because they are exactly the same in design and construction.

But the visual representation of each controller, as previously depicted in Figure 20 on page 105, is different in Tilt Brush with the virtual palette extending and encompassing the space around the virtual controller while the brush was a replica of the physical controller. P2 also suggested that they were not hyper-aware of the relationship between

157 their body and the controller, but because it was a seamless interaction, the controllers did feel as an extension of their physical body.

From this point in the interview, I asked P2 questions about their self-awareness, not just with the controllers but how they felt as humans in a virtual space. After some consideration, P2 suggested that at times it was both an embodied and disembodied experience, and that:

There’s moments where you have a crossed wire in your brain, where you’re

physically aware of where your body is in relation to the ground and gravity, but

then you don’t see your body, but then there’s this substitute through your body

that’s mimicking the experience, so it doesn’t take much for your brain to cross

that wire.

However, after considering and dissecting P2’s comment, I agree that a switch happens in our brain and body for us to experience these virtual spaces—and as a research community, we are still in the process of figuring that out. Regardless, there is a fascinating connection between one’s mind and body that influences not only our self- perception, but also our creative decisions and approaches while in Tilt Brush.

Early on in the interactive session, P2 stated they were more interested in exploring the space and playing with the tools, which was evident in the doodles and semi-intentional sketches they created. However, as time progressed and they entered new the second and third environment, P2 said that ideas formed in their head quicker and they then wanted to intentional make the ideas come to life in the virtual space—all of which parallels my general observations an analysis of P2, and many other

158 participants, regarding the trends and shifts between embodied responses like swirls and doodles, and then intentional-object making. As the discussion shifted slightly, P2 suggested that the open-ended freedom to explore and “just be” in the space was a nice change from the linear video games that generally flood the market or how museums funnel people through overly designed exhibitions and interactive spaces.

As we continued to discuss museum experiences, I asked P2 what their thoughts were on Tilt Brush as a virtual medium existing in a museum space that could encourage viewers to move between viewer of art and/or maker-contributor of art. P2 suggested that museum experiences hover on a spectrum—where one end is content-heavy and a controlled experience, while on the other end exists complete open-ended-ness and freedom to explore or create meaning. While I considered that feedback, and later reflected on our conversation, I began to see the value in a spectrum versus a binary way of classifying VR. In regard to museum spaces, I do not believe that one end of the spectrum is necessarily better than the other, but instead it is important to recognize that they offer completely different experiences, both of which have a place in this world.

Moreover, with Tilt Brush, or any type of art-making in a museum space, there is a tough balance between giving viewers choices but also setting boundaries or structural parameters to an experience because of other factors like resources and time.

In an interesting turn, P2 actually had a question for me during out discussion regarding virtual art in the museum world—asking how can one sell or put a price on this type of art, or any other digital art without converting it into a physical-ish entity like a print or display on a screen? While I am not especially focusing on the marketing industry or monetary value of virtual art, that is an important aspect of the art world,

159 especially when considering the artworks that have high price tags are the ones sitting in museums. I did not have a direct answer for P2’s question at the time, but through my analysis and reflection phases, I have returned to this question and the idea of how digital or virtual art can disrupt the traditional museum canon, and how such an experience like

Tilt Brush could exist in museum spaces.

Another suggestion that P2 offered in regard to museums and creating interactive exhibitions was to consider a business model that looks at three factors to determine the quality of something. With some quick research after our conversation, I came across what is known as the Iron Triangle, a general business and project management strategy developed in the 1980s by Martin Barnes (Morphy, 2008). In this model, Barnes suggested to look at the relationship between cost, time, and quality—though there were later versions of this model that swapped out quality for scope or performance (Morphy,

2008). During my conversation with P2, we did not linger long on this topic of the business model because neither of us have extensive backgrounds in the business or marketing world. I was interested in P2’s suggestion which encouraged me to consider the logistics and challenges museums face when integrating technology like VR into gallery spaces. In relation to the model, I see a direct correlation between time, cost, or resources that a museum has, and the performance or designed affordances of an exhibition– all of which influence the quality and type of interactive museum experience.

I reference this business model again in the conclusion section of the dissertation, but continue with the discussion and feedback from Participant #10 (P10).

Coming into their interactive session, P10 brought artmaking experiences in various mediums and backgrounds, and also a fairly high level of comfortability with

160 technology. Being on the younger end of the 30 and older age group, P10 said that the medium felt very painterly (it “really makes you want to spread out”) and enjoyed the scaling feature, which influenced their creative approach from the beginning. In regard to the controllers, and like other participants, P10 said that the tools always felt like tools in their hand, never becoming part of their body. However, they did not visually see the controllers prior to putting on the headset and were very surprised at how big they were once they looked at them after taking off their headset because they did not seem that large through the touch and virtual representation. As I continued to ask P10 about their self-perception and if they experienced any unusual sensations when moving through objects, they noted brief moments of pause like holding one’s breath out of anticipation when walking through objects because it was such an unnatural behavior and feeling.

There were also moments when P10 said they wanted to see their feet, especially when walking around the third environment that appears to be floating space, though they also felt comfortable and a soothing effect from the galactic surrounding as if the experience were an “inward retreat.”

During the discussion with P10, I also asked a question about creative freedom and which environment out of the three test scenarios gave them the most space to be creative, or by extension which one felt the least limiting. As with many of the other participants, P10 suggested that the second environment, Incomplete Figure, even those it have very little visual stimuli in the scene. P10 also suggested, that they enjoyed exploring the third environment’s artwork, but they were hesitant about adding to or ruining my artwork—and P10 was not the only participant to mention this hesitancy or reluctance to make art the third test scenario. In physical museum spaces, we are

161 conditioned to not touch the artworks in the galleries, which is a social convention that many of the participants brought into the VR experience, even with my prompt and encouragement to make anything they wanted in that scene. In some ways, I was intrigued, as a researcher, at this response because I am interested in understanding the conventions and lived experiences that influence our interactions in VR. But, as an arts educator wanting to carve a space in museums, I was also discouraged at the thought that many museum visitors would feel and behave similarly to my participants when immersed in an art installation. The discussion about hesitancy and barriers with art came up in many of the participant interviews, one of which was my conversation with

Participant #16 (P16) where we also touched on several other topics.

Similar to the other participants in the 30 and older group, P16 also came into the session with a broad creative background but said that their comfort level and choice of medium was sculpting in various materials. Because of their background in sculpture,

P16 said, at times, they had a mild frustration in Tilt Brush because they wanted to physically touch the virtual objects and looked for more of a tactile response from the virtual application—even though the controllers do offer some haptic response depending on the tool or brush. During our conversation, I told P16 about the advanced mode and abilities with the selection tool that perhaps would have been a more natural and familiar creative process to their sculpting background where they are used to maneuvering objects. While I had made the decision early on to limit the advanced mode for participants after P1’s accidental access and use of the selection tool, I am curious at the level of influence that tool would made for P16’s art-making process. Due to the limited time, and the effort to mimic what a museum might offer if they were to implement Tilt

162 Brush into one of their spaces, I am cautious about the advanced mode being overwhelming by adding too many extra tools. But, with P16, part of me wishes I would have given them the option to explore that tool. However, to keep the sessions as consistent as possible among the participants, I am satisfied with not granting access to the advanced mode. While P16 did not explore the selection tool, they did enjoy the scale and teleport options of the application and said that they felt very natural to the virtual medium as if those features were expected in this platform.

However, when it came to responding to my artwork in the third environment,

P16 also experienced the same barrier and hesitancy to ruin my work because of the ways we are conditioned not to touch someone else’s work—even with my encouragement. In fact, P16 used the teleport tool to navigate off the edge of my floating artwork and said they “had to move off to the side in order to make something.” P16 also suggested that they were inspired by my work, but they would have preferred to make something with me, and not on or from my work. We continued in our discussion to talk about P16’s previous collaborative projects where they made artworks alongside other artists which felt as a more accessible and inviting way to collaborate—as if they had permission to contribute because they were doing something together at the same time. We discussed the limitations of Tilt Brush and how the application currently does not have a collaborative feature that would allow multiple users to contribute art to the same space simultaneously(?). It was my intention in this project to create a semi-collaborative scenario through sequential sessions of individual participants responding to my work.

However, even with the prompt and encouragement, there was still a strong barrier for many of the adult participants like P16. However, the younger participants generally

163 disregarded my art all together, and made whatever they wanted in the scene with no connection or intention to respond to my work. Thus, while they may not have experienced the same type of hesitancy or barrier at P16 or the other adult participants, the younger ones instead had a semi-uninterested level of engagement in responding to someone else’s work—all of which was valuable to observe and reflect on as an educator wanting to create experiences for all types of audiences.

Thinking of how this application or virtual experience might exist in a museum space, P16 emphasized the importance of the prompt and how the context of the interaction might influence the response. For example, they mentioned that, in their mind, they recognized the context of their session as being part of a research study that took place in a computer lab on campus of The Ohio State University. Whereas, in a museum, the viewer might approach the interaction differently because of the context of the museum space and atmosphere. And, even just offering slightly different words like

“conversing through art” versus “responding to art” might make the interaction more accessible for some people and encourage meaningful collaboration. I considered P16’s suggestions and told them that I had struggled with the art installation and prompt— specifically with creating a space that is open-ended and encourages one to construct their own art experience.

The conversation with P16 shifted slightly when they said that their experience, and assuming for many other first-time users of the application, was less of a focus on creating or responding to the prompts and more of an emphasis on exploring and play.

They also stated that because they were not familiar with the virtual medium in the same ways that they are with sculpting and other analog mediums, they just preferred “to play

164 and see what happens,” instead of being hyper-aware or intentional with their art-making decisions. P16’s statements echoed similar themes and ideas I have previously mentioned in regard to the types of art and content categories that hover on a spectrum between embodied response and intentional object-making. For P16, and the majority of the participants, they transitioned back and forth on that spectrum, during many moments, and engaged in various levels of explorative play and intentional art-making.

Additionally, while it is impossible to define the parameters of the spectrum for each person and experience, the data and feedback from participants like P16 have been critical to recognizing the difference in experiences and how going forward we could configure the immersive technologies and affordances of virtual art-making to potentially narrow in on these different creative approaches and experiences. So far the selected reflections and summaries of interview responses have come from the youngest and the oldest participants of the study; next, I consider the feedback from Participant number #7

(P7), who is in the mid-range of the 19-29 age group, and who also offered fascinating feedback about the noticeable transitions in their creative approaches and experience.

In general, P7 came to their session with a strong background in graphic design and 3D modeling, and a very high level of comfortability with digital technologies. While

I was confident that they would easily pick-up on the flow and function of the Tilt Brush application since they are familiar with maneuvering digital models and media, I was curious if and/or how their approach in Tilt Brush might differ from other participants who identify as artists. During our discussion, P7 confirmed to me that they easily adjusted to the virtual tools and platform, even quickly memorizing the layouts of the brushes and tools. They did not hesitate to credit their experience as a designer and

165 familiarity in 2D and 3D software for the advantage in adjusting to the application. P7 also mentioned that, as a designer, they were used to their creative programs having a lot of visible settings and tools but could see how Tilt Brush may overwhelm other users— which was my exact reasoning for limiting the access to advanced mode for the beginner participants.

In addition to the tools, P7 and I discussed how their physical movement decreased over time as they used the scale and teleport tools more often to navigate and shift their perspectives. Similar to other participants, P7 was not surprised by this change, and said they had less of an interest in moving their body through the space and were more inclined to rotate and move the scene around their position—in a similar way to how a designer would rotate and move a 3D model. While there was a slight change in approach, P7 would, at times, physically move through a virtual object, or instead the virtual object would appear to move through the position of their invisible body by rotating the scene with the tools. P7 mentioned that because they had the mindset that the virtual space was “imaginative,” they felt that it was not real and could not affect them in the same way as a physical object, which made them less concerned about moving or navigating in the space.

In regard to their self-perception and awareness of their body, P7 said they slightly hesitated at first when appearing to move through virtual objects, but they quickly became accustomed to the space and freely moved around without hesitancy or weird sensations. Additionally, in a later comment, they even suggested that during their interaction, they were mostly unaware of their body and felt as if they were a “set of

166 floating eyes” in the virtual space, but they were semi-conscious about the feeling of holding controllers and using tools that were a pseudo-extension of their body.

When looking back at the specific artworks P7 made in relation to the embodied and explorative play versus intentional object-making, I was not surprised to see a dramatic shift in the second and third environments where they were very focused on creating objects—whether semi-abstract or realistic and identifiable. Most designers are product-driven and approach art-making with a very goal-oriented mindset versus an open-ended creative process. P7 did in fact doodle and create swirl shapes in the first

Blank Space environment because there was no prompt or goal other than trying out the tools. But the moment I offered a prompt to complete the figure in the second test scenario, their thinking and creative approach changed. I noticed they moved less and began using the scale and teleport tools more intentionally. And, while they were playful and did not appear overly concerned about realism in their artwork, they made very intentional decisions with the brush selection and the stroke movements. Whereas, some of the other participants with backgrounds in the arts—not design—were at times less driven by the product or outcome and engaged in the creative process differently. As I mentioned before, defining the parameters of when a person transitions between embodied response and intentional art-making, or between a designer mentality and an artist mentality, can prove to be a difficult task. Some people, like myself, may suggest that we can be both at the same time—aware of the product and process, existing on both ends of the spectrum—which is what P7, and Participant #17 (P17) who I discuss next, both unconsciously did during their art-making sessions.

167 P17, another participant in the 19-29 age group, brought to VR their many experiences with various art mediums, through both a scholarly and makers background in the arts. Since they had a higher preference and comfort level with some digital arts and technology use, they quickly understood the functions and tools offered in the space and was drawn mostly to the particle brushes because of the sparkly effects. In regard to the scale and teleport features, P17 said they generally liked having the abilities to move around in the space, but that it was difficult at times for them to do it smoothly and uniformly. Additionally, P17 viewed the controllers as detached tools in their hands, similar to many other participant perspectives. But over time as the flow and functions of the application became more intuitive, P17 mentioned that the tools and controllers started to become an extension of their arms, and very much a part of their body.

In regard to their self-perception of their body, they felt human as if nothing had changed physically or internally, but the VR spaces they entered felt very non-human. As we continued the conversation about self-perception in relation to the social aspect of how we understand ourselves and others, P17 mentioned that in general, “humans perceive themselves individually as brains first and bodies second,” but that we perceive

“others as bodies first and brains second.” And, as an extension of our brain, we also

“perceive feelings first as separate from the body.” While P17 said that during their interaction, they were not necessarily thinking about dualism or mind-body theories, but afterwards during our discussion and reflection on the experience, they said there was a lack of awareness of their body and their movements even though they were fairly active throughout all three test scenarios.

168 As P17 looked at their artworks on the computer during our discussion, they were also surprised at how the visual elements of the VR spaces not only influenced their movements, but also unconsciously encouraged their decision making and creative approaches. For example, in the second Incomplete Figure space, P17 continued to engage with flowy swirl movements—not because they were testing out the brushes like they had done in the first scenario, but because the purple spiral influenced this type of response and circular brush stroke that they unconsciously mimicked. Whereas in the third Art Installation space that is an environment art scene with lots of colors and textures, they created more linear strokes and petal-like strokes and started to become more aware of a change in their art-making approach.

Additionally, in the third environment, P17 asked about the environment settings and tools on the palette, which is part of the beginner mode, a component to which I was unable to restrict access. While I did not prompt any of the participants to change the colors or lighting in any of the scenes, a few would temporarily play with the settings, but quickly return to their art-making. However, P17 became engrossed in the environmental color changes and lighting which limited their interaction and movement in the space, but still resulted in a contribution to the art environment.

169

Figure 37. P17's modified art environment (2020).

While I was surprised at their level of interest in the color and lighting settings, I was excited to see someone using them beyond the threshold of hyper-realism and instead creatively playing with the settings in a way that makes the space their own artwork. Like other adult participants, P17 expressed concern at first about modifying the scene in such a drastic way because they did not want to ruin what I had made. But they said the moment I told them I had a backup master copy of the file, all worries, and concerns faded instantly—giving them complete access and control of their experience.

And, I noticed right away that P17’s approach livened in the space, shifting from cautiously exploraing and minimal brush strokes to more engaged and intentional actions in the scene. P17 also suggested that they were more drawn to the environment because

170 making objects felt forced and a waste of the expansive abilities of the virtual “fantasy” space.

In regard to the overall perception of VR, P17 stated that it always felt like a

“fantasy space” that was virtual, but completely different from the perception of digital space like video games or social media. They continued to say that with VR, there is less of a difference between “digital life and physical life,” and more so a divide between

“fantasy life and real life.” Throughout this entire study, there has been a constant pull of my attention toward to the concept of reality, and what it means to be real because there is a common assumption that our digital life is separate from our physical life—what some scholars call Digital Dualism (Jurgenson, 2011). However, as P17 noted, our collective physical reality is becoming more integrated with digital technologies where in some cases, our interaction with digital media and social media dictates physical responses and daily life. One difference that P17 mentioned is that with digital life, there is a barrier of a screen which makes the experience seem very disembodied—whether it’s a TV, computer or mobile device. However, VR is still a very physical and embodied response, but one that feels like a “world-crafting” fantasy life, and not real. Yet, despite the non-human abilities in VR, P17 struggled to find a balance between embodied play and intentional art-making because of lived experiences and expectations they could not ignore.

During our conversation, P17 continued to mention that aside from overcoming the barriers of ruining my art and deciphering what type of reality they were in, they experienced other moments of struggle and slight frustration during their interaction in

VR because they had in their mind an expectation or feeling “that there had to be a point

171 to their experience,” and that they should “be making something to give the experience a purpose.” We continued to discuss these feelings and how that relates to conventions and expectations in museum galleries and learning outcomes. Due in many ways to the structure of our formal education system, many individuals who enter a museum space have some expectation that there is an outcome they must figure out and learn in order to give their experience purpose. By extension, individuals who play video games or engage in other types of strategic endeavors, may also have some goal-oriented expectation during a VR experience. I was surprised that P17, out of all the participants in the study, struggled with this given their interest in the arts and museum education fields. But, after reviewing notes and re-listening to our conversation, P17’s statements about the expectations they felt while in VR confirm to me just how influential our social conventions and lived experiences in physical spaces are to our perceptions of virtual experiences and what we are to get out of them.

P17 and I discussed how there is value in both contextualized VR installations that have a predetermined learning outcome, and the more open-ended experiences that broaden or change someone’s perspective but that are not driven by predetermined content. For example, walking through a virtual reconstruction of a historical building is a very content-driven or predetermined VR scenario that aims to teach the viewer recontextualized information. Whereas, an art experience like Tilt Brush is an open-ended new experience that does not have a predetermine goal in order for one to have a meaningful experience. However, when considering how Tilt Brush, or any type of virtual art-making might fit into a museum, P17 offered their feedback and opinions on

172 the subject—which was a slight detour from the interview questions but one that was insightful and reflective.

When considering the traditional structure of an art museum, P17 stated that a

“museum typically holds the standards of human creativity,” and that art is “a physical thing related to skill, talent, genius, training, and aesthetics.” Tilt Brush is very much a physical experience, but not a physical medium in terms of the art products. Historically and currently, there has been a struggle to place non-physical art in galleries and within museum collections, and also varying perceptions proliferate of how we define digital and virtual art in relation to the talent, training and aesthetics of the medium. Like all digital art, Tilt Brush sketches break the mold of the museum canon of fine art in regard to its form, but also because of the interactivity of the virtual medium. Museum galleries were designed for viewing and have traditionally operated in a linear, structured way.

Because of this museum configuration, some institutions have designated studio spaces or maker spaces that allow for visitors to transition from viewer of art to maker of art.

However, the studio spaces are generally removed from the galleries and are often times hidden or limited in space—which brings up issues of accessibility, but also indirectly supports the canonized structure and operation of museums. I am not suggesting that the approach of separated studio spaces is completely wrong because I know many factors and logistics contribute to why the division is necessary. But through discussion with P17 on the matter, I was reminded of how difficult it may be to implement a virtual medium like Tilt Brush into museum spaces—whether a gallery or studio.

As I wrap up the interviews with participants, many of the topics and reactions that I discussed in this section came up more than once from multiple individuals, so I

173 chose not to cover all of the participant interviews or touch on everyone’s experience in

Tilt Brush—so as not to be repetitive and to emphasize trends that showed up multiple times or to point out outliers. While all of the artworks and comments from each participant are extremely valuable to this study, I chose to elaborate on the specific feedback that connected with my own reactions and reflections on the medium, detailed next.

4.04 Researcher Reflections on Art-making

Throughout the first three phases of this study, I attempted to separate my notes and reflections on the theoretical perspectives of VR from my art-making experiences, but, as previously mentioned in the research methods sections (starting on page 80), my research inevitably influenced my art-making process. Therefore, in order to offer my reflections on my experiences in Tilt Brush and with the virtual medium, I must acknowledge that my reflections and reactions are personal, yet indirectly informed by my early research and understanding of the technical affordances of VR and the theories focuses cognition, creativity and education. Moreover, it is impossible to block out the responses and feedback from participants since so much of their experience has greatly impacted my thinking as well. Nonetheless, to remain consistent with the questions I asked participants, I will offer my own answers and reactions in the same order as if I were interviewing myself.

Question 1) What is your initial reaction and/or experience like with the art medium and the non-human abilities that defy our natural laws of physics?

As a designer and artist of many mediums, I question if I have ever felt more freedom in any other creative endeavor. During my early work, and through my research

174 of technical design theories and affordances, I was very aware that my user abilities in

Tilt Brush were non-human—though I always felt human. Movement of the body in 3D virtual space is very different from movement of a hand and computer mouse, and it is extremely different from working in physical spaces where forces like gravity and the physical presence of one’s body impact the final outcome of the artwork. At times, the virtual medium truly feels as if someone combined all of the affordances of every painting, drawing and sculpting tool available, and then made them available in a space where gravity is switched off and the artist is invisible. However, when I reflect more on process and the physicality of my movements, gravity is still very much acting on my body as I create in VR. But it does not influence the final placement and position of my brush strokes—which makes every virtual thing seem weightless, yet through colors and textures, the objects appear to have volume and mass.

Question 2) Do any of the tools, brushes or features enhance your ability to be creative?

Coming into Tilt Brush, I had a fair amount of digital art and design experience, both 2D and 3D, and was very accustomed to the abundance of tools and the workflow of those mediums which I felt prepared me to adjust easily to making art in VR. I quickly figured out the main brushes and tools on the palette and did not feel hesitant in the space. Some of my favorite brushes were the luminous ones since they are unique to the medium, specifically the hyper-grid and hyper-color. And, in terms of environmental features, I too felt calmness in the galactic space versus the solid blank colors, and typically chose that for my backdrop. However, as mentioned in earlier in Phase 2,

175 section 2, the teleport and scale features stood out as tools that differentiate the medium from all others.

Early on during my first few Tilt Brush sessions, I used both teleport and scale sparingly, and instead approached art-making through full body movements around and through my artwork. But as time progressed and I became familiar with the medium, I noticed that my use of the both the teleport and scale features increased because I became more aware how to use them to my benefit and how to maneuver the space more efficiently. However, the level of comfortability that I have with the scale and teleport features, and by extension all of the Tilt Brush tools, took many hours to reach—probably clocking over 70 hours minimum prior to participant interactions. Obviously, the access and amount of time I spent in the medium is not feasible in a museum setting, nor may it not be realistic as compared to general users at home. But, reflecting back on my art- making process throughout this project, I know that the scale feature, out of any other tool or setting in the Tilt Brush applications, profoundly impacted my creative approach and enhanced my creativity in ways that I may never achieve in other mediums. My only concern is that out of all the tools, it is one of the most difficult to operate at first, especially if limited with time.

Question 3) What was your experience like using the controllers—do they become part of or an extension of your body—and/or a representation of your body? —or do they remain disembodied tools?

Prior to using the Tilt Brush application for the first time, I was slightly hesitant that the controllers would somehow limit my creativity because they felt unnatural and were not typical art-making tools. And, until that point, I had used them in other VR interactive spaces that were sometimes clunky, which left me feeling a disconnect

176 between the controllers and my body. However, almost instantly from the start, I became semi-unaware of the physicality of the controllers in my hands and began to function as if they were an extension of my physical body, not to mention the only representation of my body that I could see in the virtual space. There was surprisingly a seamless transition to using the controllers as art tools in Tilt Brush—also as if they were designed for the application and I had been using them incorrectly for other VR platforms. Additionally, when holding the left controller with the palette screens that form a three-sided box around the controller, it feels as if there is some type of virtual forcefield with friction and weight as compared to the other controller—though I am aware both controllers are physically the same. And, there are a lot of buttons to learn which can be tough at first.

Through trial and error over time, it took me awhile to figure out the short cuts and how to utilize all of the buttons which is something that new users may struggle with as well.

For example, the thumb tracker pads on each controller help the user toggle through settings or change the brush size. Prior to understanding how the tracker pads worked, I would typically rotate my left arm to flip the palette around so that I could access all three pages of tools and settings. But, a quick swipe side-to-side on thumb tracker pad rotates the palette around which was much easier than awkwardly turning my arm and hand—but the function on the controller is not intuitive, similar to the scale buttons. I noticed a lot of participants struggled with rotating the palette controller as well before I intervened and made them aware of the track pad. While it seems like such a minor feature of the controllers, it actually makes a big impact on the efficiency of the workflow, and it may indirectly decrease fatigue through less unnecessary arm movement.

177 Question 4) Between the three scenarios, which offers you more creative freedom to make art—or did one feel more restrictive than the others?

While I technically did not participant and make art from the three test scenarios, the creation of each space offered similar conventions with some feeling more freedom and some that felt more restricting. Prior to working in the Tilt Brush space, I watched several videos of others working in the application and looked at various paintings with heavy brush strokes for inspiration, in addition to other digital surrealist artworks that combined lots of textures and objects. Generally, I gravitate toward bright colors in my own work and when looking at the work of others. However, once I was past the initial experience and had exhausted all of the tools and settings for the first time, I had a very intentional goal in mind of creating a virtual art installation that would have various different immersive environments and objects. I was always fixated on creating a space for visual discourse about identity in virtual reality. In my mind, I was grappling with my physical human self and what I felt was my virtual self in VR—and I wanted to make a blended artwork that shows how we can identify as both physical and virtual. However, I did not anticipate how difficult of an artistic process it would be. Not because the tools or platform was still new to me, but because I could not shut off my designer mentality that was hyper-aware of the final product and how users would experience my art. I also found it difficult to be artistically creative when focused on replicating something that exists in the physical world or when overly focused on an object that was predetermined in my head. There were many moments early on when I caught myself trying to control the process because I am a designer by nature. But looking back, I can see how that

178 mentality limited my creativity though it was all part of the learning process and experience for me as a researcher in this project.

One of the additional interesting features of Tilt Brush that I used in my earlier works is its access to an online library of virtual objects and models from its companion program called Poly. The objects are more geometric in shape and are not painterly like something that was made in Tilt Brush. However, the open access and use of thousands of published objects can enhance an environment in many ways, but it can also change the entire workflow. In some of my early artworks, I had intended to import as many objects as possible to create a false sense of reality—as in having a lot of recognizable objects from our physical world though they were virtual and would behand and feel different. But, after creating two spaces where I had imported objects into spaces that I also created with the brushes, I was unsatisfied with the work because I felt that it was not original. I had a different perspective or feeling or toward assembling art objects versus creating them from scratch, as if assembling took less effort and was not considered an artform or not creative enough for this project. Even though a lot of contemporary digital and virtual artworks embrace collaborative processes and sharing, I wanted the final piece to be mine. While I did not officially use any of my early work for the participant data collection, the effort I put towards making both spaces was necessary experience with the medium and was valuable for this study. Below are snapshots from the first two art environments I created in Tilt Brush with objects imported from the Poly library in addition to the elements I created.

179

Figure 38. Prototype VR environment #1 with Poly objects (2020).

Figure 39. Prototype VR environment #1 with Poly objects (2020).

180

Figure 40. Prototype VR environment #2 with Poly objects (2020).

Figure 41. Prototype VR environment #2 with Poly objects (2020).

While I recognize that any new art medium takes time to understand and master, I did not embrace play or the creative freedom in my art-making process. Once I had

181 finally let go of my pre-planned intentions, I was able to use the brushes for what they are, and not what I think they can or should do. I decided to create a third environment without importing objects, only using the brushes and tools in Tilt Brush. And, once I gave up on replicating or predetermining every element, I let the brushes and colors influence my brush strokes, movements and my decision making. I also refocused my mind and intentions to responding to my initial interest in human identity and perception of self in VR. Below are some images of the third environment that I created which was then used as the third test scenario for participants.

Figure 42. Third prototype environment, Art Installation test scenario (2020).

182

Figure 43. Third prototype environment, Art Installation test scenario (2020).

Figure 44. Third prototype environment, Art Installation test scenario (2020).

183 Reflecting back on my workflow of creating art from essentially an empty galactic canvas, I can relate in some ways to what the participants experienced when faced with open-ended prompts. It is extremely difficult to create anything from scratch, even for the most advanced and experienced artists familiar with the tools. But like the participants using the tools for the first time ever—some even experiencing VR for the first time—there were many moments early on where I had to balance learning the medium while also wrestling with ambiguity and the expectation that I had to produce a work of creative-genius—all of which was extremely difficult. There is still a lot to continue reflecting on from the work in this project in regard to creativity and how to balance it with the learning curve of a new medium. But as previously mentioned, there is no other medium that has afforded me as much creative freedom.

Question 5) How was your movement and/or art-making approach influenced by the visual environments and objects, and were you aware of any moments where your movement accommodated or adapted to the virtual space? —For example, walking around a virtual object instead of just walking through it.

In general, during my art-making sessions, I have become semi-aware of how I physically move around and/or through my art and also how I used the tools to move the scene around my first-person perspective, though it happens naturally and seamlessly without hesitation or pause. But I remember a brief moment during my very first Tilt

Brush session where I doodled and made swirl brush strokes on a 2D invisible plane right in front of my body position for several minutes before I realized that I had the ability to move around to the other side, eventually walking through the art as well. From that early moment as well, I felt that I had reached another level of presence within the virtual space.

184 Going back through the videos and reflecting on my movements in the earlier Tilt

Brush sessions, I noticed how I could have maneuvered or done things differently knowing what I know now and after clocking in many hours with the medium. During a conversation with a friend and fellow digital artist who also uses Tilt Brush, they had made reference about my workflow and how much I moved around my artwork. Their creative background in extensively in the digital 3D arts, specifically with modeling, so their physical approach is very stationary because they are comfortable using the scale and teleport tool to move the space around their fixed position. However, while I have experience in many 2D and 3D digital mediums, and some general modeling experience,

I have also been a photographer for almost a decade which is a medium that typically forces one’s body to bend and re-position around a subject—all of which I believe greatly influenced my earlier movement patterns in Tilt Brush. However, as I became more comfortable and present in the virtual space, I moved less—which was a trend I also noticed with some of the participants. So, while my lived experiences influenced my creative approach and physical movements in VR, over time the virtual affordances then influenced my workflow and physical interactions in return.

Question 6) What it is like to feel something you cannot see but to see something you cannot feel?

This question, out of the entire list that I asked participants, was probably the most difficult to answer not only because of the tongue-twister wording, but also because describing an embodied VR experience that can be felt without actually touching anything is weird in every way possible. As I briefly described earlier, my first time walking through a virtual object left an impactful feeling and memory that I will never

185 forget. The sensation of visually seeing an object pass through where I could feel my body physically existing in space, yet knowing nothing actually touched my body, is unlike anything I have experienced—and it really is impossible to express in words.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to recreate or re-experience the same level of that sensation in any other VR platform, though there were some brief moments early on in my Tilt Brush sessions that created variations of uneasy sensations when walking through my artworks. I curious if it will ever happen again since I have become very comfortable in Tilt Brush and with virtual reality in general.

Question 7) Who are you in VR? When you enter a virtual space, what is your general perception of yourself? —Do you feel exactly the same, do you feel human, or have you taken on a new role?

One of the struggles I have experienced with digital art-making, both 2D and 3D, is the disconnect I feel between me and the artwork that exists through and behind a screen—practically due to the virtual and physical differences of the medium and of my body. Clicking and moving a mouse that corresponds to a Photoshop paint brush, for example, is an entirely different movement and feeling than holding a physical paint brush and moving it across a physical canvas. I understand and recognize that the mouse and computer, among other advanced devices, are tools of the digital art medium, and that in theory the screen is our canvas. But I have and probably will always feel a disconnect between myself and my digital artworks.

Tilt Brush, on the other hand, offers me a way to create digital art-work from within and essentially on the other side of the computer screen—at least that is how it feels within my body. The VR headset and controllers give my body direct virtual control and contact with 3D space and media which allows for a more embodied creative process

186 of making digital art. When I am specifically in the virtual space of Tilt Brush and in an art-making mode, I am unaware of what my body movement looks like from the outside physical world in relation to what the movement visually creates inside the application.

But there is an internal or inward perception that only my mind has access too. While I was aware of a lack of body representation from the very beginning, I underestimated what it means to my self-perception to not have my body visually present during a creative making process. The lack of body representation affected my body movement in both the physical and virtual spaces, and I think it ultimately affected my creative thinking and approach to making—even though at the time I was unaware of how it affected me.

When I work with physical mediums like real paint or pencil, I am very aware of my physical body motion and position because I am a lazy artist and drag my hand and arm through everything, sometimes even smearing or ruining the work. With photography, I have to physically hold my camera and position it along with my body in relation to my subject. In the physical world of visual art-marking, there is a connection and relationship between the artist’s body and their artwork, though I have underestimated that relationship as well. My body is most definitely an important part of my art making process, I took that for granted going into the virtual art-making space because in VR, the relationship only exists through movement, not through sight.

Specifically, while in Tilt Brush without a representation of my body, I never felt that I took on a role or became someone else in the VR space—I was always me and I was always human. However, I still felt different, and I felt an access and pull inward. As

I began to read and research theories of embodied cognition and the mind-body problem,

187 I became hyper-aware of an interconnected-disconnect between what my eyes and mind processed versus how my body moved and reacted. I also began to question how the Tilt

Brush application strips away any indicator of one’s physical identity, essentially creating a neutral space that is not influenced by race or gender. However, as I continued to work in the virtual medium, and through my reflections and discussions with participants, I quickly realized that while one’s gender and race are typically the visible aspects of their identity, there is no possible way to remove or ignore the lived experiences of our physical identity—even if we cannot see it in VR.

Question 8) Were there any other interesting things that you noticed in VR or with Tilt Brush?

While in Tilt Brush, it is very easy to lose track of time which has been an element that I have had in abundance throughout this entire project. It is impossible to pin-point the exact moments, but there have certainly been intervals where I experienced some kind of creative flow and was really present in the virtual art-making process which

I believe directly contributed to my lack of awareness of the how much time I spent in the medium. The participants as well had a lot of time to explore the VR application at their own pace, though I did limit their total session to no more than one hour to reduce the chances of fatigue and motion sickness. I know in a hypothetical museum space like a gallery or studio, time would be extremely limited which is one of the factors I have kept in the back of my mind throughout the entire project, but specifically with the participants. In the next section, I will address the issues surrounding time and how it is a silent, yet critical factor to consider when engaging with this virtual medium.

188 As I conclude the discussion of collected data from participants and from myself as an artist-researcher, it is important to acknowledge and reiterate that all of the information gathered during this project is very qualitative in nature—it is also very personal, experiential, phenomenological, and artistic. And it is valuable. In the next section, I bring back the ideas and voices that influenced my thinking and creative processes with the virtual reality art medium, and I combine both the theory and practice in an effort to define new parameters of VR art and where it may fit in museum spaces.

189 PHASE 5: Conclusions & Implications

5.01 Summary of Original Research Problem & Research Questions

As previously mentioned in PHASE 1, the research surrounding virtual technologies, in general, stems from scientific, computational, and technical viewpoints but lacks consistent contributions and perspectives from the arts. While there certainly have been many meaningful projects and contributions from artists engaging in virtual mediums throughout the last half century, overall, I feel there is a void in the research that undervalues the personal, experiential, and creative forms of data, specifically in regard to how we integrate VR, creative inquiry, and museum exhibitions. The aim of this entire project was to broaden those viewpoints and build on the current technical research in an effort to understand the virtual artistic medium, its affordances, the process and product, and also its place in the art museum. To recap, in an effort to examine the experience, process and product of VR art-making, the following sequential questions have guided this research project and the ways I position virtual art in the fields of arts and museum education:

190 As an expansion of the original research questions and what I aimed to answer through participant data collection and my reflections on my own experiences in the medium, new ideas and outcomes occurred that I did not anticipate—but they are important and meaningful to this research and could be useful for fellow artists and designers working with virtual reality.

Additionally, to remain consistent with the social cognitive theory and framework that I used to guide and structure this research project, I have divided this concluding section into four parts—each addressing the previous questions and various components of this study regarding environment, person, behavior, and artwork or creative artifacts.

First, I consider the research and data involving the virtual environment, and I conclude with alternative ways of positioning and categorizing immersive VR experiences and the virtual art medium. The next section considers the person and behavior of virtual art- making and offers a conclusive description of the creative and embodied experience one has while engaging in the Tilt Brush application. I then consider the virtual art products and offer a conclusive description of the aesthetic principles of the medium in regard to form and content. And last, I reflect on the collected data and personal experiences with the virtual medium and offer possible realistic outcomes for virtual reality art-making in art museums—and I touch on why some previous assumptions and expectations may not work. In addition to the new proposed descriptions and conclusions that focus on the technical environment, person and behavior, art product, and museum fit, I offer my final thoughts as to the potential implications this research can offer for various fields and future projects.

191

5.02 Creative Affordances & Spectrum of Immersive Experiences

When considering virtual reality as an artistic medium, I first inquired about the affordances of the application and environment—as in, what does it offer and afford the artist? To study the technical affordances of VR, I first dove into a theoretical review of the literature that detailed the hardware, software, and design elements of virtual reality.

Regarding affordances in general, there are many definitions and perspectives on the meaning of term. But in my research, I combined Norman’s (1988) and Gibson’s (1966) descriptions of the term and define affordance as what any entity—environment, objects, technology, tool, or an artifact—affords or offers the user. After personally experiencing

Tilt Brush and analyzing data from participant interaction, the following conclusive descriptions detail the affordances of virtual reality as artistic medium in regard to the brushes, tools, and environment.

With the word brush in the name, it may seem obvious that Tilt Brush’s affordances include artistic virtual brushes, of which there are 48 options organized in the four groups of 12—yet they all function through a click of a button on the same controller. In our physical world, there is no single artistic brush or tool that is so versatile. While each brush has slightly different capabilities in regard to the brush strokes, textures, three-dimensional shapes, and virtual particles, each offers the user non- human abilities that break our physical world codes and conventions. Even the brushes that appear as recognizable materials, like ink or wet paint, could never exist in our physical world as they are virtually because the brushes do not respond to the force of gravity, and they are made of virtual matter, or pixels, all of which have very difference

192 surface properties. The application also affords the ability to increase or decrease the brush sizes which may seem like a minor feature, but it completely changes the appearance of most brushes—doubling and tripping the amount of creative art-making tools available at the user’s fingertips. However, aside from the brush types and sizes, during my many hours in Tilt Brush, and through watching others, I overlooked an important aspect and additional affordance of the brushes—the colors.

When creating art with traditional paint or ink, we are limited to the colors that result from mixing pigments like red, yellow, and blue, and how those combinations responds to light—this is known as the subtractive color system which is the foundation we are taught as young children. However, digital or virtual colors operate through an additive color system that is completely different. The mixing process of light, as in pixels on a screen, is not as intuitive as mixing pigments or ink. Red light mixed with green light produces yellow, for example. While it is not imperative for users in Tilt

Brush to understand how virtual colors come to exist on the virtual spectrum and palette, it is essential to point out that the additive color system affords more variations of colors than we could ever try to produce in a print or pigment format. In fact, depending on the monitor or hardware specs of a device, there are about 16 million potential shades or tints of colors available to a user (Schinkel, 2017). As an artist, it is hard to fathom that number of colors and how to use them in my work. And, while I acknowledge that many of the 16 million shades are so close in color that the average human may not be able to tell the difference, there is still an abundance of color options and brush affordances in the virtual medium that exceed our physical world limitations with pigments.

193 In addition to the solid color choices available in Tilt Brush, some of the brushes have transparent effects which change the look of the chosen color. And, others like the particle and luminous brushes, produce a glowing effect, which again, alters the color and look of the virtual material. Regarding the colors and luminous brushes, I quickly discovered that the brighter colors became overexposed with a lot of concentrated brush strokes in one area which distorted the color and exposure, making it washed-out and colorless. While I initially found this unpleasing in my own work and made adjustments by selecting darker colors to counterbalance the effect, depending on an artist’s intention, the colorful reactions and over-exposures of brushes could be an additional affordance of the virtual materials that could never happen with pigments or inks. Additionally, some of the brushes produce their own unique virtual material that changes colors or shapes, resulting in animated and responsive brush strokes that again, would never exist in our physical world. In general, the assortment of virtual brushes, their materials, colors, and various sizes offer the user a wide variety of creative tools and affordances unlike any other artistic medium. And, over time as a user engages with the medium in more advanced ways, the Tilt Brush application presents more creative affordances through use of various tools and features.

Regarding the many non-human abilities and tools available in the medium, as mentioned, the teleport tool and scale feature stand out as some of the most distinctive of the medium. While the teleport tool is generally accessible and easy to use, it also contributes to the general immersivity of the virtual medium by allowing the artist an alternative way of navigating the space, which, by extension, can also enhance their creative approach. But, after extensive use of both the teleport and scale features, though

194 my observations of participants, I think the scale feature is one of the most significant affordances of the medium and directly influences the creative approach, even though it is not the most accessible or intuitive tool to use for beginners. Not only does the scale feature afford the user various perspectives and viewpoints of their work, most of which we could never replicate in a physical setting, the scale tool also enhances the creative process and workflow of the artist when used strategically to manipulate brush sizes and virtual objects. An example of this can be seen with the hypergrid brush in my artwork on pages 182-183 with the brush strokes around the outer edges and swirling around the center.

The hypergrid brush produces a streak of random square and grid-like shapes but does not have much flexibility in regard to the brush tip size. Eventually, after many hours in Tilt Brush, I figured out how to use the scale feature to my benefit to create large-scale immersive hypergrid brush strokes, among many others as well. To do this, I intentionally maximized my scaled perspective, which shrunk down my artwork to appear as a miniature model in front of my viewpoint. I then used the hypergrid brush in its default setting, which is a semi-fixed size, but one that is proportional to the scaled perspective. Therefore, once I scaled back down to the original perspective, the hypergrid brush strokes created in the maxed-out scale remained large and all-encompassing in relation to the rest of my artwork. I could never have created the look of giant hypergrids without the scale feature in Tilt Brush, nor without the other complex tools and settings of the virtual medium.

While I previously discussed the advanced mode option in contrast to the beginners-mode, which was my preference for participants, there are also several features

195 offered in one or both modes that are worth discussing in regard to the medium’s creative affordances. In the advanced mode, the select tool which affords the artist the ability to move, rotate, duplicate, and scale virtual objects became extremely useful in my own work while creating environments and replicating objects. But it is also not the easiest tool to use for beginners, which is why I limited access to it for most participants.

Additionally, the eye-dropper tool and paint-bucket tool work similarly to other digital platforms like Adobe Photoshop where the artist can quickly select a color or swap out a color of an existing object or shape. These tools in Tilt Brush are not difficult to use nor find on the palettes, but due to the limited time with participants, I wanted as much of their time and attention focused on art-making, so I chose not to suggest the features as available options either.

Both the beginner and advanced modes also afford other tools like mirroring, straight-edge, and guides to help create specific shapes like spheres or cubes. Some participants briefly tried these tools, but without prior experience in digital art or design mediums, the tools are not overly useful for beginners. All of these additional tools deserve much more attention and description than what I have offered in this paragraph because they are significant creative and art-making tools that, like the brushes, could not exist as they are in virtual form nor function in the same way with physical mediums—all of which contributes to the list of valuable and creative affordances in regard to the brushes and tools of the virtual medium. And, because of their usefulness for virtual artists, many of the tools and features can be found in other virtual art-making or design applications, similar to how they exist in various digital platforms like Adobe Photoshop

196 and Illustrator, among many others. Going forward, I think variations of these tools and features will remain part of a standard suite of creative affordances of the virtual medium.

In addition to the brushes and creative tools available in Tilt Brush, I initially overlooked the virtual canvas as an affordance of the medium in regard to infinite three- dimensional space. The Tilt Brush application offers expansive virtual space to navigate and use for artistic creations, and appears to have no visible boundaries, regardless of the selected environment or the scaled perspective. Some of the participants actually tried to find the edge of their environment by intentionally and compulsively triggering the teleport tool in one direction. But they all quickly abandoned their efforts because the virtual spaces seemed to go on infinitely in all directions. While the scale and teleport features are useful tools and affordances for art-making and navigation, the seemingly never-ending virtual canvas with no physical limitations like walls, barriers, gravity, or mass, is a fundamental affordance of this medium. I have yet to discover any virtual artwork that reaches the environment’s edge. The affordance of an expansive and infinite virtual canvas is not possible in any physical world scenario, and therefore, should be recognized as a unique and principal feature of the virtual art medium.

When considering all of the creative abilities the virtual medium affords a user, it was important for me to also shift my attention to understanding how and/or why developers decide on specific configurations and affordances, and how the interactivity of

Tilt Brush, and by extension the virtual medium, is a direct result of immersion, or the platform’s immersive technologies. The term immersion, sometimes mistaken to be an action completed by the user in VR, is actually a process and an action acted upon the user by the technology. According to Jerald (2016), immersion “is the objective

197 technology that has the potential to engage users in the experience” (p. 64), of which there are several categories. Therefore, in order to conclusively describe the interactivity and the immersivity of Tilt Brush, and by extension the virtual art medium, it is important to revisit the technical classifications of immersion which depend not only on the hardware specs of a VR platform, but also the immersive design and development of the software and algorithms, in addition to the designer’s intent of the overall product.

As previously mentioned, researchers in computational and media design fields generally categorize immersion into several classifications depending on the configuration of technology, both hardware and software, in order to consider the VR application and its affordances in various ways—below are the categories I referenced in this study.

• Spatial immersion can refer to the immersive process afforded by visually

stimulating and spatial qualities of a virtual scene (Zhan, et al, 2017).

• Narrative immersion is defined by Ernest Adams (2004) in game design

theory as the type of immersive process that occurs when a user becomes

invested in a story and usually sticks around to see the ending, or according to

Zhang et al, (2017), when a user may also identify or empathize with

characters of any type.

• Tactical/strategic immersion involves some kind of action or plan resulting in

an achieved goal, usually some kind of victory like in a game (Adams, 2004).

Regarding spatial immersion and Tilt Brush, I consider how the application’s various environments immerse users in the virtual art-making spaces and also the

198 attention developers put toward design of the virtual surroundings to influence immersion and user interaction. As described in Phase 3, section 2.a, I choose the default gray environment for the first two test scenarios with participants, and the galactic space environment for the third test space. But there are several other environments to choose from as well, some of which have visual elements like a snow man, for example, while others are a solid color and blank canvas type of space—completely void of any visual elements or shadows. Additionally, all of the environmental options in Tilt Brush are quiet and motionless which are unlike many other virtual reality applications that have over-stimulating environments and visual details. Therefore, while I recognize that Tilt

Brush may immerse a user through its spatial elements by default of the VR platform encompassing one’s viewpoint, I look at the lack of detail or visual clutter in the environments and would suggest that the intent of the experience is not to focus on the environment, but rather on the tools, interaction, and art-making. I am not suggesting that the environment is less important. Instead, I am suggesting that for Tilt Brush and any other variation of a virtual artistic medium, the process of designing immersive elements should be to prioritize interactive features and technologies over the environment or spatial details. And, with some other non-art VR applications, this is also the case. But, when one considers that art experiences typically involve a higher attention to detail of the surrounding visuals, I feel that Tilt Brush and other art-making applications challenge the mainstream technical efforts and perspectives of spatial design and what virtual reality art experiences can and should be because of the minimalistic environments needed to foster creative inquiry.

199 The next immersion category agreed upon by fellow VR researchers looks at the narrative elements of virtual reality experiences and how the configurations of the application immerse users into stories in various ways. In Tilt Brush, there is no story.

There is no journey, quest, character, nor a beginning, nor end—unless the user artistically creates a story, or a character, and makes their own beginning and end. Many games have narrative elements, but Tilt Brush is not a game per se either. Therefore, while one could suggest that we can look at VR art-making in relation to narrative immersion through the visual stories that artists create, I suggest otherwise because immersion is the result of the technology, and less about the user’s action or input. The

Tilt Brush developers did not intentionally design or configure the technologies of the application to produce a story or immerse users into a pre-determined narrative.

Therefore, the art-making app again challenges the common narrative focus of VR design through the complete absence of an immersive story line.

As previously mentioned, I combined the two categories of tactical and strategic immersion because I felt there were similarities in both that most VR game developers consider in their applications. As one may interpret from their names, the more tactical/strategic applications focus more on the user interaction by immersing them into scenarios where they must complete actions or plan out strategies in order to complete the tasks at hand. Virtual reality games with multiple levels that consume the users for hours through a challenging quest, or even educational applications, would certainly fall under the tactical/strategic immersion category when looking at the design elements of the interaction. But unlike those games or interactive applications, Tilt Brush is not a game, nor does it have any set requirements, conditions, or intentions other than for creative and

200 artistic exploration. And, while I recognize that art-making and any creative process can, at times, require one to be strategic or tactical, it happens by choice and intent of the user—not by the design or configuration of the immersive technologies. Therefore, like the previous two categories, Tilt Brush again falls into a gray area and challenges our understandings of the tactical/strategic immersive categories in VR design.

When looking at other artistic mediums in our physical world, most creative endeavors start with a blank canvas, with no story, nor a pre-determined strategy or plan.

Artists make art through open-ended, creative inquiry, which is messy and does not fit easily into organized design theories, categories, and structured research. Therefore, because the design and configuration of Tilt Brush’s immersive technologies are different from that of other applications and experiences, I think it is imperative to consider an alternative way of viewing immersion or immersive qualities of the medium that makes space for virtual art-making and immersive experiences that do not fit into neatly arranged technical categories. Throughout most of this project, I approached the research with the perspective of designer who gravitates toward clean and organized categories.

The breakdown of the project into phases and the entire creative process of designing the concept map as a visualization is evident of how designers think and function. However, artists see things differently. And, in order to re-wire my thinking to produce conclusive descriptions and research outcomes from an arts perspective, I had to shut off my designer perspective, and embrace the alternative and slightly ambiguous way of understanding immersion in VR. In typical fashion, leave it to the artist to be difficult and different.

201 To reiterate, immersion is the objective technology that is psychologically felt or experienced when viewers interact in VR (Jerald, 2016; Mestre, 2005). A developer does not have control over the subjective feelings a user may experience, but they do have control over the design, configuration, and presentation of the technology. Currently, the categories used in the technical research community touch on the environment set up

(spatial), the story and/or characters (narrative), and the level of engagement or interaction (tactical/strategic). And, any VR experience may fall under more than one category at the same time. However, from my experiences and observations, I have noticed two very different kinds of virtual reality experiences; one where the technology drives the experience and the other where the user drives the experience, and then many that would hover in between—creating a spectrum of immersive experiences.

While it is impossible to overlook how technology influences and shapes one’s experience in VR, I think there are ways to design the most innovative and immersive experience in virtual reality that still afford the user full control over their decisions, interactions, and overall experience. Tilt Brush is an example of such an experience. In contrast, consider a quest type of VR game where the user must explore various lands and complete various tasks in order to reach the end. That user may appear to have control over their actions and decisions, but their actions and decisions are dictated by the layout of the environments and by the characters in the story. In general, a user’s actions and decisions in VR are predetermined, or by the very least, anticipated, by the developers who have coded programs to calculate each possible action or decision a user can make and then respond accordingly. So, the choices and actions one makes in a game are actually unconsciously driven by the system and technology. In this type of situation, a

202 developer would spend a lot of time considering how the environment would influence a user in the space or how a specific storyline would direct a user to take a role and become invested emotionally. And, a developer would design tasks that require tactical and strategic interaction in order to capture the user’s attention and also challenge and entertain them in various ways. But, all of those pre-determined elements in a VR application drive the user experience to some degree—which is not bad, per se, but is something designers and developers should consider. As an arts educator, I am more interested in the user constructing and driving their own experience, and not just the motion or interaction, but the overall holistic VR experience, which is why Tilt Brush, and the virtual artistic medium, stood out to me as an open-ended virtual experience— one that does not fit neatly into categories and challenges mainstream design processes.

In regard to my suggested spectrum of immersive experiences, the determining factors come down to who or what drives the VR experience, and how the overall configuration of the technology varies within a wide range of options. I have tried to be mindful of the current ways we may categorize VR experiences, which I think can be very useful to an extent. And, I recognize that the use of a spectrum versus categories can be messy and not as clear cut. But sometimes detailed categories can create limitations or exclusions, and even unrealistic expectations that all VR applications must conform to standard types of immersive design. On the contrary, if considering VR experiences on a spectrum, there are no exclusions, and each one has a position and place. The following image is an example of a spectrum that makes room for all types of immersive experiences.

203

Figure 45. Spectrum of Immersive Experiences (2020).

When I consider the categories of immersion as they currently exist in the technical design communities, I see them also existing in relation to the spectrum of immersive experiences. For example, with narrative immersion, developers make choices about the story and character elements of a VR experience, and how those narrative elements pull the user into the experience and immerse them into the story. In this scenario, the visual story elements could be pre-determined and structured to where the user takes on an observer role similar to watching a movie—a pre-determined role and outcome. One can become immersed in a movie but not be part of it. Or, the user could take on a character role, like in a quest or game, and participate or interact in the story in various ways. But typically, those interactions in a game are still influenced and controlled by the technology through advanced algorithms that consider and calculate all possible options and outcomes of user input. So, a user may have some choice and control over their contributions to a narrative storyline and outcome, but it may not be full creative freedom. All of the ways we classify immersion and immersive design can exist on the spectrum in regard to what the immersive technologies afford the user and

204 how the immersion happens upon the user—all of which results in various levels of user control and experience.

I want to be clear that I am not suggesting one end of the spectrum is more valuable than the other. All types of VR experiences all are useful, fun, and innovative, and they all have their place in the world. However, as an artist who enjoys creative freedom and constructing my own experiences, I would prefer VR applications that range from the middle of the spectrum toward the open-ended side of experiences. Others may enjoy the pre-determined experiences. But, when considering how VR may be effective in a museum or educational setting, I think it is imperative as a designer and educator to not only consider the technical affordances and immersive configurations of the environment, story, and interactions, but also who or what is driving that experience and how those immersive elements afford various levels of control over one’s experience. In a later section, I discuss positioning VR in museum spaces and return to the idea of the spectrum of immersive experiences. But next, I address the human element, or the person and behavior components of the social cognitive framework, in response to virtual reality art-making and the result of the immersive technologies and the social experiences that users bring into VR.

5.03 Conclusive Description of the Creative and Embodied Experience

Previously in Phase 2, I discussed various perspectives on presence, but had initially viewed them in conjunction with the technical literature and research on immersion and the virtual environment. However, while immersion is about the design and technology, presence is very much about the human element—it is a human reaction

205 and experience. According to Jerald (2016), presence is the psychological process of

“how the user subjectively experiences the immersion” (p. 62). Therefore, a concluding discussion about presence may extend from the technical research, belongs it belongs in the context surrounding person and behavioral elements of virtual reality art-making.

Similar to the alternative way I considered immersion in relation to user experience, I also tried to view presence on a spectrum instead of the specific categories.

However, in this instance, I do not believe it works the same as it did for immersion—at least not yet at this part of the discussion. Therefore, to review, the following classifications of presence, which stem from technical design theories and VR research, remain helpful for the general understanding of presence in relation to the human perception and experience.

• Physical presence is a feeling one has when the virtual environment feels like

a physical environment or a virtual object is perceived as a physical object

(Jerald, 2016; Lee, 2004).

• Social presence refers to the communication and interaction a user may have

with other characters or avatars, whether verbally and through body language,

and occurs when user does not notice the artificiality of the characters (Jerald,

2016; Lee, 2004).

• Personal presence refers to the perception felt by a user in regard to their

body representation and identity within the VR space (Jerald, 2016; Lee,

2004).

• Interactive presence occurs when user feels or sees a direct response from the

virtual environment in regard to their actions (Jerald, 2016). 206 It is worth reiterating that this project does not aim to measure or prove the occurrence of presence because it is a subjective experience that can happen in so many ways and may feel different for each person. Therefore, is impossible to standardize measurements or outcomes, and would be irrelevant to do so in the context of art-making.

However, researchers can use the previous categories as ways to consider and deconstruct the presence in an effort to understand the phenomena. After analyzing the collected data and feedback from participants, I still cannot prove that presence happened for any of the participants nor myself, but I can describe the outcomes and circumstances in relation to the previous categories that may contribute to and/or create conditions for presence to occur.

In regard to physical presence, the designs of Tilt Brush’s environments are simplistic and void of visual clutter, unless artistically made by the user. However, by default of the immersive-ness of the VR system, specifically with the head set and motion-tracking capabilities, I believe it is possible for a user to feel present in any of the spaces. And, as they contribute artistic elements of the environments, they could feel a deeper connection to the space because of the direct influence and control they have over the spatial configurations of the environment. But, as I mentioned earlier in relation to spatial immersion, the experience one has with the blank virtual spaces of Tilt Brush, or any virtual medium, should not be the priority of the experience. Therefore, while presence can certainly happen in any virtual environment—and I believe it does in Tilt

Brush—there seemed to be less participant interest and engagement with the environment than there was with the tools and interactive art-making features.

207 Another interesting outcome that I also consider in relation to physical presence, is how some of the participants actually felt semi-uncomfortable in the third environment when I presented it as my art-work and asked for them to contribute. In those scenarios, the participants who re-located off the virtual island found a new blank space where they felt more at ease to make art. While this occurrence was surprising at first because I underestimated how much we are socially conditioned to function around works of art, I conclude that those scenarios are proof that our social experiences, which we bring into virtual reality, directly influence how we respond to our visual surroundings—impacting the levels of presence felt in relation to the art environments. So regardless of the immersive design and technical configurations of any VR environment, it is impossible to prevent users from bringing in their lived and social experiences similar to how it is impossible to detect if and how they feel present in any given virtual space.

Regarding social presence in Tilt Brush, it may be difficult at first for a user to make a social connection to any character or avatar in the scene because the application does not include such entities—unless the artist creates a figure or character of their own accord. As mentioned, many of the participants did create characters, and by extension stories, and constructed their own type of social experience. Again, I cannot prove that the creation of a character is direct evidence of some level of social presence. But I can say that there were noticeable instances where people made characters and then named them or even talked to them as if they were real and not virtual. And, when considering social presence as one kind of user reaction to the immersive design of the virtual technology, the concept of play through personal story-telling, like we do as young children, comes to mind since the participants crafted their own visual narrative from a

208 blank canvas. Therefore, in Tilt Brush and other similar virtual art applications, social presence is less about a reaction to a pre-determined story or designed character, since there are none, and more so about constructing a social experience through play, imagination, and creativity in order to feel a social connection to other entities—which is a totally natural human response and need, as is understanding our own self-perception.

In similar fashion, I also found an initial disconnect to self-perception, or personal presence, in Tilt Brush because the application does not offer a virtual representation of the user’s body other than the correlation of the hand controllers representing one’s hand and/or arm placement. Of the feedback gathered from participants, there were various responses to this issue when I asked about how they perceived themselves—which again, the variations in answers show that it is impossible to measure or standardized presence.

And, I do not speculate that many of the participants took time during their interaction to pause and reflect about their lack of body or how that impacted their self-perception as a physical human in a virtual space because they were more engrossed with the immediate interaction and art-making tools. However, while a person may not see a direct representation of their body while in Tilt Brush, the open-ended design and technical configuration of the application affords them a sense of agency which I believe directly influences their self-perception. And, since users are very much in control of their movements, decision making, and their overall experience, I still think there is opportunity and possibility to attain some level of self-presence even in the absence of a visual self.

Lastly, of the four classifications of presence, I was most interested in interaction presence because of the level of engagement and user interaction that happens in Tilt

209 Brush, and how it may differ from other types of interaction in other applications. From the lack of visual environmental details, characters, and representation of one’s body, it appears that designers and developers of the art application prioritized interaction over other potential immersive elements. Yet, even with the best of intentions and configurations of the technology, it is impossible to create an interactive experience that guarantees some level of interactive presence. And if even so, it would be impossible to measure. However, after my experiences with the virtual art medium and my observations of participants, I believe there is a correlation between interactive presence, creativity, and flow states or creative flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996)—all of which are directly influenced by the immersive technologies and also the social and lived experiences users bring into virtual reality.

Of all the definitions and perspectives on creativity, I agree with the stance that creativity is a personality trait and should be viewed within the context of environmental factors like feeling safe, free, and having the circumstantial affordances to produce something original (Amabile, 1989; Selby et al, 2005; Torrance, 1966). As previously described, Tilt Brush as an art medium offers both an abundance of affordances and creative freedom for users. However, because most of the participants were new to virtual reality and learning how to use the application for the very first time during their sessions, they may have felt a mild sense of uncomfortably and anxiety, which was not harmful, but was not a safe feeling either. Therefore, it took participants various lengths of time and experience in the application to feel comfortable and feel safe. Once they become more acclimated to the virtual space and functionality of Tilt Brush, not only did they feel safer, but their creative approach at times shifted which was noticeable with

210 many of the participants. For example, once participants figured out how to use the teleport and scale tools for general navigation through the environment, some of them also began to move their bodies less. While this may seem like a change in physical interaction, which it is, I also noticed that with less physical motion, their creative approach and intentional decision making appeared different from their early interactions.

With Participant 2 (P2), they initially stayed grounded to the default viewpoint and plane in the first and second environments because that felt safe and natural, and they were less familiar with the tools. However, once they became accustomed to the scale tool specifically, they made more creative choices and began making art in positions that were not fixed to one plan or ground—as in they moved vertically in all directions instead of a remaining in a horizontal path or single fixed plane in which humans are used to moving. Many other participants responded in similar ways which was evident in their later artworks. During these little moments of recognition where participants felt safe and realized they could shed the social codes and conventions of our physical world, they stepped out of their comfort zone which encouraged divergent thinking and creativity.

And, from my experience and observations, I think that once a user pushes past their comfort zone and engages in a deeper level of creative freedom with non-human abilities and new artistic affordances, they have the potential to slip into flow states, or moments of creative flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996).

Again, I recognize that it may be impossible to determine exactly when or how people enter a creative flow state while in virtual reality, or in any art-making activity.

And, most people may be are unaware themselves of when they enter a moment of creative flow. However, while I cannot speak for anyone else, I can say from reflecting

211 on my own experience in Tilt Brush that there were instances where I had absolutely no sense of time. What felt like 15-20 minutes was actually well over an hour. And, I did not have to plan or contemplate how to move a tool a certain way or how to generate my idea into virtual materials—I simply created without thinking, which happened as a very natural, continuous, intentional, and yet, embodied response.

In addition to studying how creative approaches change as one becomes comfortable in VR and possibly reaches creative flow states, I think there is another aspect to consider in regard to the behavioral response in Tilt Brush—that being the difference between intentional artifact creation and a playful or embodied response to the virtual medium. Early on in participant sessions, full body movement and engagement with the immersive tools and affordances dominated the interactions. As they explored the medium, their movements appeared more reactive, as in a response to the virtual brushes similar to how dancers react to music during improvised dance sequences.

However, overtime as the participants gradually understood the immersive affordances of the tools and space, most of them became more intentional with their choices and began to generate more creative ideas. Their movements changed from reactive and responsive to a more controlled and intentional interaction. I noticed these differences in approaches and decision making with many of the participants. And, I am not surprised by my observations because I think it is a natural human reaction and workflow when learning some new. But, while I observed similar patterns with many of the participants, nothing was standardized or concrete enough to categorize as one or the other. Therefore, I visualize the creative approaches as existing on another spectrum that allows for a back and forth flow and also an area in the middle where artists can combine various levels of

212 embodied response and intentional movements. The following image is a generalization of this spectrum.

Figure 46. Spectrum of Creative Approach (2020).

I want to be clear that every artist is unique and may have a different way of approaching the virtual medium that does not align with this spectrum, which is perfectly valid and expected. Everyone has their own individual creative approach to art-making because creativity does not fit a one-size mold. However, in this virtual medium specifically, I do not believe that one could approach their work without at least some level of an embodied response due to the immersive platform and affordances, regardless of their creative intentions. And, when considering our intentions and behaviors while making art, it is critical to not overlook how out personal motivations and lived experiences influence our approach and production.

Additionally, intentional artifact creation is not necessarily better than embodied movement or responses when making art—or vice versa. My aim with this research is not to assign value nor judgement on any type of creative approach or behavior, but instead,

213 it is important to consider the differences and how, as designers and educators, we can create experiences that take advantage of one or the other, or both, so as to generate effective and meaningful experiences for users. But in regard to the behaviors and creative approaches that I observed in the participant population, I conclude that the VR platform affords various combinations of embodied movement and play while also allowing for different levels of intentional decision making and artifact creation, all of which generates conditions for new kinds of creative inquiry and sets it apart from other analog and digital mediums.

In addition to the behavioral response, the creative approach spectrum can be viewed in conjunction with the artworks, or form of the creative products, which I detail in the following section.

5.04 Proposed Aesthetic Principles, Form and Content of the Virtual Medium

As I transition from the person and behavioral elements of the virtual medium, I now look to the production and creative artifacts, specifically regarding the aesthetic principles of the virtual medium. As mentioned in Phase 2, I do not use the term aesthetics as a way of valuing or judging the virtual artworks, but instead I refer to the aesthetic principles or the ontology of the virtual medium—more specifically the qualities of its existence and form that help us to better understand the conceptual or expressive meaning of the artwork. Additionally, I discussed Terry Barrett’s (2008, 2011) ideas surrounding the components of art that we should consider in order to understand the work. He suggests examining the medium, process, subject matter, context, and form

(2011).

214 Medium: The Tilt Brush application analyzed in this study is one example of the virtual medium that affords an immersive and embodied art-making experience through an input-output cyclical interaction between the user and the virtual material.

Process: The immersive and creative process of virtual art-making is combination of embodied response and reaction to the medium and also intentional movement, decision making, and artifact creation.

Subject matter: Depending on the level of intent, the subject matter of virtual art has no specific boundaries or limitations, but the observed general types of artworks created in this study range from swirls, doodles, abstract immersive spaces, and abstract objects, to character creation and realist objects.

Context: The context of the artworks created in this project and the overall experience for participants were guided and influenced by my prompts as the researcher which may vary from other uses of the Tilt Brush application. And, I must reiterate the impact of each participant’s social and lived experiences on their art-making as a contextual element worthy of consideration.

Form: Virtual material, on a technical level is an arrangement of points calculated in three-dimension space that has some type of texture or material visible through pixels displayed through some kind of monitor or headset. However, the form of virtual art is much more complex. According to Barrett (2008, 2011), form is generally understood through its materiality and how it has been assembled or configured within the artwork.

In this research, I look past the technical elements and arrangements of colored pixels in order to see how artists configured the virtual material through embodied and intentional movement. To review, I observed six different broad types of artworks in regard to the

215 form and subject matter, made by participants—those being swirls, doodles, abstract immersive spaces, abstract objects, characters, and realist objects. And, while I acknowledge that these broad classifications are my subjective interpretations of the virtual artworks, I conclude that there is a direct correlation between the previous spectrum of creative approaches and the form of the virtual artworks that I observed and analyzed from participant data.

All six different types of art production appear to be the result of both embodied response and intentional artifact creation, but in various combinations. As previously mentioned, participants generally created doodles and/or swirls at the beginning of their interaction which were of an embodied response to and with the virtual brushes.

Character creation and realistic objects appeared to result from intentional movements and decision making, whereas abstract immersive spaces and abstract objects appeared as both a semi-embodied response to the medium and also semi-intentional—hovering somewhere in the middle. The natural transition between both types of creative approaches and the resulting artworks also parallel a transition between formalism and realism.

Artists and critics typically view the form of an artwork as the “colour, brushwork, form, line and composition” (Tate, n.d.), all of which formalists believe to be superior to the subject matter or narrative element. According to Barrett (2008), formalists give “sole importance” to the composition or the “perceptual elements of an artwork” (p. 107) as if the creative process was an embodied response to and with the medium, similar to the virtual doodles and swirls. While realists tend to create art in a

“realistic almost photographic way” (Tate, n.d.) that “truthfully shows about the world”

216 (Barrett, 2008, p. 107) by prioritizing the narrative elements. Participants who tend to create more virtual characters and realistic objects may prefer realism over formalism, even if unconsciously drawn to it because of their previous experiences with art and/or their age. The following image depicts an updated spectrum of creative approaches aligned with the artwork types, and also in relation to the transitions between formalism and realism.

Figure 47. Spectrum of Creative Approaches (2020).

Regarding the age groups of participants and the general form and aesthetic principles of their art production, I observed various progressions that moved back and forth between both ends of the spectrum for the youngest group while the older adult groups hovered more in the abstract middle. The 18 and under participants continued to engage with the swirls movements and created characters and stories over time, but they did not create many abstract objects or immersive spaces by the end of their third test scenario. Whereas both older groups did—evident by the rise of those artworks in the 217 data visualizations. The adults created fewer characters over time and engaged with more abstract approaches which signifies to me that they reached a more advanced understanding of the virtual affordances and immersivity of the spaces and tools. And, because of their more mature age, they may have had more exposure and experience with various forms of art beyond both formalism and realism.

The ability to create abstract works or to think in divergent ways may be dependent on one’s creativity, personality traits, motivations, and social or lived experiences (Amabile, 1989; Selby et al, 2005; Torrance, 1966). But those abilities also develop and evolve with age which is apparent in the final artworks and data visualizations. I am not suggesting that any type of artwork, in regard to its form, is better or more valuable than the others. Instead, I look to the data to understand which groups of participants gravitate toward a specific aesthetic, form, or subject matter so that I, as a designer and educator, can make informed decisions about user interaction that are best suited for specific types of audiences, specifically in museums.

5.05 Proposed Position in Art Museums

Similar to the spectrum of immersive experiences that I discussed earlier in this phase, I think that virtual reality experiences in museums also follow a similar spectrum flow—most of which are content-driven or pre-determined with some elements of exploration and play. And, at times, VR museum installations engage the user in a creative-inquiry or art-making experience depending on the content and museum type. In general, VR interactive displays in history museums or science centers use the virtual platform to recontextualize cultures or events, and they intend for the user to come out of

218 the experience with a newly learned perspective like understanding the intricacy of the human heart by walking inside a virtual replica at the Franklin Institute (PR Newswire,

2016), for example. Virtual reality installations displayed at art museums, like Laurie

Anderson’s Chalkroom (Anderson, 2017), engage the visitor through exploration and play, but are generally pre-structured with a designated beginning and end. All of these content-driven and pre-determined VR installations in museums are valuable in many ways. But they are not the only type of valuable virtual experience one can have in a museum. As designers and educators embrace digital and virtual technologies more and more in museum spaces, we will continue to discover how to best generate visitor experiences beyond recontextualizing and replicating one-way learning processes by adding more opportunities for play that lead into creative-inquiring and divergent ways of learning. However, before offing my conclusive descriptions and suggestions for implementing virtual art-making into museum spaces, I must acknowledge the challenges museums face due to the structure, logistics, and resources.

First, I want to be clear that in this research I am considering how to position virtual reality art-making in art museums specifically, though this research could apply broadly to all kinds of museums and VR installations. History and science museums have a very different mission, structure, and function than an art museum or gallery, which is why I have chosen to focus on art museums explicitly. But each and every art museum is also different from the next which presents challenges for standardizing exhibition practices. As artworks and installations travel from one institution to the other, or as galleries shape-shift to accommodate new pieces from permanent collections, the designers, curators, and educators should consider not only the best configuration or

219 display of the artworks but also how to engage viewers in a meaningful and accessible art experience. When integrating a virtual art or interactive spaces in a museum, the design and install process is no different—and in fact, it may present several more challenges or barriers than traditional art works or installations. I again reference the Iron Triangle business model (Morphy, 2008) that looks at cost, time, and performance in order to assess the quality of that business or experience—in this case, a hypothetical museum installation that incorporates Tilt Brush or some variation of the artistic medium.

• Cost (of resources, technology, maintenance, and monitoring by a gallery

attendant or museum staff)

• Time (limitations of visitor’s time with artworks or interacting in an

immersive experience)

• Performance (user interaction, accessibility, affordances or limitations of

the technology)

The first barrier, which may seem obvious, that any museum must address for any

VR installation are the general costs associated with the technology and its integration into a museum space—usually a designated gallery or common interactive room. The initial purchase of the hardware and software may not set back a budget, but the maintenance, updates, and replacement of equipment can be costly over time, in addition to the configuring a space to house the equipment in a safe and accessible way for all visitors. For example, when I visited Laurie Anderson’s Chalkroom installation, the amount of space and resources given to her work was substantial. Not only was the gallery space and room itself a work of art, but there were four VR set-ups, sign-in kiosks

220 outside the entrance, and a gallery attendant inside to assist visitors. The interactive-ness and immersivity of VR technology also challenges the traditional structure of gallery spaces and exhibition design because of the visitor centered way to engage with the virtual art. While there are certainly pros and cons to this set-up, like any other, the structure and flow of this installation also allowed for multiple users at a time which is sometimes not an option for other museums with less space and recourses. My Practical advice to any museum considering VR installations would be to not only look at the cost of the hardware and software, which over time will increasingly become less expensive.

But instead, consider the costs and required resources that go into housing such an installation and how that can be maintained over a period of time with back-up options in case of technology failures or accidents from visitor use.

In regard to time, it is one of the other most important elements to any museum experience, and yet, it is unfortunately an aspect that museums must limit and control with VR exhibitions. In order to make a VR installation available for as many visitors as possible, visitors generally have about 10-15 minutes with the virtual installations—in many instances they have much less time. I would argue that a limited or timed experience may be enough for a visitor to walk through and observe content. But to engage with virtual reality in a meaningful and impactful way—i.e. quality of performance in the Iron Triangle business model—one must have time to adjust to the immersive platform and also learn the tools and flow of the virtual space, all of which simply cannot happen for most museum visitors in a short amount of time.

In some ways, museum institutions are forced to prioritize the quantity of visitor experiences over the quality of visitor experiences. I am not pointing the finger in a

221 negative way because I recognize the challenges that institutions face when trying to offer innovative and popular exhibitions—VR based or not. But I think there is a lot to be learned from past and current installations when trying to integrate interactive exhibitions that engage visitors in an open-ended and creative way, which is the final aim of this entire research project. When considering how VR art-making and creative-based installations might exist in a museum space, and knowing what we know about the challenges that museums face with the technology and the user experience, I will be the first to admit that my perspectives and assumptions have changed a lot after working with participant artists and conducting this research.

When I started this project, I had a very pre-determined outlook at what Tilt Brush could offer virtual artists as an artistic medium, and I also had a very structured way of thinking about museum exhibition design. I had academic and professional experience working in museum settings and museum-adjacent industries, and I had non-museum experiences with virtual reality—though I knew at the time that some institutions had begun implementing the technology into their galleries. However, when I experienced

Tilt Brush for the first time, I saw the potential for sequential interaction and creative dialog between artists, and I envisioned this creative exchange and meaningful art experience occurring in a museum gallery surrounded by other works of art. And, I came into this research with the assumption that a meaningful experience with and in the virtual medium meant that an artist must produce an elaborate artistic creation in response to my artwork or the interactive prompt which would then generate an expansive and collaborative art installation. While the artistic outcome initially appeared open-ended and unpredictable, my assumptions and perspectives were very product-

222 driven and pre-determined—exactly the opposite of what I intended. I still believe my initial design for a collaborative installation is possible, but it would be challenging. And, after conducting this research, I have new perspectives and priorities as to what a meaningful experience with virtual art can and should be in a museum.

While time is not a luxury in popular museum exhibitions, I had a lot of it when collecting data from participants which is very different from the museum experience. I purposely designed the participant sessions to allow for that initial moment of play and exploration because I knew from personal experience it was necessary to learn the tools and feel comfortable in the virtual space. Many of the participants in this study spent the first 10-15 minutes doodling and playfully making swirl brush strokes as they tested out the brushes before we moved on to the incomplete figure prompt in the second test scenario. And if I would have offered them an interactive prompt, I do not believe many would move past the doodling and swirl phase nor would they have the time to learn all of the medium’s affordances like the scaling feature or the other tools. Therefore, I do not believe is not a realistic expectation for museum visitors to use the full version of Tilt

Brush in a museum space if they have to learn the technology and also engage with content with the expectation of creating detailed artworks in a short amount of time. If we are to be product-driven artists with the mindset of generating intentional creative artifacts, then that type of art-making requires time and experience in the virtual medium—which museums cannot offer in a limited gallery installation. But instead of using Tilt Brush for product-driven art-making, there could be value in the doodles and swirls that participants create during their first few minutes in the virtual platform.

223 If we, as museum educators, created an experience that encouraged playful doodle and embodied swirl types of interactions, and by extension the immersive abstract artworks, it would allow the visitor to be creative and engage in an immersive response and embodied art-making process in a short amount of time, but would not force them to produce a masterpiece or intentional artifact, which, in some ways, also stems from the social conventions and expectations we have when told to be creative or engage in an artistic process. However, because we are a very product-drive society, breaking that convention would start to alter and re-program our perceptions of what a virtual reality art experience can and should be. And, embracing the creative and embodied response to the immersive virtual medium disrupts the traditional structure of the museum gallery and expected visitor experiences of looking at disembodied art objects. However, when considering the benefits of the embodied and creative inquiry that happens during the initial experience in a short amount of time, there are still many of aspects of Tilt Brush’s performance and affordances that could be simplified or modified in order to maximize the visitor experience even more.

When considering the performance of an application, in regard to the Iron

Triangle, I look at the elements of user interaction, accessibility, affordances, and the limitations of the technology—and how all of those features contribute to the quality fo the experience. While I recognize the potential implications this medium could have for visitors in museums because of the immersive affordances, I caution how such a medium with millions of brush-color options and many advanced tools and settings could easily overwhelm people or even distract, which is what I observed during participant interactions. Tilt Brush is one of several available commercial applications that a museum

224 could choose to use in various ways. However, after watching participants use the application and after spending many hours in Tilt Brush myself, I question if there are other ways to maximize the performance of the application while minimizing the overwhelming feelings, distractions, and limitations. For example, limiting the brushes to just a few instead of 48, or rotating the assortment of brushes to change weekly or monthly. Or, instead of the entire spectrum of colors, maybe offer a select custom palette depending on the theme or prompt. And, consideration of the audience is key, especially when looking at how various age groups responded differently to certain brushes and tools according to the data discussed in Phase 4. While constant modifications may seem like substantial work for museum educators or exhibition designers, one benefit with VR exhibitions that traditional art installations cannot offer is the ability to instantly and easily change at the click of a button.

Designers and developers could rewrite the code and update a VR system instantly without having to rearrange the physical space, all of which offers versatility in visitor experience. However, as an artist, I dislike the thought of eliminating or modifying the affordances of the virtual medium, but as an educator, I recognize that there may be simple yet efficient ways to create meaningful experiences for museum visitors through limiting distractions and possible overwhelming scenarios—even at the expense of sacrificing really fun or useful affordances. Therefore, while I do not believe there is one standard configuration or combination of affordances that would universally work for all museum galleries. I conclude that it is important to recognize the virtual medium’s unique affordances for what they are—both positive and negative, and how going forward, we can use them to our benefit as educators and designers to create impactful

225 and open-ended art experiences for museum visitors, whether that be in a gallery or studio space.

While there are many takeaways from this research and even more room to expand ideas further, the following points are my practical and final suggestions for museum visitors wanting to integrate creative and open-ended VR installations into their museum spaces:

• Consider the Iron Triangle elements of cost, time, and performance of the

application.

• When possible, use a custom coded application for an art-making

installation. Tilt Brush and other developed applications have so many

engaging and immersive features, but a full application would be difficult

to implement in a meaningful way because it cannot be learned or

experienced in a short amount of time.

• Additionally, a custom programmed applications would give a museum

choices and the abaility to curate the experience in a more meaningful

way. For example, limiting the types of brushes, tools, and/or colors to

speed up the learning curve. And, consider re-writing code to offer

updated palettes and switching out tools and/or colors to make the

experience new for returning visitors.

• Consider the audience and age groups when choosing the features and

affordances—specifically in regard to how younger visitors might use

more of the partical or luminous brushes and tools versus the more

abstract art brushes. 226 • Design the experience in an open-ended format that engages uses in

embodied interaction and response through doodle and swirl movements

since those are generally the initial reaction to the medium. Also, do not

expect realistic or intentional artifacts—there is value in the doodles and

swirls, and the embodied responsed to the medium!

5.06 Final Concluding Thoughts

This inter-disciplinary research project initially began with one question and goal: to understand and identify virtual reality as an artistic medium from an arts perspective.

However, as an artist, I quickly realized how intricate and complex art-making can be especially with media and affordances that we do not fully understand yet as a research community. In addition to the technical elements of this medium, it was essential for me to examine the human element and our interactions, behaviors, and creative approaches and also to analyze the creative artifacts and products of the interaction. To ground the research in the fields of arts and museum education, I also looked at how such a creative medium and platform might be implemented in a museum gallery space and installation.

As digital and virtual artists, and also as arts and museum educators, we are all currently experiencing a transition, not only in artistic practices with virtual mediums, but also regarding how to design and prioritize visitor experiences in art museums. And, while there is not a definitive nor perfect answer for VR museum integration as of yet, there is a lot to take away from this data and learn from past and current VR installations.

The data pertaining to the technical and interactive elements, and also user responses, can be useful for designers and developers of VR applications who want to

227 engage users in more open-ended VR experiences. And, instead of overly structured or defined technical categories, considering immersive experiences form an arts perspective and in relation to a spectrum of experiences that range from content-driven to open- ended, can offer alternative ways to configure VR applications that prioritize creative inquiry, divergent thinking, and constructivist learning processes.

Additionally, the data collected from participants is also useful for educators and folks in museums who need to consider various audiences and also design an experience that is meaningful and efficient, yet practical and realistic in terms of the technical aspects and affordances of virtual reality. And, this research builds on the discussion surrounding the challenges that contemporary digital and virtual arts pose for museums not only in terms of display and exhibition, but also regarding interactive and collaborative visitor experiences with art in an immersive gallery setting and beyond the museum walls.

As for the research approach and creative methodologies, the entire inquiry process was more complex and multifaceted than I intended with this project. But I hope the creative research methodologies offer an example for fellow technical and arts-based researchers of how to combine design-thinking approaches and designerly methods with traditional art-based practices—narrowing the gray area between art and design fields and research. And, on a final personal note, because this project was multidimensional and multi-layered at every phase, it pushed me out of my comfort zone as an artist-researcher and designer, and helped me to discover my educator voice, in addition to further developing the other perspectives that I brought to the research from my lived

228 experiences. I have not only grown as a digital and virtual artist, but also as a designer and educator—in more ways than I could have ever anticipated.

229 References

Adams, E. (2004). Postmodernism and the Three Types of Immersion. Gamasutra. Retrieved from: http://designersnotebook.com/Columns/063_Postmodernism/063_postmodernism. htm

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: a componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357

Amabile, T. M. (1989). Growing up creative: Nurturing a lifetime of creativity. New York: Crown.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Westview.

Anderson, L. (2017). Chalkroom (Art Exhibition). MASS MoCA. Retrieved form https://massmoca.org/event/laurie-anderson/

ARTLENS Gallery (n.d.). The Cleveland Museum of Art. Retrieved May 2018 from https://www.clevelandart.org/artlens-gallery/about

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice-Hall.

Banfield, J., and Burgess, M. (2013). A phenomenology of artistic doing: flow as embodied knowing in 2D and 3D professional artists. J. Phenomenol. Psychol. 44, 60–91. doi: 10.1163/15691624-12341245

Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. Stanford University Press.

Barrett, T. (2003). Interpreting art: reflecting, wondering, and responding. McGraw-Hill.

Barrett, T. (2008). Why is that art?: aesthetics and criticism of contemporary art. Oxford University Press.

Barrett, T. (2011). Making art: form & meaning. McGraw-Hill.

Barone, T. & Eisner, E. (2012). Arts-based research. Sage.

230 Barricelli, B. R., Gadia, D., Rizzi, A., & Marini, D. L. R. (November 01, 2016). Semiotics of virtual reality as a communication process. Behaviour and Information Technology, 35(11) 879-896.

Bjork, S., & Holopainen, J. (2005). Patterns in game design. Charles River Media.

Brown, T. (n.d.) Design Thinking Defined. IDEO Design Thinking. Retrieved from designthinking.ideo.com

Burke, R. E. (2007). Sir Charles Sherrington's The integrative action of the nervous system: a centenary appreciation. Brain 130, 4:1, 887–894. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/130/4/887/278000

Candy, L. (2006). Practice based research: A guide. Creativity and Cognition Studios Report, 1. Retrieved from: https://www.creativityandcognition.com/resources/PBR%20Guide-1.1-2006.pdf

Chambers, T. (2013). Phenomenological Research. Qualitative Research in Corporate Communication. Retrieved from https://blogs.baruch.cuny.edu/com9640epstein/?author=14078

Chandler, D. (2007). Semiotics: The basics (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Cooper, E. (1991). A critique of six measures for assessing creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25, 194–204.

Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among the Five Approaches. SAGE Publications, Inc.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety (1st ed., Ser. The jossey-bass behavioral science series). Jossey-Bass.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: flow and the psychology of discovery and invention (1st ed.). Harper Collins Publishers.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). The systems model of creativity: the collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94- 017-9085-7

Descartes, R. (1979). Meditations on first philosophy. Bobbs-Merrill Educational Pub.

Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. Balch & Company.

Dewey, J. (1969) Soul and body. In J. Boydston (Ed.). The later works, 1925-1953 (p. 93-115). Southern Illinois Press.

231 Dewey, J. (1997). How we think. Dover Publications.

Dewey, J. (1998). Experience and education. Kappa Delta Pi.

Dewey, J. (2012). Democracy and education. Simon & Brown.

Doyle, C. L. (2017). Creative flow as a unique cognitive process. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1348–1348. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01348

Eisner, E. W. (1997). The promise and perils of alternative forms of data representation. Educational Researcher, 26 (6), 4-9.

Eisner, E. W. (January 01, 2003). On the Differences between Scientific and Artistic Approaches to Qualitative Research. Visual Arts Research, 29, 57, 5-11.

Fallman, D. (2007). Why Research-Oriented Design Isn’t Design-Oriented Research: On the Tensions Between Design and Research in an Implicit Design Discipline. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 20, 3, 193-200.

Freeman, A., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., McKelroy, E., Giesinger, C., Yuhnke, B. (2016). NMC Horizon Report: 2016 Museum Edition. The New Media Consortium.

Freire, M., & McCarthy, E. (March 01, 2014). Four Approaches to New Media Art Education. Art Education, 67, 2, 28-31.

Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: theory, research, and applications. MIT Press.

Freud, S. (1908/1959). Creative writers and daydreaming. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 9, pp. 143-44, 146-153). Hogarth Press.

Getzels, J. W. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding in art. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Gibson, J. (1966). The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Hughton Mifflin

Gibson, J. (1979). The theory of affordances. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin. Available at https://monoskop.org/images/c/c6/Gibson_James_J_1977_1979_The_Theory_of_ Affordances.pdf

232 Green, J. (1993). Fostering creativity through movement and body awareness practices: A postpositivist investigation into the relationship between somatics and the creative process. (Dissertation, The Ohio State University).

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.

Guilford, J.P. (1954). Psychometric Methods. McGraw-Hill Education. ISBN 0070251290

Guilford, J.P. (1959) Traits of Creativity. In: Anderson, H.H., Ed., Creativity and Its Cultivation, Harper & Row, 142-161.

Hamlen, K. R. (2008) Relationships between video game play and creativity among elementary school students. (Dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo).

Hanna, T. (1983). Dictionary definition of the word somatics. Somatics: Magazine0Journal of the Bodily Arts and Sciences, 4(2), 1.

Hanna, T. (1986). What is somatics? Somatics: Magazine0Journal of the Bodily Arts and Sciences, 5(4), 4-8.

Hanna, T. (1988). Somatics: Reawakening the mind's control of movement, flexibility, and health. Addison-Wesley.

Hart, W. D. (1994). ‘Dualism’, in S. Guttenplan (ed.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Mind. Blackwell, 265–7.

Hein, G.E. (1995). The Constructivist Museum. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.461.3236&rep=rep1&t ype=pdf

Hein, G. E. (2002). The Challenge of Constructivist Teaching. Adapted with permission from E. Mirochnik and D. C. Sherman. (2002). Passion and Pedagogy: Relation, Creation, and Transformation in Teaching. Peter Lang, pp. 197-214. Retrieved from http://www.george-hein.com/downloads/challengeConstructHein.pdf

Hein, G. E. (2005). The role of museums in society: Education and social action. Curator: The Museum Journal, 48(4), 357–363.

Hlavac, R. and Strawn, J. (2018). What is Gamification? Coursera Inc. Retrieved from https://www.coursera.org/learn/social-imc/lecture/W9So8/what-is-gamification

Hookway, C. (2016) Pragmatism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/pragmatism/.

233

Hornsby, G. G. (2007). Shaping experiences with technology: a constructivist approach to learning in art museums. In Villeneuve, P., & National Art Education Association. (2007). From periphery to center: Art museum education in the 21st century. Reston, Va: National Art Education Association.

International Society for Presence Research. (2000). The Concept of Presence: Explication Statement. Retrieved on August 2019 from https://smcsites.com/ispr/

Jackson, K. (2018). A brief history of the smartphone. Science Node. Retrieved May 2020 from https://sciencenode.org/feature/How%20did%20smartphones%20evolve.php

Jerald, J. (2016). The VR book: Human-centered design for virtual reality. Association for Computing Machinery

Jung, C. (1923). On the relation of analytic psychology to poetic art. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 3, 225-231.

Kant, I., & Walker, N. (2007). Critique of judgement (Ser. Oxford world's classics). Oxford University Press.

Kim, B. (2016). Virtual Reality as an Artistic Medium. (Master’s Thesis, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland). Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b69b/06309193a30768de2ecea1ff446ba23c5e8a. pdf

Knight, A. (n.d.) Design is not art. Austin Knight. https://austinknight.com/writing/design-is-not-art

Kris, E. (1952). Psychoanalytic explorations in art. International Universities Press.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. Basic Books.

LaMorte, Wayne, W. (2018). The Social Cognitive Theory. Boston University School of Public Health. Accessed from http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH- Modules/SB/BehavioralChangeTheories/BehavioralChangeTheories5.html.

Laurel, B., Strickland, R., & Tow, R. (May 01, 1994). Placeholder: Landscape and narrative in virtual environments. Acm Siggraph Computer Graphics, 28, 2, 118- 126.

Laurel, B. (2017). What Is Virtual Reality? Retrieved from: https://medium.com/@blaurel/what-is-virtual-reality-77b876d829ba

234 Leavy, P. (2015). Method meets art. The Guildford Press.

Leavy, P. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. The Guildford Press.

Lee, K. M. (February 01, 2004). Presence, Explicated. Communication Theory, 14, 1, 27- 50.

Leitan, N. D., & Chaffey, L. (July 09, 2014). Embodied cognition and its applications: A brief review. Sensoria: a Journal of Mind, Brain and Culture, 10, 1, 3.

Lewis, T. (2014). Virtual Reality Affects Brain's 'GPS Cells'. Live Science. Retrieved from https://www.livescience.com/49021-virtual-reality-brain-maps.html

Mace, M.-A. (1997). Toward an understanding of creativity through a qualitative appraisal of contemporary art making. Creativity Research Journal, 10 (2 & 3), 265–278.

Markonish, D. (2017). Laurie Anderson: Mass MoCA. Retrieved from http://massmoca.org/event/laurie-anderson/

Melamed, S. (2016). After-hours events - with drinks, preferably - get millennials in museum doors. The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved May 2018 from https://www.inquirer.com/philly/entertainment/20160112_After-hours_events_- _with_drinks__preferably_-_get_millennials_in_museum_doors.html

Mestre, D. R., (2005). Immersion and Presence. Movement & Perception, CNRS & University of the Mediterranean. Retrieved from: http://www.ism.univmed.fr/mestre/projects/virtual%20reality/Pres_2005.p df

Mehta, R., & Dahl, D. W. (2019). Creativity: past, present, and future. Consumer Psychology Review, 2(1), 30–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/arcp.1044

Morphy, T. (2008). Project Management Triangle - Time, Cost and Quality - Iron Triangle. Retrieved May 2020 from https://www.stakeholdermap.com/project- management/project-triangle.html#lock07

Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. Basic Books.

Peirce, C. S. (November 1877). The Fixation of Belief. Popular Science Monthly 12, 1- 15.

Pinheiro, I. R., & Cruz, R. M. (2014). Mapping creativity: creativity measurements network analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 26(3), 263–275.

235 PR Newswire. (2016). The Franklin Institute in Philadelphia Launches Expansive Virtual Reality Experience. Retrieved May 2020 from https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-franklin-institute-in-philadelphia- launches-expansive-virtual-reality-experience-300349164.html

Ritter, S. M., Damian, R. I., Simonton, D. K., van Baaren, R. B., Strick, M., Derks, J., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2012). Diversifying experiences enhance cognitive flexibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 961–964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.009

Robinson, H. (Fall 2017). "Dualism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/dualism/

Rolling, J. (2010). A Paradigm Analysis of Arts-Based Research and Implications for Education. Studies in Art Education, 51(2), 102-114. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4065045

Sanchez-Vives, M. & Slater, M. (2005). From presence to consciousness through virtual reality. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 6, 332-339.

Schinkel, S. (March 24, 2017). Color Theory: Additive and Subtractive Colors. The Paper. Retrieved May 2020 from https://blog.thepapermillstore.com/color-theory- additive-subtractive-colors/

Schwandt, T. A. (2007). The SAGE dictionary of qualitative inquiry. SAGE.

Sebeok, T. A. (2001). Signs: An introduction to semiotics. University of Toronto Press.

Selby, E. C.; Shaw, E. J.; Houtz, J. C. (2005). The creative personality. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(4), 300-314.

Sherrington, C.S. (1906). The integrative action of the nervous system. Yale University Press.

Six degrees of freedom. (n.d.). Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_freedom

Slater, M., & Wilbur, S. (1997). A Framework for Immersive Virtual Environments (FIVE): Speculation on the Role of Presence in Virtual Environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(6). 45.

Slater, M., Perez-Marcos, D., Ehrsson, H. H., & Sanchez-Vives, M. V. (2008). Towards a digital body: the virtual arm illusion. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2(6). doi:10.3389/neuro.09.006.2008.

236 Smith, D. W. (2018). Phenomenology. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/phenomenology/>.

Snyder, C. (2016). Part 3: Degrees of Freedom. LeadingOnes, Inc. Retrieved from: http://www.leadingones.com/articles/intro-to-vr-4.html

Stankovic, S. (2015). Virtual Reality and Virtual Environments in 10 Lectures. Morgan & Claypool Publishers: ProQuest Ebook Central. Retrieved from: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ohiostate- ebooks/detail.action?docID=4044654

Sweeny, R. W. (January 01, 2005). Three Funerals and a Wedding: Art Education, Digital Images, and an Aesthetics of Cloning. Visual Arts Research, 31, 1, 26-37.

Tate Museum. (n.d.). Art Term: Medium. Retrieved May 8, 2020 from https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/m/medium

Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Princeton, N.J: Personnel Press.

Torrance, E. P. (1980). Creativity and futurism in education: retooling. Education, 100(4).

Torrance, E. P., Glover, J. A., Ronning, R. R., & Reynolds, C. R. (1989). Handbook of creativity (Ser. Perspectives on individual differences). Plenum Press.

Tiblier, A. (2016). A Night at the Museum with Virtual Reality. TurboSquid. Retrieved from: https://blog.turbosquid.com/2016/07/21/a-night-at-the-museum-with- virtual-reality/

Weis, S. (2018). 3DOF, 6DOF, Room-scale VR, 360 Video and Everything in Between. Retrieved from: https://packet39.com/blog/2018/02/25/3dof-6dof-roomscale-vr- 360-video-and-everything-in-between/

Wissink, G. (2002). Creativity and cognition: A study of creativity within the framework of cognitive science, artificial intelligence and the dynamical system theory. (Thesis, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Zangwill, N. (2019). Aesthetic Judgment. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/aesthetic-judgment

237 Zhang, C., Perkis A., and Arndt, S. (2017). Spatial immersion versus emotional immersion, which is more immersive?. Ninth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), Erfurt, 2017, pp. 1-6.

238 Appendix A: Interview Questions

• What is your reaction and/or experience like with the art medium, the tools, brushes, and the non-human abilities that defy our natural laws of physics?

• Do any of the tools or features enhance your ability to be creative?

• What was your experience like using the controllers—do they become part of or an extension of your body—and/or a representation of your body? —or do they remain disembodied tools?

• Between the three scenarios, which offers you more creative freedom to make art—or did one feel more restrictive than the others?

• How was your movement and/or art-making approach influenced by the visual environments and objects, and did were you aware of any moments where your movement accommodated or adapted to the virtual space? —For example, walking around a virtual object instead of just walking through it.

• What it is like to feel something you cannot see but to see something you cannot feel?

• Who are you in VR? When you enter a virtual space, what is your general perception of yourself? —Do you feel exactly the same, do you feel human, or have you taken on a new role?

• Were there any other interesting things that you noticed in VR or with Tilt Brush?

239 Appendix B: Pre-VR Interaction Survey & Questionnaire

Name

This form is to be filled out prior to interaction within the VR.

Regarding creative platforms, art making and technology use in any medium, please indicate the level of comfort, experience or familiarity with the following:

1 being the least level of comfort or familiarity and 5 being the highest level of experience and familiarity.

Creative Medium 1 2 3 4 5

Painting (any type of non-digital, oils, acrylic, watercolor, mixed media, etc.) Drawing (any style or type of non-digital, pencil, pen, marker, charcoal, etc.) Sculpting (any type of non-digital, clay ceramics, mixed media, etc.) Photography (any style digital or film) Videography (any style) Dance (any style) Music (any style or genre) Acting (Film or Theater) Wood Working (any style) Metal Working (any style) Digital Graphic Design (any style or platform) Digital Drawing (any style or platform) 3D Modeling (any platform) Digital Coding or Programming (any style or platform) Digital Animation (any style) Video Game Play (any type or platform) Mobile Device Interaction Comfort Level (tablets, phones) Desktop Computer or Laptop Comfort Level (Mac or PC)

Have your ever used or experienced any type of VR platform before? (circle one) YES NO

*If yes, do you remember what kind of VR platform and where you used it? (Was it a mobile VR app used with a cell phone or was it a full motion-tracked system with hand controllers?)

240 Appendix C: Analysis Worksheet

Evaluation / Analysis from Observations Participant #

BRUSH USAGE Oil Paint Ink Thick Paint Wet Paint Marker Tapered Marker Pinched Marker Highlighter Flat Tapered Flat Pinched Flat Soft Highlighter

Light Fire Embers Smoke Snow Rainbow Stars Velvet Waveform Splatter Duct Tape Paper

Coarse Bristles Dr. Wigglez Electricity Streamer Hypercolor Bubbles Neon Pulse Cell Vinyl Hyper Grid Lightwire Chromatic Wave Dots

Petal Icing Toon Wire Spike Lofted Disco Comet Shiny Hull Matte Hull Unlit Hull Diamond

TOOLS / FUNCTIONS Eraser Usage: Notes:

Scale Usage: Notes:

Teleport Usage: Notes:

MOVEMENT PATTERNS Moved around objects:

Willingly moved through virtual objects – if so, about when:

Used / Referenced their physical body without seeing it:

Moved / Reacted to Audio of Brushes:

241 ART CONTENT / PRODUCTS Created Identifiable Characters / Objects / Story Environments:

Created Abstract Objects:

Created Abstract Immersive Environments:

242