Interactivity Cybernetic Features
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CYBERNETIC Interactive art works such as Stelarc’s ence of different configurations may be CONFIGURATIONS: Third Hand [6] reinforced the transhu- quite disparate. When the interactive CHARACTERISTICS OF manist perspective on cyborg culture as artwork comprises an audience member INTERACTIVITY IN THE one of extension through prosthesis, and interacting with a physical or digital DIGITAL ARTS deliberately played on concerns about machine - as is often the case for interac- human control (or lack thereof) over tive installations in a gallery exhibition, Toby Gifford & Andrew R. Brown such hybrids. the human participant is both interactor Queensland Conservatorium Griffith However the past decade has seen the and audience. Contrastingly, in a per- University, Brisbane Qld. 4101Australia reinvigoration of interest in cybernetics formance context, an interactive artwork [email protected] viewed optimistically as human-machine may consist of a human performer inter- [email protected] partnerships. This has been evident in acting with technology - so the roles of the recent works of a number of digital audience and interactor are distinct. Abstract artists, including the authors; in the The assumption that a system includes Cybernetic theory and interactive media art share theme for the 2012 Re-New digital arts a person interacting with technology much in common, including an interest in human festival, “Cybernetics Revisited - to- aligns most strongly with the second relationships with technology, and in what their interactions reveal about both human and techno- wards a third order?”; and in various (rather than first) order cybernetic ap- logical agency. In this paper we identify four char- publications such as “Cybernetic Aes- proach where the ‘observer’ is consid- acteristics of cybernetic systems and discuss their thetics and Communication” [7] and, ered to be inside the loop of interaction, relevance to interactive sound art. We hope to contribute to a critical lexicon around the cybernetic most notably, “The Cybernetic Brain: rather than an external observer. This nature of interactive artworks more broadly, and to Sketches of another future” by Andrew participatory viewpoint is common to promote further engagement with the principles of Pickering [8]. both modern cybernetics and to interac- cybernetics amongst electronic and digital arts practitioners and scholars. Given the diversity of interpretations tive arts. of cybernetics and its myriad offshoots, Keywords: cybernetics, new media, interaction, systems theory, agency including cyber-art, cyber-reader, cyber- Example: PIWeCS culture and more, we are keen to estab- The Public Interactive Web-based Com- lish more clearly the features of cyber- position System (PIWeCS) project, de- “We have decided to call the entire field netic systems and how they manifest as veloped by Ian Whalley [11], is designed of control and communication theory, characteristics of interactive art works. to “increase the sense of dialogue be- whether in the machine or in the animal, We propose that such a clarification tween human and machine agency by the same ‘cybernetics’, which we might assist in the description and analy- through integrating intelligent agent pro- form from the Greek ‘kubernetes’ or sis of interactive art works both as being gramming” [12]. PIWeCS and a human steersman” Norbert Wiener [1]. (or not) cybernetic in character and also performer enter a musical ‘dialogue’. to more clearly distinguish different The computer, with a repertoire of pre- The term ‘cybernetics’ was first used to kinds of cybernetic interaction. recorded sound samples, and the human describe a field of experimentation in Our background is in music, and so performer, using an acoustic instrument, interactive systems that emerged in the we populate this article with examples of engage in concurrent playing, listening 1940s [2]. At that time the explorations interactive music systems because this is and analysing as the performance pro- were focused on mechanical and robotic what we know well, however we believe ceeds. A technical feature of this soft- systems that were able to self-regulate in the principles outlined apply more ware is that visual interfaces are web- response to sensory input from their en- broadly to visual and performing arts. based and audio is streamed allowing vironment. Many of the early cyberneti- participants to be geographically sepa- cians were, as Pickering [3] points out, rated. practicing psychiatrists who sought to Interactivity model (with their machines) human cog- Interactivity in the arts is a broad topic - nition and behaviour. In the decades that its meaning nebulous, and its applicabil- Cybernetic Features followed, peaking in the 1970s, cyber- ity to particular works often contested. In the remainder of this paper we outline netic theory evolved to include humans, As with cybernetics, “interactivity is a four characteristics of cybernetic systems and other living systems, as part of the much used and abused term” [9]; in and provide examples of their applica- system rather than simply observers. The many cases ‘reactivity’ is more apt. tion to interactive music systems. These implications of this approach on the arts Garth Paine suggests a sharper defini- characteristics are; a reliance on feed- did not go unnoticed at the time [4] even tion of interactivity, where “in order for back as a mechanism for ongoing self- if it was not mainstream. This second the system to represent an interaction, it regulation, a systems view that promotes wave of human-in-the-loop cybernetics must be capable of changing and evolv- interaction and partnership over reactivi- is referred to as second order cybernetics ing ... a response–response relationship ty and control, the recognition of agency [5]. It is on the basis of this extended where the responses alter in a manner and autonomy in each component of the definition that interactive electronic and that reflects the cumulative experience of system, and a degree of symmetry digital artworks can be seen as potential- interrelationship” [10]. Both human and amongst the components of a system ly cybernetic. technological parties in a truly interac- including some shared responsibility and The prefix cyber, from cybernetics, tive system should have the ability to shared objectives. has continued to be used with reference improvise rather than simply respond. Following discussion of each charac- to human-machine systems. Particularly We adopt and adapt this perspective teristic we describe an interactive elec- as a result of the use of the term cyborg by defining interaction as mutual adap- tronic art work exhibiting the discussed in science fiction, the field of cybernetics tation. There are various configurations characteristic. These case studies include took on an oft dystopian complexion. of artist, artwork and audience that fit outputs from our own creative practices this definition, though the human experi- and highlight the types of cybernetic Please reference as: [Author(s)-of-paper] (2013) [Title-of-paper] in Cleland, K., Fisher, L. & Harley, R. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium of Electronic Art, ISEA2013, Sydney. http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/9475 Page numbering begins at 1 at the start of the paper. interactions that are of particular interest tal simulation of Ashby’s homeostat to where one performer may choose either to us. We think these types of ‘cybernet- create semi-stable patterns (simply by to play in sympathy with, or in contrast ic’ works deserve further attention, be- observing the homeostat’s internal state to, the other performer. Nevertheless, cause the ideas remain vital even almost variables), mapped to rhythmic parame- this feature of cybernetic systems may a century after the initial cybernetic ex- ters of a granular synthesis engine. El- provide a distinction between interactive plorers began their investigations. dridge describes her motivation for systems where agencies operate in paral- designing the system: “it is very hard to lel and those designed to converge or Feature 1: Feedback pre-programme digital systems that both complement. Feedback is a basic characteristic of all avoid repetitious tedium and can be cybernetic systems. Early descriptions of ‘trusted’ to behave appropriately in a live Example: _Derivations cybernetic systems considered the ‘sys- musical setting. The beauty of generative _Derivations by Ben Carey (see tem’ to be a machine with some self- systems is that they allow a designer to http://derivations.net/) is interactive mu- regulatory capacity, so as to achieve compose a space of possibilities in which sic performance software that is particu- homeostatis; the stabilisation of a system the machine is free to roam. Some re- larly reliant on the human as part of the parameter despite varying environmental gions of the space may be richer than musical system. It uses recorded sonic conditions. others, but the use of simple adaptive material from prepared and live record- Homeostatis was implemented generative mechanisms seems to provide ings of the instrumentalist as the basis through dynamic error-correction, con- a workable balance of reliability and for its output. The software is designed ceptualised as feedback from the envi- unforeseen inspirational novelty” [17]. to facilitate collaboration between musi- ronment, rather than pre-calculated Eldridge’s system also generated live cian and machine where the software actions.