تحلیل تعامل مخاطب با چیدمان تعاملی "باران متن" بر اساس مفهوم بدنمندی در فلسفه مرلوپونتی

Received: 07/01/2017

Accepted: 09/09/2017

Introduction and statement of the problem: The origin of the formation and development of interactive art can be traced where the audience finds a way into art event. Nevertheless, inviting the audience to interact, is not an idea or a designed game set by the artist. Interactive art can neither be evaluated as a new style in the world of art, nor can it be considered as a change in aesthetic tendencies taken place through time. Interactive art is not a tendency towards changing the form or mode of expression. Rather, it hints at active participation of the audience on the art work, something that has brought about fundamental change in art. In fact, the audience pervades into closed borders of artwork and fundamentally brings the art and the integrity of the work of art under question.

In analyzing the interactive installation of "Text Rain" our objective is to understand how the audience communicates with this interactive event. The question here is whether the audience who is looking at the event that is happening in front of him, is also taking a deep look into that event? Is the interaction a result of the aesthetic judgment and thinking? or the audience is part of an event that is progressing and she/he only interacts bodily with the event?

Theoretical background: Such a fundamental change in the art world has instigated numerous analytical attempts. Many theorists of art, focusing on the analysis of ontological have tried to define or categorize this field of art. Interaction is not an ontological feature. however, interaction is a situation in which totality of art work and the aesthetics tenets encounter a gap. This cannot be reduced to an abstract aesthetical concept. Some researchers have also paid attention to the historical roots of interactive art, so to explain that the development of the interactive art has close relationship with technology. Undoubtedly technology has created a platform for interaction in various levels in virtual space, digital space and Internet-based communication. It is true that technology enables audience to interact easily and in a short time. In fact, these possibilities have helped expanding the field of art, but in the current study we are not looking for how to provide a platform for development of interactive art. Rather, we seek to understand how the audience communicates to interactive art event. Following we will discuss the methodology of dealing with such dilemma.

Methodology: Encountering an interactive art event including physical interaction through bodily proximity or corporeal interaction through virtual media is an exposure that is different from seeing a work of art. Since the encounter with an interactive art event is not limited to vision, reflection or judgment, "embodiment" plays a crucial role in understanding and interacting with interactive event in the virtual space and virtual imaginary space. To provide an analysis of interactive art, such fundamental difference needs a different approach. Such approach needs not to be based on aesthetic judgments, rather, it should be based on an analysis of physical contact that is interwoven with interactive event space. According to the description that was given, embodiment plays a key role in the analysis of audience interaction. Here and instead of judging the artwork based on its visual features, we attempt to analyze the interaction with the interactive installation "Text Rain" from the audience corporeal point of view in the interactive event. To reach such objective we establish a dialogue between Merleau-Ponty's concepts and interaction in the installation "Text Raining". "Embodiment" is a key concept in understanding Merleau-Ponty's philosophy. In his view, the body is our perspective towards the world. That is, our bodies are not the means for unclear sensory experiences. Perception is not a simple and passive exposure of our eyes or other sensory systems that would be based on judging the data details, rather it is an immersive and all-inclusive experience which enables us to access the world through "embodiment". That means, our bodies use sensation, movability and interactive capabilities with the world so to enable us to understand the things and the world.

Results and discussion: Audience of the interactive art is not only a viewer or judge of the artwork, i.e., someone who only looks at it from outside. viewing the work of art that is limited to vision and assessment of aesthetic features of it, entails a limited perception to the visual details of artwork. However, in the interactive art, the audience is invited to engage in an interactive event. Before trying to understand or judge, the audience has to respond to the event. The relationship occurs through the embodiment, and it is through this encounter that all of the senses non-separable from each other become active. Interactive action is essentially an action based on "embodiment" and bodily engagement. Emphasis on embodiment shows that “understanding” the artwork is not the same as the "perception" gained through the interactive action, which is always associated with the "embodiment". This shift from judging the object to activate process of interaction necessarily requires new approaches to the analysis. Due to this necessity, we analyze the interactive art from physical and bodily activities aspects of audience.

Conclusion: The results shows that, in this installation neither audience's body is the tools for action nor his/her mind is the means for cognition, rather the audience's perception is intertwined with sensation and movement with the event. At the same time that the audience sees himself in the mirror, she/he grasps the letters coming down to her/his body. In this way, “seeing” is not distinguishable from moving. Audience enters into the events of imaginary space intertwined with virtual media and reality not only by looking at the event, but also by all sensation and physical motion. The accompaniment of image of body in the mirror (similar to the real event that people have faced repeatedly) and to fall down the words, opens up a fancy- imaginative space for the audience's experience, which is somewhere between reality and imagination. The audience in this space is not faced with the lack of sensory experience, but with a kind of bodily presence within this space. She/ he constantly comes and goes, between the perceptual presence in the world and the powerful atmosphere of the fantasy- imaginative space that has tied to the real image of his body in the mirror. As a result, the interactive art event is realized by the presence of audience and her/his "embodiment". This constitutes an act based on corporeal communication with interactive event, which is the basis of interaction in the interactive art instead of thinking or aesthetic judgement of interactive art event.

Prominent contribution: interacting the audience with interactive art work whether physical interaction through bodily proximity or through corporeal interaction using virtual media creates a gap in the integrity of artwork. Integrity is a prerequisite for aesthetic judgments and we have to seek the other ways to analyze this area of art. Interactive art is tied to embodiment and the physical act of audience and it can be a possibility for analyzing interactive art. In this paper we tried to analyze interactive art in the context of philosophical concepts of Merleau-Ponty and in particular based on the concept of embodiment. In addition, with this study, we presented an appropriate method for analyzing interactive art.

Persian Resources:

1- Primozic, Daniel. (2008), Merleau-Ponty, Philosophy and Meaning, translated by Mohammad Reza Abolghasemi, Tehran, Markaz Publishing.

2- Dreyfus, Hubert El. (2002), "Merleau- Ponty and the New Knowledge ", Merleau-Ponty: Worshipper of Philosophy, editors Taylor Carmen and Mark B. Hansen, translated by Haniyeh Yaseri, pp. 199-230, Tehran, GhoGhnoos Publishing.

3- Rashidian, Abdolkarim (2005). Husserl in Context of His Work, Tehran, Ney Publishing.

4- Schusterman, Richard. (2002). The Silent Body and The Philosopher's Pillar, Merleau-Ponty: Porshipper of Philosophy, editors Taylor Carmen and Mark B. It Hansen, translated by Hanieh Yasri, Pages 231-276, Tehran, GhoGhnoos Publishing.

5- Carmen, Taylor, Hansen, Mark. B (2002), Merleau-Ponty: Worshipper of Philosophy, translated by Hania Yaseri, Tehran, GhoGhnoos Publishing

6- Carmen, Taylor. (2001), Merleau- Ponty, translated by Massoud Oliya, Tehran, GhoGhnoos Publishing.

English Resources:

7- Merleau- Ponty, Maurice (1968). The Visible and the Invisible. Translated by Alphonso Lingis. Evanston: Northwestern University Press

8- Broadhurst, Sue (2012) "-Merleau-Ponty and Neuro-aesthetics: Two Approaches to Performance and Technology", Digital Creativity, 23:3-4, 225-238

9- Carlisle, Anne, (1995). Art & Technology: Interactive, Circa, No. 73, pp. 18-23

10- Dufourcq, Annabelle (2015). "The Fundamental Imaginary Dimension of the Real Merleau-Ponty’s Philosophy, Research in phenomenology 45 (2015) 33–52

11- Edmonds, Ernest and Cornock, Stroud (1973). The Creative Process Where the Artist Is Amplified or Superseded by the Computer, Leonardo, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 11-16

12- Heinamaa, sara (2012). The body, The Routledge Companion to Phenomenology, Routledge

13- Hershman, Lynn (1993). Touch-Sensitivity and Other Forms of Subversion: Interactive Artwork, Leonardo, Vol.26, No. 5, Art and Social Consciousness: Special Issue, pp. 431-436.

14- Hayles, N. Katherine. (2002). "Flesh and Metal: Reconfiguring the Mind-body in Virtual Environments Configurations, Volume 10, Number 2, pp. 297-320

15- McIver Lopes, Dominic M (2001). "The Ontology of Interactive Art", Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol. 35, No. pp. 65-8

16- Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (2000). Phenomenology of Perception. Translated by C. Smith. London: Routledge

17- Rogala, Miroslaw (2010). The Virtual and The Vivid: Reframing The Issues in Interactive Arts, Techno-etic Arts: A Journal of Speculative Research, Volume 8 Number, 3 pp. 299–309

18- Popper, Frank. (2006). From Technological to Virtual Art. MIT Press.

19- Romdenh - Romluc, Komarine (2012). "Merleau-Ponty", The Routledge Companion to Phenomenolog, Routledge

20- Saltz, David. (1997). "The Art of Interaction: Interactivity, Performativity, and Computers," Journal of Art Criticism 55, 123.

21- Stern, Nathaniel. (2013). Interactive Art and Embodiment, Gylphi Limited

22- Tafler, David (1988). The Circular Text: Interactive Video Reception, And Viewer Participation, Journal of Film and Video, Vol. 40, No. 3