Interactive Arts

3 downloads 0 Views 540KB Size Report
Jul 30, 2013 - If anyone is in doubt about the power of interactive digital arts to draw crowds ... the 32 Hundred Light company, and show casing Intel's latest tablet interface. With. Luna fun park next door as backdrop, you could record your colour .... a time of austerity measures-‐ the 30% reduction tells its own story. In ...
CREATIVITY  AND  EVALUATION    SUPPORTING  PRACTICE  AND  RESEARCH  IN  THE  INTERACTIVE  ARTS     Linda  Candy     Creativity  &  Cognition  Studios   School  of  Software   Faculty  of  Engineering  and  IT   University  of  Technology,  Sydney     www.lindacandy.com    

   EVA2013  Keynote  Talk   Tuesday  30th  July  2013   London     Abstract   The  paper  explores  ideas  about  evaluation  in  creativity  and  in  particular,  how  it   contributes  to  creativity  in  the  context  of  interactive  arts  practice.  Evaluation  is  a   central  activity  in  creativity,  one  that  involves  assessing  progress,  exercising   judgments  and  sometimes  changing  direction  both  during  and  after  the  process  of   making  an  artwork.  The  ideas  presented  draw  upon  experience  in  HCI  user  centred   design  and  over  ten  years  of  practice-­‐based  research.  

Introduction  

In  May-­‐June  2013,  several  important  events  took  place  in  Sydney:  the  Vivid  festival,   immediately  followed  by  ISEA  2013  and  two  conferences  on  creativity  and   computational  technology,  Computational  Creativity  and  Creativity  and  Cognition   2013.  If  anyone  is  in  doubt  about  the  power  of  interactive  digital  arts  to  draw  crowds   and  engage  people  in  large  numbers,  the  2013  Vivid  festival  put  paid  to  that.  An   annual  festival  of  light  and  colour  art  that  lights  up  the  city  in  winter,  it  became  even   more  significant  than  in  previous  years  because  it  played  directly  to  the  general   public  rather  than  the  arts  community.  Throughout  the  cityscape,  installations  of   great  variety  attracted  fascinated  adults  and  excited  children  and  the  level  of  interest   and  fascination  with  street  art  that  could  be  touched  and  played  with  was  enormous.   The  sheer  weight  of  numbers  overwhelmed  the  normally  underused  harbour  ferry   transport  and  put  extra  pressure  on  the  already  overburdened  train  services.       For  a  magical  ten  days,  people  could  interact  with  their  city  in  extraordinary  ways.   They  could  turn  the  iconic  iron  Sydney  harbour  bridge  into  a  multi-­‐coloured   panorama  with  over  one  hundred  thousand  LED  lights,  an  installation  designed  by   the  32  Hundred  Light  company,  and  show  casing  Intel’s  latest  tablet  interface.  With   Luna  fun  park  next  door  as  backdrop,  you  could  record  your  colour  bridge  art  for   posterity  with  a  commemorative  photograph.  The  public  took  readily  to  touching  and   exploring  the  interactive  works  placed  around  the  harbour’s  edge  from  the  Opera   House  on  Bennelong  Point  around  Sydney  Cove  to  Walsh  Bay  and  on  to  Darling   Harbour.  The  city  buildings  were  canvasses  for  visual  extravaganzas  on  which  the  

effects  of  interactive  participation  were  displayed.  In  the  gloomy  dark  of  a  mild   Sydney  winter,  the  city  was  lit  up  and  transformed  into  a  play  space,  rather  like  the   effect  of  Christmas  festivals  in  the  northern  hemisphere  but  with  the  added  value  of   being  able  to  interact  with  the  art  itself.       The  information  panels  placed  next  to  each  installation  told  an  interesting  story  as   the  works  were  as  often  by  architects,  designers,  engineers,  performance  artists  as  by   dedicated  digital  artists  and  many  were  commercial  companies  showing  off  their  new   wares.  At  Vivid,  Interactive  art  emerged  from  the  research  laboratory  and  the  art   studio  and  invaded  the  city  streets  in  a  major  way.  All  the  artworks  seemed  to  ‘work’   well  and  the  public  clearly  loved  it.  At  the  opening  of  an  event  at  the  Powerhouse   Museum,  for  the  associated  event,  ISEA  2013,  the  Australia  Council  representative  for   the  digital  arts  was  needless  to  say  very  satisfied:  the  judgment  of  the  public  had   secured  his  area’s  funding  perhaps  only  for  the  present  but  in  today’s  austerity   climate,  that  was  more  than  enough.  Justification  had  been  achieved  by  evidence  of   large-­‐scale  public  engagement.         So  the  job  is  done  is  it  not?  We   have  reached  as  state  of  grace:-­‐ interactive  art  as  public   entertainment  firmly  entrenched   in  the  public  mind  (at  least  in  the   southern  hemisphere).  Could  we   wish  for  anything  more?  Is  there   more  to  do?     You  could  argue  that  Simon   Brockwell  really  did  intend  his   sound  light  piano  work  to  be  a   challenge  for  those  of  smaller   stature.  From  an  HCI  perspective   the  usability  of  this  interface  could   be  better.  But  is  usability  for   interactive  art  a  top  priority  for       evaluation?  Is  checking  usability     the  best  role  for  evaluation  in     interactive  digital  art?       The  Trouble  with  Evaluation   Why  is  the  idea  of  evaluation  a  problem?  Artists  in  particular  often  have   strong  feelings  about  the  idea  of  having  to  evaluate  their  work. They may believe it  is  not  possible,  claim  it  is  too  hard  and  not  their  job  anyway,  and   that  it  adds  to  the  already  heavy  burden  of  creating.  The  word  ‘evaluation’   often  has  negative  connotations  of  scientific  assessment  rather  than  being   seen  as  an  integral  part  of  the  process  In  truth,  however,  artists  are  constantly  

 

2  

evaluating  what  they  do  -­‐  they  may  just  prefer  to  do  it  privately  and  they   certainly  don’t  call  it  by  that  name.       What  kinds  of  assumptions  are  made  about  evaluation,  which  make  it   problematic  for  practitioners?  The  very  thought  of  doing  ‘evaluation’  in  the   arts  world  seems  to  be  a  problem  for  many  people  when  faced  with   increasing  demand  for  it  from  funding  bodies  and  governments.     These  are  some  of  the  things  I  have  been  hearing  as  I  go  about  my  research.     1.It  is  necessary  but  is  a  lot  of  trouble  –I  ‘know  what  I  like’  I  don’t  need  any   kind  of  formal  evaluation-­‐  is  this  because  the  perception  is  that  there  is  too   little  return  on  effort?   2.  It  is  demanded  by  funding  bodies  who  have  to  please  political  master-­‐  the   UK  cultural  secretary  made  much  of  the  need  to  justify  arts  funding  from  the   public  purse:  this  is  dangerous  ground  in  the  eyes  of  many  within  the  arts   because  it  is  the  thin  end  of  a  wedge  to  make  arts  serve  external  purposes  (for   good  reason?)   3.  Evaluation  is  all  about  measuring  things  and  there  are  some  things  you  just   cant  measure  in  a  quantitative  way  (like  art)  or  if  you  want  to  measure  you   have  to  only  measure  that  which  can  be  measured  like  how  much  revenue   was  generated  from  that  project  and  how  many  people  saw  it.     All  these  notions  are  fundamentally  about  a  view  of  evaluation  based  upon   negative  connotations.  Measuring  means  reduction  but  can  measuring  be   applied  to  creativity?    Some  people  think  so.   Can  we  evaluate  the  quality  of  art  by  measuring?     If  you  wanted  to  measure  the  different  quality  between  the  art  (paintings)  of   Picasso  and  Cezanne  how  would  you  go  about  it?  David  Galenson,  an   economist  approached  it  by  quantifying  the  relationship  between  price  at   auction  and  age  profile  of  artist.  Galenson  used  evidence  from  different   judges,  an  econometric  analysis  of  painting  prices  and  quantified  the   relationship  between  age  and  price.  This  is  an  example  of  using  quantified   information  to  measure  the  differences  between  artists  based  upon   independently  derived  judgments  of  worth;  the  measures  were:     1.Market  price  at  auction  (Le  Guide  Mayer  1970-­‐97)   2.Textbook  illustrations   3.Retrospective  exhibitions     Galenson  proposed  that  the  variation  in  prices  of  a  particular  painter’s  worth   could  be  accounted  for,  in  part,  by  the  values  of  a  set  of  associated  variables   (size,  support,  and  date  of  sale  at  auction.  He  isolated  the  effect  of  an  artist’s   age  at  time  of  painting  a  work  from  other  variables  and  calculated  the   relationship  between  age  and  price.  Using  this  kind  of  measurement,  he   showed  that  Picasso’s  most  valuable  work  was  painted  at  age  26  years   whereas  for  Cezanne,  high  value  came  much  later  in  life. ‘Les  Demoiselles   d’Avignon’  is  Picasso’s  most  valuable  work  in  monetary  and  reputational  

 

3  

terms.  By  contrast,  Cezanne’s  most  valuable  works  were  painted  at  age  67   years:  from  the  series  of  paintings  of  Mont  Saint  Victoire.     Taking  age  and  text  illustrations  in  published  works,  Galenson  shows  that  the   single  year,  represented  by  the  largest  number  of  illustrations,  is  the  same   year  estimated  to  be  that  or  the  artist’s  peak  value:  Picasso  26  :  Cezanne  67.       Now  we  have  to  have  ourselves  is  this  what  we  expect  and  wish  the  role  of   evaluation  to  be  in  the  arts?    In  my  view,  if  that  was  all  that  was  happening,   most  people  would  agree  that,  whilst  it  is  an  interesting  exercise,  it  rather   misses  the  point  about  what  is  quality  in  art.  In  fact,  Galenson  had  a  different   motive  for  using  evaluation  by  measurement  in  art  for  his  real  interest  in   artists’  creativity  is  not  the  value  of  an  artist’s  paintings  but  in  the  creative   process  itself.  He  used  economic  measures  to  understand  and  differentiate   between  individual  artists’  creative  life  cycles.  What  we  are  seeing  here  is  a   way  that  measurement  can  be  used  to  probe  and  structure  an  analysis  of   creativity  throughout  an  artist’s  lifetime.  The  measures  are  not  there  for  their   own  sake  but  as  a  tool  for  interrogating  information  from  the  histories  of  the   artists’  lives  The  method  was  applied  to  modern  artists  classified  according  to   life  cycle  style:  experimental  v  conceptual.  By  examining  the  careers  of   painters,  sculptors,  poets,  novelists,  he  explores  the  nature  of  artistic   creativity  using  a  wide  range  of  evidence  and  shows  that  there  are  two   fundamentally  different  approaches  to  innovation,  and  that  each  is  associated   with  a  distinct  pattern  of  discovery  over  a  lifetime.  Experimental  innovators   work  by  trial  and  error,  and  arrive  at  their  major  contributions  gradually,  late   in  life.  In  contrast,  conceptual  innovators  make  sudden  breakthroughs  by   formulating  new  ideas,  usually  at  an  early  age.    By  revealing  the  differences   between  experimental  creative  people  and  conceptual  creators,  he  provides   new  insights  into  the  lifetime  processes  of  outstanding  examples  of  creativity   (Galenson,  2007).     What  other  kinds  of  evaluation  are  taking  place  around  art  today?     Impact  measures  of  evaluation  are  required  to  defend  projects  where  public   money  is  involved.  For  galleries  and  museums,  success  relies  on:   • Measuring  attendance   • Recording  media  presence     • Gaining  national/international  awards   • Meeting  project  goals  and  deadlines   • Surveying  audience  attitudes     This  is  where  evaluation  of  this  kind  becomes  dangerous  ground.  Does  this   kind  of  evaluation  really  benefit  the  arts?  Does  the  10%  GDP  that  the  creative   industries  contribute  to  UK  plc  ensure  the  continuation  of  public  funding?  At   a  time  of  austerity  measures-­‐  the  30%  reduction  tells  its  own  story.  In  others   words  impact/economic  measures  are  no  guarantee  of  funding.  If  the  main   value  in  evaluation  is  to  justify  the  arts  in  terms  of  economic  value  or   popularity  then  we  are  on  a  hiding  to  nothing  because  the  other  values  in  art  

 

4  

are  submerged  under  these  kinds  of  criteria.  This  leads  to  what  Celine   Latulipe  calls  The  Value  Reduction  Problem:      ”Justifying  artistic  and  creativity  projects  by  their  economic  impact  is  value   reductionism.  It  does  not  honor  the  important  role  that  arts  and  creativity  play  in  the   world,  and  it  narrows  the  framework  through  which  such  projects  are  evaluated.  It     implies  that  creativity  projects  that  do  not  lead  to  high  ticket  sales,  innovation  or   economic  growth  are  not  worth  while”    

  The  Value  Reduction  problem  is  that  if  creativity  projects  do  not  give  rise  to   high  impact  and  economic  growth,  by  implication  they  have  less  value  to   society.  Latulipe  calls  upon  such  people  to  assert  art  values  over  the  political   and  economic  values.  I  agree  with  that  and  want  to  promote  the  idea  of   evaluation  that  is  in  the  service  of  art  practice/creative  practice:  that  can  have   more  immediate  impact  and  at  the  same  time  serve  creativity  in  the  longer   term  as  well?       There  is  an  increasing  drive  towards  finding  more  systematic  ways  of   embedding  evaluation  into  institutional  art  programmes  and  funded  projects.   Traditionally  evaluation  has  been  associated  with  measuring  impact  often   through  simple  quantitative  outcomes  such  as  footfall  and  visitor  satisfaction   indexes.  Public  Policy  and  institutional  approaches  to  evaluation  have   predominated  and  there  has  been  until  recently  less  attention  to  the  role   evaluation  can  play  in  the  creative  process  of  practitioner  artists  in  the  public   art  sphere.  The  public  art  think  tank,  IXIA,  funded  by  the  Arts  Council  of   England,  was  set  up  to  promote  and  influence  the  development  of  art  policies   and  strategies.  In  2004,  it  commissioned  OPENspace  to  carry  out  research   into  ways  of  evaluating  public  art.  This  gave  rise  to  a  series  of  seminars  and  a   guide  to  evaluation  was  published  in  2009  and  revised  in  March  2013  (IXIA,   2013).  This  kind  of  document  is  useful  for  scoping  the  main  issues  that   organisations  and  individuals  need  to  take  on  board  when  contemplating   evaluation  but  there  is  still  a  considerable  gap  between  advice  and  actual   practice:  practice  requires  methods  and  methods  need  to  be  learnt  and  tested.   Thus  whilst  the  ixia  initiative  is  important  and  welcome,  it  nevertheless  forms   only  one  aspect  of  the  evaluation  requirements  for  public  art.       A  recent  (and  ongoing)  survey  indicates  that  in  the  interactive  digital  arts,   evaluation  by  impact  measures  is  far  from  the  complete  picture  (Candy  et  al   2013).  Perhaps  because  this  is  a  relatively  new  area  that  is  not  in  receipt  of   large  quantities  of  public  money  or  perhaps  not.  Could  it  be  that  it  is  because   this  kind  of  art  inhabits  a  different  world  to  that  of  the  great  public  art   institutions  and  the  people  doing  it  come  from  a  different  background  to   traditional  art  historians,  curators  and  artists-­‐they  are  also  researchers,   technologists,  scientists  and  approach  the  question  of  evaluation  from  a  more   pragmatic  perspective  whereby  the  purpose  of  evaluation  is  to  support  the   creation  of  works  and  to  ensure  the  satisfactory  completion  of  projects.  The   role  of  researchers/universities  provides  a  different  perspective  on  the  goals   of  the  enterprise  and  there  is  perhaps  opportunity  for  a  more  idealistic  view   of  what  this  is  all  about.  Collaboration  requires  the  meeting  a  different  mind   sets  and  with  that  different  approaches  to  assessment.    

5  

Evaluation  in  Creativity  

I  want  to  promote  a  different  perspective  on  evaluation,  one  that  views   evaluation  in  the  service  of  creative  practice.  Evaluation  as  a  formative   element  in  the  creative  process  can  have  an  immediate  impact  on  choices  and   paths  taken  and  at  the  same  time  serve  the  development  of  practitioner   expertise  for  the  longer  term.  Evaluation  of  the  kind  I  will  describe  below  can   provide  benefit  to  the  creative  process  and  potentially  change  art  practice  for   the  better.  There  is  a  more  sustainable  benefit  too  in  the  contribution  it  can   make  to  developing  a  different  kind  of  mind  set  amongst  practitioners,   whether  they  be  designers,  artists,  engineers  or  technologists,  a  mindset  that   is  conducive  to  sharing  ideas  and  experiences  in  collaboration.  The  ability  to   share  ideas,  insights,  solutions  and  experiences,  a  need  that  is  particularly   important  in  the  interactive  arts  world  where  inter-­‐disciplinary  collaboration   is  often  needed  in  order  to  make  complex,  leading  edge  installations.       Evaluation  can  provide  benefit  for  the  creative  process,  art  practice  and   collaboration  and  sharing  by  playing  a  formative  role  in  the  creative  process.   This  involves  helping  practitioners  to:   • make  decisions  during  the  creative  activity   • show  what  happens  as  a  result  of  actions  taken   • learn  from  mistakes     • shape  future  activities   •   Evaluation  that  supports  creative  practice  draws  upon  two  sources:  first   evidence  and  second,  experience:  the  first  builds  knowledge,  the  second   builds  expertise.  Evaluation  that  is  based  upon  evidence  builds  expertise  and   experience:  it  involves:   • Making  judgments,  based  on  evidence  about  value  and  quality     • Learning  from  experience  to  improve  outcomes  in  the  future     • Developing  evaluative  frameworks     By  developing  evaluation  as  a  tool  to  strengthen  creative  practice  this   supports  and  sustains  future  development.       Where  are  the  seeds  of  the  future  being  sown  in  the  creation  and  evaluation   of  the  new  forms  of  art,  many  of  which  are  highly  interactive  and  involve   audience  engagement  in  a  way  that  is  integral  to  the  work?  Learning  how  to   embed  evaluation  in  creativity  is  beginning  to  happen  in  the  area  of  Practice-­‐ Based  Research  (PBR)  particularly  in  the  type  of  practice-­‐based  research   where  gathering  and  assessing  data  is  an  integral  part  of  the  process.  PBR  of   this  kind  is  not  widespread  particularly  in  respect  of  the  systematic  way   evidence  is  gathered,  Systematic  gathering  of  evidence,  as  distinct  from  the   everyday  casual  observations  that  artists  undertake  during  their  creative   process,  requires  new  skills  and  a  willingness  to  challenge  assumptions.  The   reason  for  the  current  low  penetration  of  evidence-­‐based  methods  in  arts   practice  is,  in  my  view  partially  due  to  a  reluctance  to  embrace  new   approaches  to  research  within  practice.  Negative  views  are  very  entrenched   and  systematic  approaches  are  often  viewed  with  the  suspicion  that  they  take   something  away  from  art  making  rather  than  adding  to  it.  This  is  not  to    

6  

under-­‐estimate  the  challenge  that  evaluation  can  pose  to  the  time,  effort  and   resources  available  to  the  artist  embarking  on  difficult  new  projects.     Practice-­‐based  research  is  concerned  with  making  works  and  reflecting  on   process,  acquiring  evidence  that  informs  decision  making  in  the  creative   process  through:   • Experimentation     • Observation  (casual  /  systematic)   • Reflection  in  action  on  action   Evaluation  in  Art  and  Practice-­‐Based  Research         There  are  multiple  dimensions  to  evaluation  in  Art,  Practice-­‐Based  Research   and  Collaboration:   • Moving  through  reflection  in  action  to  empirical  evidence   • Practitioner  frameworks  and  working  theories  in  use   • Models  of  interaction  for  designing  and  evaluating  interactive  art  systems   • Observing  and  recording  of  audience  engagement   • Analysing  information  about  participant  behaviour     • Relating  and  comparing  interactive  and  participant  experiences   • Following  artistic  instincts  and  intentions  and  satisfying  your  sponsors     Evaluation  in  Art  Practice:  artist  using  evidence    

Arts  Council  of  England  (ACE)  funding  for  evaluation  research  at  Site  Gallery   Sheffield.  This  work  is  described  in  the  recent  paper  presented  at  ISEA  2013   (Candy  et  al,  2013).  Here  I  will  focus  on  the  artist’s  use  of  evidence  for   evaluation.       From  the  interview  and  video  data  several  categories  of  findings  were   identified  based  upon  the  questions  about  audience  response,  curatorial   design  and  the  effect  of  carrying  out  this  kind  of  exercise  with  the  public.  To   focus  on  how  an  artist  might  evaluate  such  data:  in  this  case,  the  artist  drew   out  some  interesting  observations  about  audience  response  to  the  Shaping   Space  work.  In  particular,  he  observed  from  the  keywords  extracted  across   the  25  participants,  a  difference  between  what  we  have  called  the  analytic   versus  affective  responses.  The  distinction  was  in  response  to  the  interactivity   and  experience  of  the  ‘Shaping  Space’  interactive  work,  in  which  two  screens   hung  in  space  with  back  projection  of  the  images  and  two  cameras  capturing   motion  that  was  fed  into  the  program  and  influenced  the  colour  range  and   changes  in  display  elements.     The  experience  of  an  interactive  artwork  or  installation  can  work  in  many   different  dimensions-­‐  see  the  affective  responses  in  the  right  hand  list  of  table   1  below.      

 

7  

Table  1:  Analytic  and  Affective  Responses  to  ‘Shaping  Space’     ANALYTIC           AFFECTIVE  

  How  does  evidence  of  this  kind  provide  the  artist  with  a  means  of  evaluating   the  audience  response  to  their  work?  First,  it  is  important  to  note  that  whilst   artists  regularly  gain  insights  from  observing  audience  response  to  their   artworks  in  situ,  a  more  systematic  study  can  provide  deeper  levels  of   understanding  that  do  not  necessarily  come  from  casual  observation.     Artist  comments:  

 

 “The  question  for  me  is,  what  is  it  about  the  work  that  encourages  these  very   different  types  of  response?”    

  Affective  Experience:   “My  work  is  intended  to  work  at  this  level.  The  reactions  were  encouraging   and  affirm  the  direction  I  am  going  in  already.  At  the  same  time  I  was  surprised   at  how  strong  they  were.”  

  Analytic  Experience:     “The  comments  on  interactivity  were  unexpected  and  raised  questions  about   using  movement  as  an  element  in  that  particular  context.  In  future  work,  I  plan   to  change  the  response  mechanisms  to  respond  to  the  findings.  The  slow   response  mechanisms  need  to  be  clearer,  for  example.  It  will  be  an   experimental  process”.      

For  the  artist  in  this  case,  the  affective  responses  to  the  experience  of  ‘Shaping   Form’  were  encouraging  insofar  as  they  affirmed  the  direction  he  was  aiming   for.  Nevertheless,  he  was  surprised  by  the  extent  of  strength  of  that  response   and  felt  more  strongly  that  he  could  build  more  confidently  upon  an  

 

8  

affirmation  of  that  direction.  By  contrast,  however,  the  analytic  responses  to   the  interactive  experience  itself  were  unexpected  and  revealed  a  variety  of   questioning  responses  across  the  board  about  using  interactive  capability   that  relied  on  movement.  Adults  were  inhibited  in  ways  that  children  were   not,  with  many  refusing  to  stay  long  in  the  space  or  consciously  avoiding   movement  altogether  and  leaning  very  still  against  the  wall  watching  the   work.  This  gave  rise  to  some  doubt  about  showing  that  particular  artwork  in   a  dedicated  space  that  acted  more  like  a  contemplative  cell-­‐  a  “sacred  space”   reliant  as  the  work  was  on  physical  movement.  On  the  other  hand,  from  the   artists’  perspective  the  audience  response  might  turn  out  to  be  a  very  positive   element  in  changing  his  existing  assumptions  about  using  interactivity  in   relation  to  certain  kinds  of  artworks.     Evaluation  in  Practice-­‐based  Research:  a  Trajectory  Model   We  have  looked  at  this  process  of  gathering  data  and  evaluating  it  more   systematically  with  a  study  of  a  number  of  artists  doing  practice-­‐based   research  which  involved  evaluation  with  audiences  at  ‘Betaspace’  in  the   Powerhouse  Museum,  Sydney.  Some  of  it  has  already  been  documented  in  a   book  which  represents  ten  years  of  digital  art  practice-­‐based  research  (Candy   and  Edmonds  (2011).  From  the  study  we  identified  a  model  of  practice  and   research  in  which  evaluation  played  a  key  role  in  the  interpretation  of  data.   The  context  is  PBR  in  doctoral  research  and  there  were  common  elements   such  as  being  able  to  create  artefacts  as  part  of  the  research  process.  What   you  see  here  is  a  standard  trajectory  model  whereby  the  activity  moves   between  practice  (making  works),  theory  (identifying  criteria  and   frameworks)  and  evaluation  (documented  reflections  on  decisions  and   interpreting  data.     There  are  many  different  pathways  through  the  trajectory  model  and  here  is   one  in  which  the  practice  itself  drives  the  creation  of  new  theory.  This   represents  the  research  process  of  Andrew  Johnston  whose  chapter  in  the   Interacting  book  provides  more  detail  (Johnston,  2011).  His  model  of   different  forms  of  interaction  between  performer  and  art  system-­‐ instrumental,  ornamental  and  conversational  was  a  knowledge  outcome  from   this  work  (see  details  in  Edmonds  and  Candy,  2011).  The  embedding  of   evaluation  and  research  into  Andrew’s  practice  is  demonstrated  by  the   ongoing  collaborative  projects  and  new  understandings  he  has  achieved  from   those  collaborations.  

 

9  

  Sean  Clark  is  an  artist  researching  use  of  systems  concepts  in  interactive  art.   His  framework  arising  from  a  simple  model  of  audience  interaction  with  an   artwork.  As  he  worked  evaluation  of  his  work,  his  discovery  was  that  in  an   exhibition  with  more  than  one  work  there  was  the  potential  for  interaction   between  the  works  as  well  as  the  audience.  His  framework  moved  from   systems  to  ecologies.  The  trajectory  model  is  being  used  by  Sean  Clark  to  map   his  practice  and  research  process.       Andrew’s  Johnston  has  continued  to  deploy  the  framework  he  developed  in   his  practice-­‐based  research.  The  embedding  of  evaluation  and  research  into   Andrew’s  practice  is  demonstrated  by  the  ongoing  collaborative  projects  and   new  understandings  he  has  achieved  from  those  collaborations.  This  work   and  others  will  be  presented  in  a  forthcoming  book  in  the  Springer  Cultural   Computing  series  in  2014  (Candy  and  Ferguson,  2014).     Evaluation  influencing  Practice     The  examples  discussed  above  were:     • Light  Logic  evidence:    influenced  future  direction  for  making  art   • Comparing  exhibitions  of  art  systems:  influenced  creation  of  new   framework  for  art  practice   • Extending  existing  framework:  from  individual  to  collaborative    strategies     Practitioners  such  as  these  are  at  the  same  time  as  creating  new  work  are   developing  new  forms  of  practitioner  knowledge  that  will  inform  their   practice  on  a  life  time  basis.  

 

10  

Conclusions  

  To  conclude:  I  have  argued  that  we  need  to  view  evaluation  as  something  to   be  embedded  in  the  creative  process  not  only  to  be  better  able  to  create  new   forms  of  artwork  but  also  to  generate  new  knowledge  that  practitioners  can   use  to  further  their  professional  expertise.  To  that  end,  I  have  focused  on  the   notion  of  evidence-­‐based  evaluation  from  which  practitioners  create  new   work  and  at  the  same  time  generate  new  understandings.  To  achieve  that   evaluation  becomes  an  integral  part  of  influencing  the  process  and  the   outcomes.  In  the  arts  this  is  a  new  form  of  evaluation  that  draws  upon  HCI   and  social  science  for  its  methodology.  I  believe  it  is  necessary  for  the  future   of  the  interactive  digital  arts  and  perhaps  the  arts  in  general,  because  of  the   essential  collaboration  across  disciplines  necessary  to  achieve  successful   interactive  arts  of  the  future.    Vivid  gave  us  Cybernetic  Serendipity  for  the   public  at  large  in  2013.  But  where  to  next?  For  future  progress,  we  need  to   build  a  more  sustainable  foundation  for  the  development  of  creative  practice.   I  believe  that  evaluation  can  play  a  key  role  if  it  is  founded  on  expertise  that   comes  from  evidence-­‐based  approaches.     References     Candy,  Linda.  (2012)  Evaluating  Creativity,  in  Carroll,  J.  M.(ed).  Creativity  and   Rationale:  Enhancing  Human  Experience  By  Design,  Springer:  57-­‐84.     Candy,  Linda.  and  Edmonds,  Ernest.A.  (2011).  Interacting:  Art,  Research  and   the  Creative  Practitioner,  Libri  Publishing  Ltd:  Faringdon,  UK.     Candy,  Linda,  Edmonds,  Ernest,  Alarcón,  Ximena,  Smith  Sophy  (2013).   Evaluation  in  Public  Art:  The  Light  Logic  Exhibition,  ISEA  2013.     Candy,  L.  (2011).  Research  and  Creative  Practice.  In  Candy,  L.  and  Edmonds,   E.A.  (eds)  Interacting:  Art,  Research  and  the  Creative  Practitioner,  Libri   Publishing  Ltd:  Faringdon,  UK:  33-­‐59.     Candy,  Linda  and  Ferguson,  Sam  (2014).  Interactive  Experience  in  the  Digital   Age:  Evaluating  New  Art  Practice,  Springer  Cultural  Computing  Series.     Edmonds,  E.A  and  Candy,  L.  (2010)  Relating  Theory,  Practice  and  Evaluation   in  Practitioner  Research,  Leonardo  Journal  43  (5)  470–476     IXIA  (2013).  Public  Art:  a  Guide  to  Evaluation,  IXIA  PA  limited:  http://ixia-­‐ info.com/research/evaluation/     Galenson,  David.  (2007).  Old  masters  and  young  geniuses;  the  two  life  cycles   of  artistic  creativity,  Princeton  University  Press.     Latulipe,  Celine  (2013).  The  value  of  research  in  creativity  and  the  arts.   Proceedings  of  the  9th  ACM  Conference  on  Creativity  &  Cognition,  pp1-­‐10.  

 

11