In the realm of live performance, the integration of interactive art and innovative technology has fundamentally transformed audience engagement, ushering in an era characterized by immersive and multi-sensory experiences. Interactive technology not only entices artists, but also attracts consumers and investors, leading to its widespread adoption across various art forms. It began to thrive in theaters, museums, galleries, and exhibitions, as well as at prestigious art conferences (Saltz, 1997). This shift is deeply intertwined with transformative processes and technological advancements, leading to innovative forms of expression. Theater, in particular, has embraced these changes, utilizing digital technologies such as light, holographic programs, and visual installations to create interactive performances. (Sovhyra et al., 2023). This article will argue that live performances with interactive art and innovative technologies are better than traditional performances, especially in terms of audience engagement and theatrics. Illustrate how they increase audience engagement and create a deeper connection between performer and audience. This essay will commence by defining interactive art and exploring its diverse manifestations. It will then conduct a comprehensive comparison between contemporary live performances and traditional art performances. Subsequently, the essay will analyze and evaluate the varied applications of interactive art across different performance genres and settings, illustrating its positive impacts on audience engagement and artistic innovation. Finally, the essay will provide a comprehensive summary of the discussed topics, elucidating the impact of interactive art and innovative technologies on future artistic performances.
Interactive art regards the audience as a crucial component of the artwork, allowing for a dynamic relationship where audience behaviour directly influences and alters the artistic experience. For interactive art practitioners, the primary focus is on creating works that actively engage the audience, transcending traditional static paintings. While painters may prioritize the audience’s perception of colour, scale, and figurative references, interactive artists are concerned with how audiences interact with and respond to the artwork’s activities (Edmonds, 2018). This emphasis on audience interaction distinguishes interactive art from traditional forms, highlighting its capacity to create immersive and evolving artistic experiences. By inviting the audience to become co-creators of the artwork, interactive artists challenge traditional notions of authorship and viewer roles, blurring the boundaries between artist and audience. This dynamic relationship between the artwork and the audience not only increases audience engagement but also opens up new possibilities for artistic expression and interpretation.
Taylor (2015) emphasized that “Interaction is the genesis of all things,” underscoring the significance of innovative technology. This notion strongly aligns with the rapid technological advancements of the late 1960s, characterized by the emergence of groundbreaking technologies such as the mouse and early forms of telecommunication. These innovations laid the foundation for modern computing paradigms, challenging societal perceptions, and paving the way for a digital revolution. Furthermore, Taylor argues that interaction design is about world-making, not just the interplay between people and machines. Interactive art often employs innovative technologies to deepen audience engagement. For example, audiences can be enabled by sensors and computer programs to trigger, modify, or respond to various elements. With technological advancements, the audience’s role evolves, facilitating collaboration with artists to craft unique artistic experiences. In essence, the evolving relationship between technology, audience, and artist underscores the transformative potential of interactive art. This interaction enhances audience perception and revitalizes the art with new meaning and vitality.
正文第二部分 对比
The introduction of new media art, interactive art, digital art, and computer art did not initially arise from self-definition or provocation by artists’ groups (such as Futurism or Nouveau Réalisme) or from derogatory labels (such as Gothic or Impressionism), but rather as an objective classification based on technological characteristics (Kwastek, 2015). However, the development of interactivity as a fundamental feature of media technology did not progress rapidly. It was not until the 1950s that artists began creating installations that interacted with the environment or the public, mainly through light or sound sensors. At that time, these artists did not consider their works to be “interactive.” Despite early imaginings of using computers, very few artworks were actually created based on computer-controlled processes. It was not until the early 1980s that interactive media art began to emerge in the United States. The concept of “interactive art” did not gain significant recognition until the 1990s within the field of media art. The public’s perception of interactive media art as a distinct type was reinforced when it was included as a category in the Electronic Arts Awards in 1990, establishing its role in the realms of electronic and digital art. At that time, interactive art was often celebrated as a pioneering form of media art (Kwastek, 2015).
Traditional art forms such as painting or sculpture emphasize direct interaction with materials, which is considered indispensable (Jamaludin et al., 2021). However, the development of new technologies has led to a perception that traditional art making is outdated, as it often requires more time and effort. The emergence of new technologies enables artists to create more efficiently and rapidly, offering tools to realize their ideas more quickly.
Paul (2016) argues that while interactive art may not be as prominent in the art market, it reflects contemporary society and addresses the complex challenges we face. While traditional art has its unique characteristics, it may no longer be the sole option in modern society, as new technologies provide a broader range of expression and visualization, expanding the possibilities for artistic creation. Traditional art forms continue to hold value, but interactive art offers a dynamic and innovative approach that reflects the evolving nature of contemporary society. With technology continuing to advance, the possibilities for interactive art are limitless, predicting an exciting future for the intersection of art and technology.
第三部分
Dixon (2007) suggests that all artworks involve an interaction between the viewer and the artwork. This interaction has been further enhanced in contemporary art through the innovative use of digital technology. When audiences engage with artworks, they establish an interactive relationship with the pieces, which can manifest as an understanding, interpretation, or emotional resonance with the work. Under the impetus of technological advancement, contemporary theater is undergoing a profound transformation, fundamentally reshaping the production and reception of art. Sovhura et al.’s (2023) once argued the innovative use of digital technology has revolutionized the theatrical landscape, particularly with the emergence of interactive performances that seamlessly integrate digital elements such as lighting, holography, and visual installations. These interactive experiences not only deepen the audience’s connection to the artwork but also challenge traditional notions of spectatorship, transforming them into active co-creators of the artistic narrative. The forms of interaction between audience and performers in art influenced by innovative technology have become more diverse. For example, effective combinations of visual and auditory elements, immersive spaces created by virtual reality, the application of interactive digital media (video projection, 3D effects), and the use of virtual actors replacing real actors. This type of theater is not simply a combination of digital technology and traditional performance; rather, it represents a fusion of digital technology and traditional performance (Sovhura et al., 2023). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on individuals has been profound. With the outbreak of the pandemic, people have been forced to change their way of life, leading to restrictions on social and cultural activities, including the closure or limitation of theaters and performing arts events. However, the pandemic has also spurred transformation in the theater and performing arts industry. Many theaters have begun to explore digital and online approaches to stay connected with audiences through online performances and digital platforms. This digital transformation not only provides audiences with more opportunities to participate but also offers theaters new sources of revenue and modes of creativity. For example, the film “Talia” was accessible online via smartphones or computers during that time, and a renowned theater in France utilized the “Comedy Continues” online project. In the future, as digital technology continues to advance and be applied, the theater and performing arts industry will continue to explore innovative ways to adapt to evolving audience demands and societal environments. (Sovhura et al., 2023). This transformation is not only a temporary measure in response to the pandemic but also a persistent trend that will profoundly impact the future development of theaters and performing arts.
Interactive installation art encompasses artworks that demand the active involvement of the viewer to realize their complete artistic impact. Acting as a nexus for diverse art forms, these installations deliver a comprehensive artistic engagement to the audiences. They intensify bodily awareness and enrich visual and auditory perceptions by engaging participants interactively across temporal and spatial dimensions. For example, the interactive installation “Smiling Buddha” aims to transmit a smile from one observer to the next, creating a chain reaction of positive emotions and interactions among participants. It achieves this through the utilization of infrared sensing, smile recognition, video-multimedia display, and kinetic filming technologies. The artwork ultimately succeeds in disseminating smiles among participants, conveying positivity and happiness (Luo, Lin and Hung, 2019). Additionally, Castro, Velho and D. Kosminsky (2012) conducted experiments that further explore the potential of interactive artworks. Through experiments, they noticed that the public was interested in more engaging experiences. It also proves that the most attractive form of multimedia is interactive mode (Luo, Lin and Hung, 2019). Interactive installation art not only transforms the passive observer into an active participant but also challenges traditional notions of art as something static and unchanging. By inviting viewers to co-create the artistic experience, these artworks deepen the audience’s engagement and create a more meaningful connection between the artwork and the viewer. Interactive installation art stands at the forefront of contemporary art. To a certain extent, it provides new possibilities for artistic expression and interpersonal relations in the digital age.
While interactive technologies may have drawbacks such as technical failures and privacy concerns, they nonetheless offer numerous unique advantages and opportunities for live performances. Advancements in technology have expanded our sensory capabilities, allowing us to perceive previously unseen phenomena and altering our understanding of reality. This convergence of aesthetics and sensory perception introduces a new realm where non-sensory perception plays a crucial role in experiencing phenomena previously inaccessible to our natural senses (Mitchell et al., 2016). For example, the use of augmented reality (AR) in live performances can transform the stage into a dynamic, interactive environment. Artists can incorporate AR elements into their performances, such as interactive visuals that respond to the performers’ movements or audience interactions. This not only enhances the visual appeal of the performance but also creates a more immersive and engaging experience for the audience. Additionally, interactive technologies can enhance the entertainment value and creativity of performances, making them more innovative and unique. Therefore, despite some drawbacks, the judicious use of interactive technologies can still bring many positive effects and experiences to live performances.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this article has explored the integration of interactive art and innovative technologies in live performances, highlighting their advantages over traditional approaches. The analysis and evaluation conducted suggest that these new technologies have significantly enhanced live performances by increasing audience engagement and enriching the theatrical experience. Despite encountering challenges such as technical issues and privacy concerns, the benefits of interactive art and innovative technologies appear to outweigh these drawbacks. As technology continues to advance, the possibilities for enhancing live performances through interactive elements are expected to grow. Therefore, it can be inferred that the integration of interactive art and innovative technologies offers unique advantages for live performances, particularly in terms of audience engagement and theatrical impact.
Reference list
Castro, B.P., Velho, L. and D. Kosminsky (2012). INTEGRARTE: digital art using body interaction. pp.11–15. doi:https://doi.org/10.5555/2328888.2328891.
Dixon, S. (2007). Digital performance : a history of new media in theater, dance, performance art, and installation. Cambridge, Mass.: Mit Press.
Edmonds, E. (2022). The Art of Interaction. Springer Nature.
Hornbæk, K. and Oulasvirta, A. (2017). What Is Interaction? Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – CHI ’17. [online] doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025765.
Jamaludin, J., Azizan, H.A., Salim, N.A.M., Hassan, N. and Hashim, A.M. (2021). DESIGN-DECODED 2021: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Design Industries & Creative Culture, DESIGN DECODED 2021, 24-25 August 2021, Kedah, Malaysia. [online] Google Books. European Alliance for Innovation. Available at: https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=BDVuEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Disadvantages+of+traditional+art&ots=3FPZPUwIYo&sig=qRwYrHXi9CtoBWsPWm6yYuYbNP4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false [Accessed 19 Apr. 2024].
Kwastek, K. (2015). Aesthetics of Interaction in Digital Art. [online] Google Books. MIT Press. Available at: https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Aesthetics_of_Interaction_in_Digital_Art/ZjoiEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=History+of+interactive+art&printsec=frontcover [Accessed 19 Apr. 2024].
Luo, H.-L., Lin, J. and Hung, Y.-P. (2019). Interactive Art–Smiling Buddha: Recording the Moment at Which an Observer Smiles Through Sight Detection and Smile Recognition. Leonardo, [online] 52(2), pp.179–180. Available at: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/721951 [Accessed 19 Nov. 2022].
Mitchell, T., Hyde, J., Tew, P. and Glowacki, D.R. (2016). danceroom Spectroscopy: At the Frontiers of Physics, Performance, Interactive Art and Technology. Leonardo, [online] 49(2), pp.138–147. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43833080 [Accessed 20 Apr. 2024].
Paul, C. (2016). A companion to digital art. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.
Saltz, D.Z. (1997). The Art of Interaction: Interactivity, Performativity, and Computers. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 55(2), p.117. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/431258.
Shaw, J. (2000). Media Art and Interactive Media. [online] brill.com. Available at: https://brill.com/display/book/9789004495005/B9789004495005_s021.xml.
Taylor, A. (2015). After interaction. interactions, 22(5), pp.48–53. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/2809888.
Tetiana Sovhura, Iryna Ivashchenko, Viktoria STRELCHUK, Катерина Пивоварова and Anatolii Tykhomyrov (2023). The Problem of Introduction of Digital Technologies in the Performing Arts. Journal on computing and cultural heritage, 16(1), pp.1–8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/3587169.
