The Impact of Interactivity on Art Experience
Jakub Grosz, 2011, Prague City University, School of Art & Design, BA Fine Art Experimental Media
‘Experience is the result, the sign, and the reward of that interaction of organism and environment which, when it is carried to the full, is a transformation of interaction into participation and communication’ (Dewey, 1934, p. 22).
Expression and experience are, from my point of view, the critical substance, which forms anything that can be considered art. Expression carries idea, personal feelings, intention and meaning as well as representation and context, while experience embodies emotion, consciousness, imagination and perception. How does interactivity form experience in Interactive Art? In interactive art installations we are no longer just spectators, but our actions and their consequences are the very essence of an art piece and can be seen as part of the artist’s expression. Can such an active relationship between audience, artwork, and artist result in a new form of art experience?
Interactive Art, although only occasionally appearing during the 20th Century, entered the art world in the late 1960s and exploded as phenomenon during the 1990s with advent of personal computers. The only way to evaluate its role in the theory and history of art is to discuss it from several different perspectives. My intention is to analyze interactivity as a medium in its own right as well as experience in interactive art forms, and so come up with ideas and concepts that can help to understand the greater impact of interactivity in art.
I will begin by focusing on the nature of interactivity itself as well as in the context of interactive installation art, together with a brief presentation of the technology used. I will also discuss issues of play, exploration and creative learning in relation to Interactive Art. In the second part, I will introduce a new method of categorizing interactive installations. I will apply this method to concrete artworks in order to uncover certain aspects and features that form experience in computer-based interactive installation art.
Interactive Art
Interactivity as Medium
What is interactivity? What makes computer-based Interactive Art installations interactive for the audience? The term has been used in so many fields and concepts, that one can become confused about its real meaning. In a recent study, philosopher Aaron Smuts analyzed different definitions of interactivity and, as a result, introduced a new definition of interactivity as well as a new perspective on how to look at interactive systems. Smuts (2009, pp. 53-73) finds a paradigm of interaction in conversation. He argues that the degree and type of responsiveness of interaction can be used to measure and determine whether something is interactive. He further explains that interactivity - instead of being the property of an object - must be considered as a relational aspect; in order for something to be interactive, its responsiveness should neither be completely controllable nor completely random.
Even though Smuts’ concept may be well applicable for interactivity in a wide range of fields, taking it into account in Interactive Art needs further justification. A large number of interfaces for interactive installations are designed in a way that is closer to complete responsiveness. Through various interfaces, users make choices. They navigate themselves, manipulate and rearrange various media, real and virtual objects, or any other elements of interactive installations. But generally if there is no malfunction of the system, it is fully controllable. In such cases it is necessary to analyze the elements they interact with. In human conversation, the content of responses is usually not fully predictable. The situation in interactive installations can be to some extent considered similar, because the artist’s expression through the elements incorporated in the installation can not (in most cases) be predicted either. Participants trigger an action or navigate using the interface, but what exactly happens next is usually a unique experience for each participant or viewer. However, the above-mentioned fact doesn’t mean that all art installations incorporating input from participants can be defined as interactive. A critical approach must be taken in their evaluation. Smuts (2009, p. 56) noted that ‘to think that DVD chapter selection or TV channel changing is interactive is to mistake control over the presentation of an artwork with interactivity’. In light of this, a clear distinction between real Interactive Art and controllable installations can be made. Some installations may be simply unsuccessful interactive artworks and even though an audience can enjoy such works for either aesthetic or personal reasons, such installations may not be considered as works of Interactive Art, but rather experimental interfaces. Besides fully controllable installations, there are also interactive installations that incorporate the special balance between random and complete responsiveness as an essential building block. The installation Very Nervous System, developed by David Rokeby [fig.1], allows a participant to use his own body as a kind of musical instrument. Different movements result in more or less harmonic music, but absolute control remains unachievable (MediaArtTube, 2010).
Fig.1, David Rokeby - Very Nervous System (Rokeby, 1993).
Although there are many other aspects of interactive artwork that need to be considered if one is trying to evaluate it, the balance of responsiveness of the system together with the unpredictability of future events and occurrences resulting in experienced interactivity seems to be important. Events where responsiveness is random rather than controllable may also be treated positively, because it is in some sense a part of communication from an artwork and artist directed towards the participant. It is also possible to relate such events and the balance of interactivity to the level of abstraction of the artwork. And what is more, if one tries to find the essence of Interactive Art, it could be hidden exactly here. The American philosopher John Dewey (1934, p. 14) stated in his writings about experience in art, ‘Since the artist cares in a peculiar way for the phase of experience in which union is achieved, he does not shun moments of resistance and tension. He rather cultivates them, not for their own sake but because of their potentialities, bringing to living consciousness an experience that is unified and total’.
In relation to this, it is important to mention that unlike other art forms, where the artist’s expression is embodied in a finished object or image, a performance, composition of words, or any other ‘graspable’ means, Interactive Art builds besides such means on a direct relationship achieved through interactivity, which becomes medium itself. Moreover, ‘expression’ is interconnected directly with the experience of participants, creating a certain loop or paradox. The actual experience of a participant, resulting from the expression of the artist as well as his own actions, is in very special and unique way turned back into the artist’s expression. In Interactive Art, any interface is only a tool to initiate and bridge a relationship between participant and artist through his artwork. Interactivity is the medium.
Viewer, User or Participant?
The existence of interactive installation art is dependent upon the participant in very concrete way. According to Rush (2005, p. 222), ‘There is no art in this arena without the public’. Although the works of artists creating non-interactive art also need to be viewed and experienced in order to qualify them artworks, the situation in Interactive Art is different. Interactive Art only fully exists when it is experienced by a participant in a physical relationship with the artwork. Only at that moment and at that moment only does it achieve its purpose. Observing someone interacting with an interactive installation does not mean that Interactive Art is being observed. The experienced relationship through interactivity creates the meaning and artistic qualities of the installation, rather than any understanding of principles involved through observation.
In relation to this, it is important to establish proper terminology as there is general confusion in most of the texts about interactive installations as well as Interactive Art. People interacting with artworks are sometimes called viewers, in other cases users or participants. The term ‘viewer’ does not describe anything other than a person who is merely observing something. The term ‘user’ has the same problem, only observation is replaced by usage. From what has been mentioned above about their role in connection with the essence of Interactive Art, the term ‘participant’ seems to be the most appropriate description, as participation is closer than other terms to the relational aspect of Interactive Art.
Play, Exploration and Creative Learning
Interactivity in art provides an audience with new experiences, not only through the special relationship between participant, artwork, and artist (as has been mentioned above), but also through play, exploration and creative learning. Rush (2005, pp. 222-224) commented that ‘Interactive artists like Americans Ken Feingold, Perry Hoberman, … the Japanese Masaki Fujihata, the Germans Bernd Lintermann and Torsten Belschner, to name a few, positively encourage viewers to create their own narratives or associations with their interactive works’. Rush (2005, p. 227) further states ‘The artist has now become a facilitator of the art experience with the interactive artwork becoming, in a sense, an extension of education, a hands-on type of creative learning’. This can be considered a significant change from the experience of non-interactive art, where a viewer creates his meaning of an artwork through sensual perception like vision and hearing, mainly as a mental process.
However, play and exploration in Interactive Art do not intend to entertain the viewer in the way video games do, but to invite him to experience himself as a creative being in mutual dialogue with the artist, using interactive principles to create meaning that is unique and intimate. Play constitutes the urge to discover, it attracts the participant to learn not only about what the artwork is about, but who he is in the world and the ideas the artist is expressing. Moreover, the possibility to play with composition, to choose the path of exploration, gives participants of Interactive Art the creative power, which has previouly been the exclusive domain of artists.In relation to this, it is important to mention several examples of interactive installations, where the idea of play and creativity is especially present. However, I personally consider these principles, in any imaginable form, universal for all Interactive Art. According to art historian Söke Dinkla (1994) in the installation Videoplace [fig.2], developed by Myron Krueger since 1974, users are allowed to ‘play with constantly changing versions of themselves’. Another example can be seen in the installation The Watch Detail, created in 1990 by Bill Seaman. This piece allows participants to interactively explore a large amount of media related to time and to manipulate this media by means of superimpositions, re-orientation, navigation and selection (William Seaman, 2010).
Fig.2, Myron Krueger - Videoplace (Krueger, 1974).
Art, Science and Technology
Responsiveness between participant and artwork is in many cases created using custom built computer-based interfaces, incorporating various sensors and high-tech equipment. Devices like motion, heat and touch sensors, as well as infra-red and thermal cameras, touch screens, biofeedback medical sensors like EEG and EMG (to name but a few), provide information in real-time, processed in various computer applications to generate feedback. Such feedback can take many forms, such as sound and video projection, mechanical output using robotics, air or liquid pressure to operate physical objects, control of lights, or any other imaginable conditions and aspects designed by artists. It is important to mention that the feedback can be triggered as a one time event, or it can be a continuous stream of responses. In some cases it may also be a combination of both.
Although participants have many possibilities as to what to do with content, through interactions like choice, manipulation, modulation, change and navigation, the content and design of the structures involved in the installations are mainly the domain of the artist. It is the artist’s expression and intention that shape the installation - not only the content, but (as has been mentioned above), the principles of interactivity as well. Here it is apparent that artist should create both content and interactivity as one unified piece. Otherwise, there is a danger that however great the content that is presented, the interaction is only a tool to access it, and the interactive installation becomes a multimedia installation, where the potentialities and essence of interactivity stay either unused or misused.
Interactive Installations
Categorisation of Interactive Art Installations
Since the 1960s, a large number of interactive installations have been developed by artists, in some cases together with scientists and engineers. All of these installations are unique art works in many aspects. Form, structure, content and the expression of the artists shape these installations on one side, while the individual experiences of participants complete the artworks on the other side. Everything imaginable lies between, like in any work of art. Some installations had only a short life, presented once for limited time. Others had or have been developed over years and even decades, like already mentioned, Myron Krueger’s installation Videoplace, which he started to work on in 1972 and continued until the 1990s (MediaArtTube, 2008).
In light of this, the categorization of interactive installation artworks may seem impossible due to their complexity. However, certain aspects of these artworks can be selected as key features and can help to uncover basic characteristics for further study in this still-new form of art. Based on my research in Interactive Art, I have distinguished three major types of interactive installations. The first category is Interactive Spaces and Sculptures, where the main characteristic lies in the relation to three-dimensional physical space and objects. The second category is Interactive Media Installations, which cover a wide range of installations using as the primary content videos, images, texts and audio material. Finally, the third category is Interactive Worlds, which embody not only Virtual Reality installations, but also other works using computer-generated data in complex systems, that may be classified as alternative realities.
Despite the fact that interactivity can be considered as a medium in all works qualified as Interactive Art, and that it would seem that the type of interaction could help to categorise these artworks, it would mean emphasising technique above the nature and meaning of interactive artworks as well as issues of representation. In fact, the type of interaction tells us much less about the installations than the categories described. However, the categorization mentioned above can not be at all considered final and applicable to all computer-based interactive installations, as there are works which fit into more than one category, as well as works that do not fit into any of them.
Interactive Spaces and Sculptures
One of the main characteristics of either interactive spaces or interactive sculptures is their three-dimensional physical existence. In both cases they can be described as real architecture with interactive features or systems. Such features may have many forms, ranging from visible object-based interfaces to invisible interfaces resulting in the responsiveness of an entire room, or in extreme cases of an entire building. Despite the physical presence of those structures, there is no meaning in such installations (and therefore no art as intended by artist), unless they are interactively explored and experienced by participants.Responsive spaces and interactive sculptures were among the first examples of Interactive Art. Although there is no computer technology involved and the type of interactivity is very different from works created after the 1960s, an early example of interactive sculpture can be found in the work of Marcel Duchamp [fig.3]. According to Rush (2005, p. 222), his concept that the viewer completes the artwork is especially present in his installation Rotary Glass Plates (Precision Optics), which he created together with Man Ray in 1920. For this piece the viewer is required to turn on the machine and stand one meter away. In the context of the time this installation was presented, it probably did have an interesting impact on viewers, who had a chance to experience the piece, mainly because they could initiate dynamic motion and experience an optical illusion.
Fig.3, Marcel Duchamp - Rotay Glass Plates (Yale University Art Gallery, 1920).
However, the first interactive spaces were created almost 50 years later. Dinkla (1994) states ‘With the American Myron Krueger the development of computer-controlled Interactive Art started’. Dinkla further explains that in 1969 Krueger started to create spaces where visitors’ actions were followed by effects. In the same year, Krueger teamed up with inventor of a video image processor Dan Sandlin, sculptor Jerry Erdman, and scientist Richard Venezsky, to develop a computer-based art project Glowflow [fig.4] (Hieronymi, 2004). Artist Andrew Hieronymi described the installation as follows:
"In a dark empty room, four transparent tubes were attached to the gallery walls. The tubes had phosphorescent particles in water with each tube containing a different colored pigment. The room was completely dark, and the lighted tubes provided the only visual reference. They were arranged to distort the visitor’s perception as they caused the room to appear wider in the center than at each end. As the visitors walked down the length of the room they felt that they were going downhill with respect to their own position based on the direction of the tube." (Hieronymi, 2004)

Fig.4, Myron Krueger - Plan of Glowflow project (, no date).

From this description it is possible to understand the intention to change a participant’s perception of the space, to modify an environment in real-time in such a way that he perceives different conditions than are real by shaping the only visible artefacts in the space through light in respect to his position. The experience of such an environment must be very powerful for the audience, not only because visual perception takes over other senses, but also because it forms an overall perception of space. Viewers were likely fighting in their consciousness, whether they were really going downhill or they were just on level ground, which was supported by the awareness of the location of parts of their body, their proprioception.
In the 1970 Expo Exhibition in Osaka, Artist Robert Whitman and scientist Billy Klüver led a large American-Japanese team of artists and engineers to create a massive multimedia installation in the dome-shaped pavilion commissioned by the Pepsi Cola Company [fig.5] (Zakros Interarts, no date). Billy Klüver described the concept of the installation as follows:The initial condition of the artist who designed the Pepsi Cola Pavilion was, that the quality of the experience of the visitor should involve choice, responsibility, freedom and participation. The visitor would be encouraged as an individual to explore the environment and compose his own experience. (Packer, 2003)

Fig.5, Robert Whitman and Billy Klüver - Pepsi Pavilion in Expo ‘70 Japan (Burrows, 1970).

Multidisciplinary works incorporated in the pavilion and surroundings included a real-time spatially distributed sound system, laser deflection system, fog system responding to weather conditions, interactive kinetic sculptures, projections, light and mirror installations as well as responsive floor sound systems and performance areas (Zakros Interarts, no date).An example of interactive sculpture can be found in the work of American artist Ken Feingold. His installation, Childhood/ Hot and Cold Wars (The appearance of Nature) [fig.6], created in 1993, involves a globe placed on a table wrapped around a grandfather clock. When a viewer rotates the globe, hundreds of TV images from the 1950s and 1960s are projected from within the clock onto the clock face according to the speed of rotation (Rush, 2005, p. 226). This time-based installation builds on physical objects interactively combined with moving images to create unity in representation, allowing participants to explore not only the content of the images, but the sculpture itself according their own rhythm. Although, the concept is seemingly simple, the experience of the participant may have been quite complex, as memories of those who had lived in the 1950s and 1960s may have been recalled in response to their actions.

Fig.6, Ken Feingold - Childhood / Hot & Cold Wars (The Appearance of Nature) (Feingold, 1993).

The four examples mentioned above give an insight into how installations, described as interactive spaces and sculptures, can form individual experiences. On the one hand, there is sensation coming from unique expressive changes of the structure and properties of the space or object in response to a participant’s action. On the other hand, other sensations may come from the responsiveness of media incorporated as essential part of the otherwise static physical architectural structure. These installations play directly with participant’s perception of the space in dialogue with their proprioception, or in other words, perception of their body.
Interactive Media Installations
Video, digital imagery, photography, literature, and audio materials are the main media involved in creating experience in interactive media installations. Static and linear structures are turned into dynamic non-linear forms, compositions and collages; not only as expressions by artists, but also as creative collaborations by participants, who explore, edit, choose and manipulate the media facilitated within the installations to make their own narratives, meaning and experience. However, it is important to mention here that the artistic qualities of media incorporated in these artworks play as important a role as the interactivity itself. Visual perception is still dominant in forming the overall experience, and all details must be considered and unified for the result to become a work of art.A good example of an installation where participants interact with media can be found in the work of Artist Bill Seaman. According to Rush (2005, p. 224), the installation Passage Set / One pulls Pivots at the Tip of the Tongue [fig.7], created in 1995, allows viewers to press on highlighted text fields on three projections, which results in changes to the projected composition of texts and images. Rush further states ‘Seaman’s installation allows for sequential reading, much like viewing a painting or reading a poem’. With no input from audience this installation is static projection of imagery and text with a special atmosphere. But once the participant lays hands on it, the artwork comes alive, providing a dynamic visual experience combined with creative composition of poetic text. Seaman composed the media and the installation itself, but shares the composition of meaning and experience with the participants.

Fig.7, Bill Seaman - Passage Set/ One pulls Pivots at the Tip of the Tongue (, no date).

Unique work with video footage is present in the interactive installation created by Camille Utterback between 2000 and 2002 [fig.8]. ‘In the Liquid Time Series installation, a participant’s physical motion in the installation space fragments time in a pre-recorded video clip’ (Utterback, 2011). Utterback further explains that one’s body, existing in one place at time, creates a space with the coexistence of multiple times and perspectives, producing imagery described as video cubism. Not many interactive installations allow more than one participant to compose mutual experience. The Liquid Time Series gives this possibility, and in very special way, because it uses video footage from crowded streets and places. The more participants that interact with the installation, the more changes occur on the projection involving people in motion. Although it is impossible to adequately decode experience with such installation, I assume that one form of the experience can be individual self-projection into the visualized dynamic space-time, as the responsiveness of the system allows its manipulation and rhythmic composition.Interactive media installations invite participants to explore their own creativity within the frame of the installation. Constantly changing and manipulated visual or sound projections responding to a participant’s performance dynamically shape perception. In this field, perception of change means change of perception. This process results in unique creative experience.

Fig.8, Camille Utterback - The Liquid Time Series (Utterback, 2011).

Interactive Worlds
The idea to create or depict complex alternative worlds has been present in many art forms from Salvator Dali’s surrealistic paintings, George Orwell’s novel 1984, and The Matrix movie by the Wachowski brothers to name a few. However, Interactive Art dealing with this subject-matter shifts the experience of alternative worlds from visual, linear narrative and mental dimensions to new dimensions of interactive exploration. What is more, in many cases it is supported by total immersion into these physically non-existent realities. Despite the fact that artists who literally build interactive worlds often incorporate media like photographs, videos and audio materials, these materials are not what primarily constitutes these worlds. Complex properties, conditions and structures designed by artists are among the foundations which form alternative interactive realities, together with interfaces that translate actions and intentions between reality and virtuality. To form these foundations, artists usually employ sophisticated computer algorithms, artificial intelligence principles, two-dimensional and three-dimensional vector geometry, real-time rendering engines for computer-generated imagery, as well as many other means and solutions to express their vision of the world they want to share with an audience.Although Virtual Reality installations are the dominant type of interactive worlds, there are other artworks that can qualify as representatives of this category. The installation Galápagos [fig.9], developed by Karl Sims in 1995, involves ‘twelve monitors with a computer-generated three-dimensional ‘creature’ visible on each are arranged in a semi-circle, with a footpad attached to each monitor. The viewer chooses a monitor, steps on the pad, and all other screens go blank. Random mutations of the chosen creature appear on the monitor and continue transformation into new generations of genetic images’ (Rush, 2005, p. 230). In spite of the limited interactivity (as viewers can only initiate the growth of the virtual organisms), the complexity of the system and use of algorithmic generative principles results in new unique world as well as a unique experience for each (in this case) ‘initiator’ rather than participant.

Fig.9, Karl Sims - Creatures from the installation Galápagos (Sims, 1997).

However, alternative worlds with continuous interactivity and immersive experience are the domain of Virtual Reality installations. Virtual Reality not only allows participants to navigate in three-dimensional expressive worlds, but also gives participants the option to perform actions inside the virtual environment. An example of such installation can be found in work of Maurice Benayoun. The main points from his presentation (V2unstable, 2010) of one of his projects follow: The interactive installation World Skin [fig.10] was created in 1997 for the CAVE projection system, due to the fact that Virtual Reality goggles would not allow the intended collective experience. Visitors equipped with special photo cameras and stereoscopic glasses navigate inside an infinite landscape filled with photos from the Second World War and the Bosnian War. When they take photos, the captured virtual surface, the skin of the world, is erased, but not entirely. Ghosts remain, and the actual photograph is printed for them. Benayoun is interested in creating situations and asks ‘What happens when we are put in the situations, that we are not supposed to experience?’ (V2unstable, 2010). Elements like group exploration, memories both from reality as well as gained within the installation, the horrors of war, and interactive principles which this installation builds upon may, among others, inform the experience of this artwork.These very different examples of interactive worlds show that complex alternative realities build upon an initial idea, which, however, carries various conditions and functionalities of such worlds. Individual experiences may be formed by the curiosity to uncover piece by piece the ideas and possibilities of the new world, in order to create one’s own understanding. In the case of immersive Virtual Reality, participants do not even project themselves into the virtual worlds, because they are literally inside.

Fig.10, Maurice Benayoun - World Skin, Virtual Reality Installation (Benayoun, 1997).

The dialogue between participant and interactive artwork representing the artist’s expression is what constitutes Interactive Art. In this dialogue, future events should not be fully predictable and the degree of responsiveness of the system can be related to the level of abstraction of the installation. Events with random responsiveness are, in some sense, a communication from the artwork to the participant. Such events should be treated as positive elements due to their potential of creating tension, which supports more suggestive personal experience.
In Interactive Art, interactivity itself is the medium, creating an amazing loop, where the participant’s experience of the artist’s expression and his own actions is turned back into the artist’s expression. This idea is supported by the fact that Interactive Art only exists and achieves its purpose when it is experienced by the participant in a direct physical relationship. Any interface is only a tool to initiate and bridge this relationship. The artist facilitates the experience by creating the means of interaction as well as the meaning embodied within the artwork. This is done in order to establish the relationship with the participant, who responds by actively developing his individual understanding and experience through exploration, play and creative learning. The participant is not only learning to understand what the artwork is expressing, but also who he is inside the given idea.
From my point of view, three strong categories of interactive installation art can be distinguished in order to uncover how interactivity forms experience in different interactive artworks. In the first category, Interactive Spaces and Sculptures, perception of the physical space and objects together with perception of the body create an experience of exploring three-dimensional structures. The second category, Interactive Media Installations, invites participants to work with various media by means of composing, manipulating and interactively exploring them, in order to creatively experiment with their own constantly changing perception. In Interactive Worlds, the last category, complex properties and conditions of alternative realities in response to a participant’s actions are perceived together, forming an overall perception of the virtual world that wants to be explored and understood.
Dewey, J. (1934) Art as Experience. Reprint, London: Penguin Books Ltd., 2005.
Smuts, A. (2009) ‘What is Interactivity’, Journal of Aesthetic Education, 43(4), pp. 53-73, JSTOR [Online]. Available at: (Accessed: 26 December 2010).
MediaArtTube (2010) David Rokeby - Very Nervous System, Interactive Environment 1986-. Available at: (Accessed: 5 January 2011).
Rush, M. (2005) New Media in Art. 2nd edn. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd.
Dinkla, S. (1994) The History of the Interface in Interactive Art. Available at: (Accessed: 29 December 2010).
Seaman, W. (2010) Bill Seaman / Recombinant Poetics. Available at: (Accessed: 5 January 2011).
MediaArtTube (2008) Myron Krueger - Videoplace, Responsive Environment, 1972-1990s. Available at: (Accessed: 6 January 2011).
Hieronymi, A. (2004) Interactive Environments. UCLA D|MA. Winter 04. Available at: (Accessed: 27 December 2010).
Packer, R. (2003) The Pavilion - Into the 21st Century. Available at: (Accessed: 23 December 2010).
Zakros Interarts (no date) The Pavilion - Into the 21st Century. Available at: (Accessed: 28 December 2010).
Utterback, C. (2011) Liquid Time Series 2000 – 2002. Available at: (Accessed: 10 January 2011).
V2unstable (2010) Maurice Benayoun presents: ‘World Skin’ during the ‘Tools for Propaganda’ test_lab. Available at: (Accessed: 6 January 2011).
Dewey, J. (1934) Art as Experience. Reprint, London: Penguin Books Ltd., 2005.
Smuts, A. (2009) ‘What is Interactivity’, Journal of Aesthetic Education, 43(4), pp. 53-73, JSTOR [Online]. Available at: (Accessed: 26 December 2010).
MediaArtTube (2010) David Rokeby - Very Nervous System, Interactive Environment 1986-. Available at: (Accessed: 5 January 2011).
Rush, M. (2005) New Media in Art. 2nd edn. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd.
Dinkla, S. (1994) The History of the Interface in Interactive Art. Available at: (Accessed: 29 December 2010).
Seaman, W. (2010) Bill Seaman / Recombinant Poetics. Available at: (Accessed: 5 January 2011).
MediaArtTube (2008) Myron Krueger - Videoplace, Responsive Environment, 1972-1990s. Available at: (Accessed: 6 January 2011).
Hieronymi, A. (2004) Interactive Environments. UCLA D|MA. Winter 04. Available at: (Accessed: 27 December 2010).
Packer, R. (2003) The Pavilion - Into the 21st Century. Available at: (Accessed: 23 December 2010).
Zakros Interarts (no date) The Pavilion - Into the 21st Century. Available at: (Accessed: 28 December 2010).
Utterback, C. (2011) Liquid Time Series 2000 – 2002. Available at: (Accessed: 10 January 2011).
V2unstable (2010) Maurice Benayoun presents: ‘World Skin’ during the ‘Tools for Propaganda’ test_lab. Available at: (Accessed: 6 January 2011).
Arnhem, R. (1974) Art and Visual Perception. 50Anniversary edn. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2004.
Virilio, P. (1994) The Vision Machine. Translated by Julie Rose. London: British Film Institue.
Colpani, M. (2010) New Media Shaping of Perception of Space and Perception of the Body. Master thesis. University of Amsterdam [Online]. Available at: (Accessed: 12 November 2010).
Benayoun, M. (no date) World Skin, a Photo Safari in the Land of War. Available at: (Accessed: 12 November 2010).
Jung H., Lee K., Bakaev M., Kim J., Cheng H. (2007) Think Aloud Exhibition for Interactive Media Artworks [Online]. Available at: (Accessed: 16 December 2010).
Gonzales A., Finley T., Duncan S. (2008) Interactive Art : Effects on User Identity and User Satisfaction [Online]. Available at: (Accessed: 29 December 2010).
Jungmann M., Lutz R., Villar N., Husbands P., Fitzpatrick G. (no date) Exploring the Boundaries between Perception and Action in an Interactive System [Online]. Available at: manuela_jungmannEnactiveO6.pdf (Accessed: 16 December 2010).
Mueller L., Edmonds E. (2006) Living Laboratories: Making and Curating Interactive Art [Online]. Available at: (Accessed: 28 December 2010).