ART + technology = Interactive Media Art = Video Game?

As the first example of the technology’s effect on the possibilities of art, I would like to examine a relatively new and somewhat obscure ‘video game’ entitled Electroplankton.

Electroplankton, released on the Nintendo DS in 2005 in Japan, is not the typical, every-day video game. In fact, when looking at various reviews and impressions on the Internet, it seems that most would even hesitate to call it a video game, due to there being no set goal toward which the ‘player’ aims. Time limits and high scores simply do not exist, nor does any sort of save function. The genre of Electroplankton is officially labeled as ‘media art,’ and in an interview published on the official website, the creator refuses to call it a ‘game.’ So then, what is it that the user does with Electroplankton? Put simply, the user is given the opportunity to interact with animated, electric ‘plankton’ through the Nintendo DS’s touch-screen interface and microphone function, creating a visual and musical experience that becomes solely his or her own. In all, the user is given a choice of ten different interfaces to manipulate, each consisting of differing sounds and visuals. Because the user is limited to interacting with one of the ten interfaces at a time, some would argue that the game actually gives a limited interactive experience. However, it is up to the user how he or she would like to manipulate each of the interfaces, and is highly unlikely that any two experiences with each interface would end up being identical.

An in-'game' screen capture from Electroplankton.

Developed by the Japanese interactive media and installation artist, Iwai Toshio, Electroplankton, in fact, shares many similarities with interactive, digital media installations of the last few decades, embracing the idea of ‘response’ becoming a primary medium of the work. In an essay entitled Responsive Environments, new media artist Myron W. Krueger suggests the advent of a “new art medium based on commitment to real-time interaction between men and machines”—a medium that is comprised of “sensing, display and control systems.” While a traditional painting can be considered a completed work of art without the presence of an audience, artworks that take audience response as a primary medium simply cannot exist, or at the very least cannot be complete, without the interaction of the audience. This is very much the case with Electroplankton. Without the interaction of the player through the Nintendo DS interface, it remains static and unchanging, thus failing to become complete. (Interestingly, however, Electroplankton actually has what is called an ‘audience mode,’ which allows the player to simply watch and listen to a continuous musical performance as programmed into the software. However, I have disregarded this mode in this posting, as I believe it should be considered as a completely separate work from the main ‘performance mode’ as described above.)

A video demonstrating some of the interactive plankton interfaces from Electroplankton.

Electroplankton is obviously a great example of how new technologies have allowed for new and innovative ways of displaying creativity. Not only does the media art piece allow for an interactive art experience that is unique to each member of the audience, as do many installation and Internet-based works, but it also allows one to do so on a commercially successful gaming system, which adds a new layer of experience. Whereas other such experiences must be experienced within a gallery or a location with an Internet connection, Electroplankton can be experienced virtually anywhere. In addition, I would assume that most users would begin their experience expecting to be playing a ‘video game’ rather than viewing and interacting with an art piece. This could both, enhance the experience or detract from the experience, depending on whether the player readily accepts the ephemeral 'gameplay' of Electroplankton, which cannot be saved. The fact that it is packaged and sold as a video game definitely affects the way that people view the piece, and I find it to be one of the more interesting new media art pieces in recent history, despite its relative obscurity.

In a sense, Electroplankton, despite the artist’s refusal to call it a game, blurs the line between interactive media art and video games. And in actuality, it may be more correct to say that it further blurs this line, as some people would already argue that video games, or at least some video games, should be considered a form of art. Such arguments are quite interesting, and often times these arguments depend on what exactly one’s interpretation of ‘art’ is. Is art simply something that has aesthetic value, or must it have conceptual value as well? Must it be communicating something to be considered art? However, this discussion has another time and place, and perhaps I will come back and visit this idea at another time, as I believe that it is quite relevant to the main topic of this blog.

ART ± technology + Introduction.

Welcome to ART ± technology. In this blog, I will be examining specific examples of artworks and other creative projects from out in the world, analyzing how the advent of new technologies and media has affected the creative processes of various artists. While this blog will examine the relationships that exist between art and technology, it will not necessarily be a blog about new media theory, at least in the direct sense. That is to say, new media theory addresses a wide range of issues, including issues of networking and communication, which may or may not be covered in this blog. Interestingly, the examples of artworks and creative projects covered in this blog will not always be those that have been executed through new technological means, which leads me to a pivotal argument that I anticipate to be touching on throughout many of my posts.

While the advent of new media technologies within the last century and particularly the last couple of decades has certainly opened up the doors to many new possibilities within the arts, I would also argue that many artists and creators have started to limit themselves to such technologies, thus limiting their creative processes. Perhaps for many of these artists and creators, such a situation is inevitable, as there is no doubt that artistic works created through new technologies have become the norm in today’s society—or perhaps even what is expected by today’s society. However, I think that this idea of technology limiting creativity is one that many people today overlook. Many people are often so absorbed in the latest and greatest thing, thus sometimes forgetting that more traditional means can achieve their purposes—and perhaps even in a more effective way.

In an essay entitled New Media from Borges to HTML, new media theorist Lev Manovich proposes eight propositions that describe new media and technology. In one of these propositions, Manovich describes new media as a “faster execution of algorithms previously executed manually or through other technologies.” In discussing this point, Manovich mentions the example of the composite photograph. In the nineteenth century, soon after the invention of photography, many photographers were creating “combination prints” which were made by putting together multiple photographs. (Example shown below.) This is obviously the traditional version of ‘Photoshopping.’ What used to take hours upon hours to do in the nineteenth century can now be done in a much shorter time period with just a few clicks of the mouse in Photoshop. However, while Manovich mentions that new technologies allow for faster ways of executing various processes, nowhere in his essay does he mention that new media provides for better ways of doing so. Traditional means of making art will always have their time and place, and it is my belief that some people miss out on this opportunity by being too caught up in the latest and greatest technology.

Henry Peach Robinson's Fading Away, 1858. A combination print made up of multiple photographs.

Although I have spent the majority of this post discussing how I believe artists often limit themselves to new technologies, this argument is not even half of what I intend to be exploring in this blog. I have simply touched upon that idea in detail as it is probably the one that would be most foreign or unfamiliar to most readers (if I ever get an audience). I will certainly also be exploring the many interesting ways in which new technology has enhanced the art-making process, as there truly are countless examples of such cases. And perhaps my first one or two posts will be in this category. In addition, I will probably throw in numerous other arguments and observations in various posts, in accordance to the subject matter that I am discussing, thus making the blog into an all-around journal about the relationships between art and technology.

Stay tuned, and see you next post.