skip to main content
10.1145/3152832.3152835acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmumConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Creator-centric study of digital art exhibitions on interactive public displays

Published:26 November 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

We present a mixed-methods study aimed at assessing artists' experiences of a digital art exhibition service, called StreetGallery, on a network of interactive displays situated in public urban locations. We ground our analysis using survey responses and in-depth interviews of artists who have exhibited their art in StreetGallery over the years. Findings from these studies indicate that the artists highly value StreetGallery's open and egalitarian access to art, and its contribution towards fusing novel digital technologies and art in public urban spaces. We conclude that platforms such as StreetGallery have the potential to challenge traditional paradigms of art gallery practices and public urban spaces as a stage for consumption and commerce.

References

  1. Art Workers. Material Conditions and Labour Struggle in Contemporary Art Practice. http://minnahenriksson.com/art-workers-material-conditions-and-labour-struggles-in-contemporary-art-practice/ (retrieved 02.11.2017)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Louis Bou. 2006. NYC BCN: Street Art Revolution. Collins Design, New York. ISBN: 9780061210044Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Martin Brynskov, Peter Dalsgaard, Tobias Ebsen, Jonas Fritsch, Kim Halskov and Rune Nielsen. 2009. Staging Urban Interactions with Media Facades In: Gross T. et al. (eds) Human-Computer Interaction - INTERACT 2009. INTERACT 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5726. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Juliet M. Corbin, Anselm L. Strauss. 2008. Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications, Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Tarja Cronberg. 2010. Luova kasvu ja taiteilijan toimeentulo. Opetus-ja kulttuuriministeriön työryhmämuistioita ja selvityksiä 6: 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Anne M. Cronin. 2008. Urban Space and Entrepreneurial Property Relations. In Consuming the entrepreneurial city: Image, memory, spectacle: 65. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Charlotte A. Davies. 2008. Reflexive ethnography: A guide to researching selves and others. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. 1987. A thousand plateaus. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Söke Dinkla. 2013. Intimacy and Self-Organization in Hybrid Public Spheres. In Throughout: Art and Culture Emerging with Ubiquitous Computing, MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Claude Fortin, Carman Neustaedter and Kate Hennessy. 2014. The appropriation of a digital speakers corner: lessons learned from the deployment of mégaphone. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems (pp. 955--964). ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Clifford Geertz. 1973. The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. Basic books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Petra Gemeinboeck and Rob Saunders. 2011. Urban fictions: a critical reflection on locative art and performative geographies. Digital Creativity 22, 3: 160--173.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Drew Hemment. 2006. Locative arts. Leonardo 39, 4: 348--355.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Simo Hosio, Jorge Goncalves and Vassilis Kostakos. 2013. Application discoverability on multipurpose public displays: popularity comes at a price. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM International Symposium on Pervasive Displays (pp. 31--36). ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Erkki Huhtamo. 2009. Messages on the Wall: An Archaeology of Public Media Displays. Urban Screens Reader. Amsterdam: The Institute of Network Culture.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Annukka Jyrämä and Anne Äyväri. 2010. Marketing contemporary visual art. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 28, 6: 723--735.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Tim Kindberg, Matthew Chalmers and Eric Paulos. 2007. Guest Editors' Introduction: Urban Computing. Pervasive Computing, IEEE 6, 3: 18--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Vassilis Kostakos, Hannu Kukka, Jorge Goncalves, Nikolaos Tselios and Timo Ojala. 2013. Multipurpose public displays: how shortcut menus affect usage. in IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 56--63, March-April 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Hannu Kukka, Anna Luusua, Johanna Ylipulli, Tiina Suopajärvi, Vassilis Kostakos and Timo Ojala. 2013. From cyberpunk to calm urban computing: Exploring the role of technology in the future cityscape. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 84, 29--42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Hannu Kukka, Johanna Ylipulli, Anna Luusua, and Anind K. Dey. 2014. Urban computing in theory and practice: towards a transdisciplinary approach. In Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational (NordiCHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 658--667. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Jürgen Scheible. 2010. Empowering Mobile Art Practice: A Recontextualization of Mobile and Ubiquitous Computing. Aalto University School of Art and Design Publication series. A, 107/2010Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Jürgen Scheible and Timo Ojala. 2009. MobiSpray: mobile phone as virtual spray can for painting BIG anytime anywhere on anything. Leonardo 42, 332--341.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Jürgen Scheible, Timo Ojala, and Paul Coulton. 2008. MobiToss: a novel gesture based interface for creating and sharing mobile multimedia art on large public displays. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM international conference on Multimedia (MM '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 957--960. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. David A. Shamma and Ryan Shaw. 2007. Supporting creative acts beyond dissemination. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI conference on Creativity & cognition (C&C '07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 276--277. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Jennifer G. Sheridan, Alan Dix, Simon Lock and Alice Bayliss. 2005. Understanding Interaction in Ubiquitous Guerrilla Performances in Playful Arenas. In: Fincher S., Markopoulos P., Moore D., Ruddle R. (eds) People and Computers XVIII --- Design for Life. Springer, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Oliver Storz, Adrian Friday, Nigel Davies, Joe Finney, Corina Sas and Jennifer Sheridan. 2006. Public ubiquitous computing systems: Lessons from the e-campus display deployments. in IEEE Pervasive Computing, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 40--47, July-Sept. 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Tiina Suopajärvi, Johanna Ylipulli and Taina Kinnunen. 2012. Realities behind ICT Dreams: Designing a Ubiquitous City in a Living Lab Environment. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology 4, 2: 231--252.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Anthony Townsend. 2006. Locative-media artists in the contested-aware city. Leonardo 39, 4: 345--347.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Marc Tuters and Kazys Varnelis. 2006. Beyond locative media: Giving shape to the internet of things. Leonardo 39, 4: 357--363.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Ville H. Tuulos, Jürgen Scheible and Heli Nyholm. 2007. Combining Web, Mobile Phones and Public Displays in Large-Scale: Manhattan Story Mashup. In: LaMarca A., Langheinrich M., Truong K.N. (eds) Pervasive Computing. Pervasive 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4480. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Johanna Ylipulli and Tiina Suopajärvi. 2013. Contesting ubicomp visions through ICT practices: Power negotiations in the meshwork of a technologised city. International Communication Gazette, 75(5--6), 538--554.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Johanna Ylipulli, Tiina Suopajärvi, Timo Ojala, Vassilis Kostakos and Hannu Kukka. 2014. Municipal WiFi and interactive displays: Appropriation of new technologies in public urban spaces. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 89: 145--160.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Sharon Zukin. 1998. Urban lifestyles: diversity and standardisation in spaces of consumption. Urban studies 35, 5--6: 825--839.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  1. Creator-centric study of digital art exhibitions on interactive public displays

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      MUM '17: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia
      November 2017
      567 pages
      ISBN:9781450353786
      DOI:10.1145/3152832

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 26 November 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate190of465submissions,41%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader