This article was downloaded by: [24.87.7.126]On: 24 April 2015, At: 15:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Digital CreativityPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ndcr20

Digital eco-art: transformative possibilitiesLaura Lee Colesa & Philippe Pasquiera

a School of Interactive Arts and Technology, Simon Fraser UniversityPublished online: 15 Apr 2015.

To cite this article: Laura Lee Coles & Philippe Pasquier (2015) Digital eco-art: transformative possibilities,Digital Creativity, 26:1, 3-15, DOI: 10.1080/14626268.2015.998683

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2015.998683

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Digital eco-art:transformativepossibilitiesLaura Lee Coles and Philippe Pasquier

School of Interactive Arts and Technology, Simon Fraser University

coleslauralee@gmail.com; pasquier@sfu.ca

Abstract

Cave paintings bear witness that, early in human culturaldevelopment, art and the means to create it (technology)became a method of expression and translation ofhuman interconnectedness with nature defined as thenon-human-made world. Contemporary new mediaartists interacting with nature through the medium ofdigital technologies in situ continue this explorationwithin the genre referred to as “digital eco-art”. Loco-MotoArt, an independently powered creative fieldsystem, was used as a vehicle for conducting mediaarts practice in natural settings during a three-year quali-tative field research project. Findings indicate thathuman–technology–nature interconnectedness is apossible conduit for establishing a role for digital tech-nology beyond social networking, computing, infor-mation gathering and gaming to engage with nature.We argue that digital eco-artists are at the vanguard ofcreating a new sense of aesthetic and environmentalengagement, proportions of which emerge as transfor-mative possibilities. The art experience of digital eco-art can change from being a contemplative one to aliving experience.

Keywords: LocoMotoArt, digital eco-art, naturalsetting, digital technology, HTN Triad Relationship

1 Introduction

Archaeologists consider that early Paleolithic andNeolithic humans had a sensitive awareness ofnature as life giving and interconnected.Humans, once deeply embedded within a suste-nance relationship, lived with a sense of recipro-city with the natural world. We were corporeallyconnected to landscape and our current sense ofthis connection hearkens back millennia to atime when the knowledge of interconnectednesswas synonymous with survival and our deeperunderstanding of the world. Despite the difficultiesof tracing early human–nature interconnected-ness, there are indigenous cultures that continueancient practices of shamanism and nature-related ritual (Mithen 1996).

However, most humans have lost the human–nature symbiotic connection and this is commonlybelieved to be a result of the effects of industrial-ised culture (Abram 1996; Suzuki 1997)1. Eco-phi-losopher David Abram claims that thisestrangement is rooted in our intensive use of tech-nology (Abram 1996). Canadian eco-philosopherDavid Suzuki opines that we are now disconnectedfrom the natural realm and living “chiefly by themind,” because we no longer “see ourselves asphysically and spiritually connected to family,clan or land” (Suzuki 1997, 191).

Currently, humans have a fascination withdigital technology and have established intenserelationships with such devices (Kandell 1998).2

This human–technology relationship borders on

Digital Creativity, 2015Vol. 26, No. 1, 3–15, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2015.998683

# 2015 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.8

7.7.

126]

at 1

5:31

24

Apr

il 20

15

a form of symbiosis—in psychiatric terms, adependence upon an artefact where the personreceives some kind of reinforcement, whether ben-eficial or detrimental. While not all human–tech-nology relationships are symbiotic, the humanrelationship to digital technology is deeplyembedded in Western society and culture (Glen-dinning 1995; Szerszynski 2005; Prensky 2011;Small and Vorgan 2011). Peter H. Kahn, Jr., whoinvestigates human interaction with nature andtechnology, confirms through his collaborativeresearch that the pervasiveness of computationaltechnologies has “changed our species’ long-standing experiences with nature” (Kahn, Sever-son, and Ruckert. 2009, 37). These technologies,“mediate, augment or simulate our naturalworld” (Kahn 2011, xiii).

While such studies do not confirm that mostdigital information technologies cause human dis-connection from the natural environment, mostpeople consider such technologies as incompatiblewith nature, and many believe that nature and tech-nology are separate. We submit that the human–technology–nature relationship may be a conduitor provide a sensorial pathway to establishing areconnection to natural realm through the use ofdigital technologies in situ. While challenged as astretch of rationale due to the apparent incongrui-ties associated with such a proposition, that is,that technology has disengaged us from thenatural realm, so using it to re-engage is a primafacie contradiction, we argue that digital technol-ogies are particularly suited for the exploration ofthe proposition of reconnection. To explore thesenotions, a three-year research study was initiatedwithin two streams of enquiry: one grounded inhuman–nature interaction and the other exploringhuman–technology relationships in natural set-tings. The LocoMotoArt field studies took placeon the Big Island of Hawai’i in the USA, in Vancou-ver, British Columbia, Canada, and in the AmazonRiver region of Colombia, South America.

2 LocoMotoArt research

A qualitative research methodology was used tomeet the demands of our complex enquiry,

drawing extensively on interpretive arts-basedresearch (Sullivan 2010) and phenomenologicalobservation (Booth, Colomb, and Williams[1995, 2003] 2008; Butler-Kisber 2010), inter-views and questionnaires (Bouchard 1976). It iswithin a qualitative methodology that an under-standing of subjective meaning becomes a formof knowledge building, where no single truth issought (Nagy Hesse-Biber and Leavy 2011), andincorporates multiple events as sources of infor-mation (Creswell 2007; Nagy Hesse-Biber andLeavy 2011). We questioned artists and spectatorswhether it is possible for an individual to experi-ence an awareness of interconnectedness withthe natural world by way of digital technologies(Coles, Pasquier, and Gromala 2012).

The LocoMotoArt independent power systemprovided artists the capacity to use electronics tocreate and display in various natural settingssuch as caves, beaches, urban forests and wood-lands. The system incorporates portable, sustain-able and independent energy practices, includingsolar power. The system is broken into threemodules for portability. Module 1 fits into a stan-dard backpack system and weighs approximatelytwenty pounds. The full backpack moduleweighs forty pounds when users choose toinclude the portable 12 V battery pack for fielduse; Module 2, an intermediate system, offers theoption to use higher powered projection systemsand a large battery-operated amplifier for soundplayback. This module includes large deep cyclebatteries and power inverters, which provide upto 1,200 W of clean inverted power suitable forelectronics that require a greater energy draw;Module 3 is an expanded power system thatresponds to higher watt power requirements andincludes lightweight solar panels. Within thethree modules there are four distinct fieldcapacities: (1) POWER to provide an independentenergy source while on the field and to operate andextend the battery life of the laptop; (2)CAPTURE, devices for capture of visual andsound; (3) PRODUCTION, a laptop with softwarefor producing media and converting it for play-back while on the field; and (4) DISPLAY,devices for playback of sound and visuals for

Coles and Pasquier

4

Dig

italC

rea

tivity

,V

ol.

26

,N

o.

1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.8

7.7.

126]

at 1

5:31

24

Apr

il 20

15

exhibition (Coles, Pasquier, and Gromala 2012;Coles, 2015b; LocoMotoArt research 2014;LocoMotoArt residency 2014).

Events were organised to study six artists andtwenty-four spectators. Sound, visual and per-formance works were created and experienced ina variety of natural settings. Findings indicatethat human, technology, nature interconnectedness(HTN), or the HTN Triad Relationship is a poss-ible conduit for establishing a role for digital tech-nology beyond social networking, computing,information gathering and gaming (Coles, Pasqu-ier, and Gromala 2012) (Figure 1).3

3 The human, technology, nature—HTN Triad Relationship hypothesis

We must consider that there are many interactionalexperiences and relationships that exist in bothnatural settings and digital technology. Ourability to connect with nature is generally under-stood to be accomplished by way of direct experi-ence through sensuous engagement. Becausedigital devices and sensor technologies provideenhanced experience by augmenting humansensorial awareness within auditory, visual andhaptic experiences, we can also be sensuouslyand immediately engaged through suchtechnologies. By combining these multisensory

augmentations with the experience of a naturalsetting, the two can blend, resurrecting our cultu-rally desensitised connection to the naturalrealm, as reminded by Abram and Suzuki. In thisway, we may also nurture, or centre a new aware-ness or sense of interconnectedness, proposed hereas the human–technology–nature, HTN TriadRelationship (Coles, Pasquier, and Gromala2012; Coles 2015b).

The HTN Triad Relationship is in contrast tothe culturally perceived separation of the three.We must first recognise that mobile digital technol-ogies (such as computers, cameras, smart phones,iPods, iPads, pico-projectors, GPS hand-held andsound devices including generative softwareand apps to date) can provide multiple sensoryand interactive experiences, which augment thehuman senses in ways that could be consideredto heighten the sensory engagement one experi-ences in natural settings. With our human predis-positions, biophilia (Wilson 1984), topophilia(Tuan 1974; Kahn 2011; Sampson 2012), and theneologism artamovement (Bohm 1996),4 weargue that perceived incompatibilities of digitaltechnology and nature begin to be dispelled.

In LocoMotoArt: Digital Art in Natural Set-tings (Coles 2015b), the HTN Triad Relationshipis proposed as an awareness of the interconnectedstate of humans, technology and nature that

Figure 1. Installations “Living” by Sebnem Ozpeta and “Sun” by Rob Scharein during LocoMotoArt at Queen Elizabeth Park.Photography by Michael Moster.

Digital eco-art

5

Dig

italC

rea

tivity,V

ol.

26

,N

o.

1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.8

7.7.

126]

at 1

5:31

24

Apr

il 20

15

reawakens such a pre-disposition. Yet, with digitalmediation, there is also a characteristic attribute,that is, a perceived separation between technologyand sensuality of what is the natural realm. HTN isa catalyst towards bridging the perceived gapbetween digital-mediated experiences in nature.HTN then acts as a conduit, a potential sensorialpathway for the sense of reconnection to naturalrealm. There is no space to bring forth a full dis-cussion of HTN here, and it deserves a muchlarger research study, yet briefly:

The notion of HTN Triad Relationship functionsas an intermediary between the digital device,with its capacity for interactivity and spatialand temporal shifts (instrumentality), themomentary feeling of interconnection (trans-mission), which “fills,” (indirect causation),the gap among the three. In doing so, the HTNTriad Relationship defines the moment ofsensed awareness of the instance a personfeels that there is no longer a separation of thethree, rather one that is “absorbed into thelandscape”, because it “fits”. (Coles 2015b)

4 Connecting and bonding—socialconstructs

It is worth acknowledging how our present senseof the natural realm has been shaped by past prac-tices. Instead of possessing our former survivalinstincts as a deep sense of connectedness withthe natural realm, we humans tend to experienceoccasional fleeting moments where we feel asense of deep bonding with nature. Researchershave related this sense of bonding as a geneticallypredisposed “living” connection to the naturalrealm (Wilson 1984, 1). In 1974 in his book, Topo-philia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Atti-tudes, and Value, Yi-Fu Tuan defines “topophilia”as the affective bond between people and place orsetting (4). He goes on to say that:

Topophilia is the strongest of human emotions.When it is compelling we can be sure that theplace or environment has become the carrierof emotionally charged events or perceivedsymbol. (93)

Citing Kellert (1997), who expanded uponWilson’s biophilia hypothesis, Nisbet, Zelenski,and Murphy (2011) states that “embracing ourconnection with nature makes our lives richerand more meaningful”. Kellert opined that the pre-disposition of biophilia is important for “optimalemotional and psychological development”.Therefore, human psychological health seems tobe deeply interwoven within the human–naturerelationship. Eco-psychologists examine theserelationships and point to the cognitive benefitsof interacting with nature, in that the peacefulaspects of the natural environment restoredirected-attention abilities and increase cognitivecontrol (Berman, Jonides, and Kaplan 2008).The experience of life-like technologies is alsoconsidered to provide improvement to health andmood. In coining the term “technological nature”to describe technologies that “in various waysmediate, simulate or augment the human experi-ence to nature”, psychologist Peter Kahn asked ifit matters to human well-being “that we are repla-cing actual nature with technological nature”. Hestudied the effect of hospital patients who wereprovided large flat screens to experience “life-like” nature scenes by comparing the physiologi-cal and psychological effect of the “patient’sexperience”. He concluded “that interacting withtechnological nature provides some but not all ofthe enjoyments and benefits of interacting withactual nature”. He posits “that experiencing onekind of technological nature may be better thanexperiencing no nature at all” (Kahn, Severson,and Ruckert. 2009, 37; Kahn, 2011, xiii; Kahnand Hasbach 2012, 8–9).

Louv, author of “The Nature Principle”, asserts,

The future will belong to the nature-smart—those individuals, families, businesses and pol-itical leaders who develop a deeper under-standing of the transformative power of thenatural world and who balance the virtualwith the real. The more high-tech we become,the more nature we need. (2012, 4)

According to the research of Kahn and the findingsof LocoMotoArt field studies, the notion thatdigital technologies are not always perceived as

Coles and Pasquier

6

Dig

italC

rea

tivity

,V

ol.

26

,N

o.

1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.8

7.7.

126]

at 1

5:31

24

Apr

il 20

15

completely unnatural in contemporary culturereveals transformative possibilities for politics,culture, society, health and education in thetwenty-first century.

5 Art, technology and nature

Electronic artists can use a natural setting as apartner in both the creation and display ofartwork that is inclusive of technology. Suchartists have been at the leading edge of creating anew sense of aesthetic and environmental engage-ment, or as Berleant informs us are “an aestheticecological model” which is deeply experiential(2010, Chapter 7).5 The proportions of this eco-systemic model of aesthetics and engagementlead to new forms of social interaction, artspractice and help advancing the development ofindependent power systems. We submit that thepractice of electronic art in natural settings is anemergent genre, which we refer to as digital eco-art. The artists strive to use all attributes of thelandscape. This includes screening surfacesfound within the contours of the landscape andincorporating existing natural aspects such assteep inclines, uneven ground, sand or rocks.Another attractive aspect is that of existing eco-logical soundscapes such as falling water, wavesand wildlife, for example. Arguably all of theseattributes contribute to the artist’s work in waysindoor gallery settings cannot offer because theactual presence and ambiance of nature cannotbe found in a gallery, except as a simulation. Asin situ works, digital eco-art offers intimate experi-ences in reciprocity6 with the largeness of theexisting sensorial realm found in nature and typi-cally focuses on interaction, which engages thespectator and community (Coles 2015b). “It isnot difficult to apply the three-dimensional artsto environmental aesthetic ecology”, whichbecomes “experiential; it is an ecology of experi-ence” (Berleant 2010, 125 and 127).

The digital eco-art genre reaffirms the role ofthe spectators because it socially engages themand “involves an idea of community as self-pres-ence, in contrast to the distance of representation”(Ranciere 2009). Distance of representation is

generally found in traditional indoor settings andlarge-scale urban screenings such as interactivearchitectural video mapping installations. Digitaleco-art subverts this “distance”, by emphasisingthe ecological process (Coles 2015a). The aug-mented sense of intimacy and belonging inrelationship to the natural place not only enhancesthe artistic aesthetic experience, but as Berleantreminds us,

When we experience environment in a mannerthat is fully aware of its perceptual richnessand in which immediate, qualitative perceptiondominates, we are in an aesthetic realm. Wecan say, in fact, that environmental perceptionsoriginate as aesthetic perception. (2010, 118)

Further, he notes that “engaging with an object ofart or an environment, then, can be thought of as anecological event, as a cultural ecological occur-rence” (Berleant 2010, 120). Because digital eco-art is also situated at the intersection of societalconcerns for the environment and new possibilitiesfor the relationship between humans, technologyand the environment, new cultural constructsemerge through this sense of engagement. There-articulation of communication devices re-envi-sions place and space and adds new frameworksfor individual and group narrative. In addition,the animated and interactive schema of digitaleco-art provides extended platforms for narrativein the context of the local and the global, culturalmemories, and historical interchanges.

6 The LocoMotoArt events

Six artist-event projects were initiated to uncoverassumptions and pre-conceived notions aboutnature and technology. Phenomenological report-ing, participatory observation and interpretationwere used for analysis of the data gathered.Artists participated as practitioners, informers,creators and experts, while spectators participatedas informants. Each of the artists was chosen fortheir professional expertise and knowledge ofnew media technology. The artists who comprisedthe three-year research study were Anne F. Bunker(dancer, choreographer and creative director of

Digital eco-art

7

Dig

italC

rea

tivity,V

ol.

26

,N

o.

1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.8

7.7.

126]

at 1

5:31

24

Apr

il 20

15

OTO Dance) and Gerald Chuck Koesters (musi-cian, photographer, videographer and lightingand media designer), herein referred to asBunker and Koesters; Dinka Pignon, a videoinstallation artist; Bobbi Kozinuk, a video, radioand interactive artist; Phil Thomson, a digitalaudio artist and computer music composer; andDave Leith, a multidisciplinary artist and soundart composer. Artist-event projects culminated inlive audio performances or video installations,each in a natural setting chosen by the artist. Atotal of twenty-four spectators were interviewedfor this research. They ranged in age from nineteento sixty years. They were of various levels of edu-cation, cultural backgrounds, economic status andprofession. The interview brings nuances of socialrelationships forward—sometimes spontaneously.

6.1 Artists: Anne F. Bunker and Gerald“Chuck” Koesters

From 9 to 19 December 2010, the first study ofLocoMotoArt was conducted with Bunker andKoesters on the Big Island of Hawai’i. Two tech-nologically mediated studies happened at the endof a ten-day period of fieldwork. The artistschose to stage a live technologically mediated per-formance in a forested area at the end of a roadnear the coastline of South Hilo, a route commonlyused by local fishermen. Natural ambient soundsuch as the pulse of ocean waves crashing upon

the lava rocks and the Coqui frogs’ robustchorus of chirp song was incorporated into thesoundscape. A series of small pico-projectionexperiments were conducted in Kaumana Cave,which is situated in the foothills above Hilo,Hawai’i. The cave is a lava tube that was createdwhen the volcano Mauna Loa erupted in 1880.This site was chosen for a brief exploration ofsound and video using pico-projectors because itis a dense and dark environment. During thecave experiments, the digital devices (3 Aaxa P1Jr. LCoS pico-projectors) were used as theatricalapparatus. Further, the artists each explored newways of seeing and understanding their art prac-tices both temporally and corporeally.

6.2 Artist: Dinka PignonOn 29 July 2011, artist Dinka Pignon presented hervideo installation, Water Words, in an urban naturalsetting at Kitsilano Beach, Vancouver, BritishColumbia (Figure 2). She chose an area that “feltsomewhat isolated and secluded” in relationshipto the rest of the primary public area of thebeach. Pignon chose to use large to mid-sizedboulders that were partially submerged in thewater as projection surfaces. Although framed bya cityscape, Pignon indicated that she chose thisparticular area because of several natural character-istics that appealed to her interest in manipulatingperceptions and reality by projecting on unusual

Figure 2. “Water Words” by Dinka Pignon. Installed on Kitsilano Beach, Vancouver, British Columbia. Photo: Andrew Hawrysh-kewich.

Coles and Pasquier

8

Dig

italC

rea

tivity

,V

ol.

26

,N

o.

1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.8

7.7.

126]

at 1

5:31

24

Apr

il 20

15

surfaces. Pignon used three Aaxa P1 Jr. LCoS pico-projectors, which each have a 10 lumen projectioncapacity. Water Words was accompanied by anoriginal music composition by sound artist DaveLeith, who recorded waves splashing upon alocation along Kitsilano Beach and reimposedthis sound by layering it within his composition(Figures 3 and 4).

6.3 Artist: Bobbi KozinukOn the same evening that Pignon displayed WaterWords at Kitsilano Beach, artist Bobbi Kozinukpresented a single channel video installation,entitled Come Here (Figure 5). Come Here wasinstalled at the top of a steep sandy cliff, sur-rounded by trees and other indigenous vegetation,such as tall grasses and blackberry vines. At theinstallation site there were groupings of bouldersstrewn and piled about at the foot of the embank-ment. The spectators were confronted by severalboulders at the foot of the installation, whichobstructed any attempt to respond to the calls ofthe projected woman in a white dress who wasseen floating, dangling, hanging, twirling fromher body weight and motioning with her arms asshe called and beckoned the viewer to “comehere, come on! What are you waiting for? I havesomething to show you!” To respond or followthe woman’s calls meant the spectator had to con-front the obstacles of the boulders or perhaps eveninternal fears. The spectator would have to climbover the rocks, which may have been perilous orcompromising. Kozinuk used LocoMotoArt’s300 W Nautilus battery and one Samlex AmericaPure Power inverter, but used her own Epson3,500 lumen high-resolution projector and theiPod feature of her iPhone for sound and visual

Figure 3. Sound artist Dave Leith performing at Iona Beach,Richmond, British Columbia. Photo: Wynne Palmer.

Figure 4. Dave Leith at Iona Beach. Photo: Laura Lee Coles.

Digital eco-art

9

Dig

italC

rea

tivity,V

ol.

26

,N

o.

1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.8

7.7.

126]

at 1

5:31

24

Apr

il 20

15

playback. She ran sound through LocoMotoArt’sRoland KC 100 battery-powered amplifier.Kozinuk specifically positioned the amplifier, theprojector and electric cords from the NautilusMarine deep cycle battery and power inverter insuch a way so that the equipment was hiddenfrom view. Field notes indicate this action wasdeliberate. The artists created an audio experiencethat seemed “just to happen” and not one that wasinterrupted by “the knowing” the equipment wasthere. This work was originally designed and pre-sented in an indoor exhibition setting and reposi-tioned into natural landscape and several of theparticipants had experienced the work indoors.

6.4 Artist: Phil ThomsonSound art composition is not traditionally per-formed outdoors—it is generally presentedwithin a gallery or concert stage environmentadhering to a traditional exhibition-style orconcert hall paradigm (Burtner 2011, 235). Thesound artists of this study were asked to revertfrom the “traditional” method and reposition thesound composition performance back into theactual sound environment from which theycreated the work.

On 19 August 2011 artist Phil Thomson pre-sented a sound event at Stanley Park, Vancouver,British Columbia, for twelve spectators. Thomsonchose to emphasise both the urban and woodlandpark soundscape in his performance event: a 20-minute soundwalk7 leading up to a semi-secludedwoodland area. The artist chose the woodlandsite, because it was a “natural” space existingwithin an urban one. Thomson had an interest inbalancing or harmonising human-made soundswith the natural. He recorded sounds from thewoodland site and then reoriented the compositionin the original environment. The site was a smallopen space surrounded by large cedar trees, creat-ing a sense of an alcove, within which a large treehad fallen and formed a natural bench for sitting.The many tall saplings and bushes, and the lushforest floor underbrush, which included ferns, andthe decaying trunks of old-growth trees, created asense of privacy. Thomson used the 300 W Nauti-lus Marine deep cycle battery and one SamlexAmerica Pure Power inverter from the enhancedindependent power system Module 2 of LocoMo-toArt. The soundtrack consisted of a mixture ofsounds that exist in this space such as sea gulls,wind in the trees as well as sounds from the seaplane terminal, tankers travelling into the shippingport, horns, sirens, automobiles, including horseshooves clomping on the asphalt, and conversationsof passing hikers.

6.5 Artist: Dave LeithOn 28 August 2011, sound and visual artist DaveLeith performed a 20-minute live sound compo-sition at Iona Beach in Richmond, British Colum-bia. Leith indicated he chose Iona Beach becausethe site provided a sense of spatial expanse,and the sounds of the commercial jets departingfrom the Vancouver International Airport wereof interest to him. Leith conveyed that he wasalso attracted to the vast openness of IonaBeach, which offers a visually stimulatingscene. Depending on the focal point of the specta-tor, the water appears parallel to the sky across thehorizon, which is often interrupted by clouds andsunsets, or distant mountains and open blue sky.Leith chose to use an array of equipment and

Figure 5. “Come Here”, by Bobbi Kozinuk, installed at Kitsi-lano Beach, Vancouver, British Columbia. Photo: AndrewHawryshkewich.

Coles and Pasquier

10

Dig

italC

rea

tivity

,V

ol.

26

,N

o.

1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.8

7.7.

126]

at 1

5:31

24

Apr

il 20

15

manipulated pre-recorded sounds from the IonaBeach environment into his composition as wellas existing sounds from the environment of thesite. He incorporated much of his own equipment,some of which is custom designed and built. Theartist used his own high-performance micro-phones and recording unit, but utilised LocoMo-toArt 300 W Nautilus battery and one SimplexAmerica Pure Power inverter to run his Apex620 Amplifier with 8-inch JBL speakers andother analogue electronics.

7 Synopsis of LocoMotoArt studyfindings and conclusions

Despite the initial biases and scepticism of some ofthe artists and spectators during pre-event inter-views, results of the research indicate a newappreciation of digital technology as a mean ofsensing our interconnectivity with nature andnatural settings (Coles and Pasquier 2011b, 4).Our review of the various artist-projects indicatesthe following: first, out of the twenty-four specta-tors, there were four who began the study as highlysceptical. These four individuals conveyed defi-nitions of nature and technology indicating thatthey considered digital artefacts to be separatefrom humans. Further, they described these arte-facts as not a part of nature. One of the four hadexpressed during the pre-event interview that thecomputer was a tool, an object. She emphasisedthat digital technologies are nothing withoutpower, that is, electrical energy, requiring humanintervention for their functionality. Of the four,during the post-event interview, she alone main-tained her bias that digital technologies wereobjects and “dead” without the activity of humanintervention. However, she agreed that the artisthad expertly used digital artefacts in naturalsetting. The other three sceptical spectators indi-cated they had changed their perspective fromthe denial of the possibility of the HTN TriadRelationship to acknowledgement of it.

Although providing negative statementsearlier, after their experience of the artist events,three spectators stated that their technology-mediated experience in a natural setting “felt

nice”, “symbiotic”, “peaceful” or “pleasant”.Within these three responses, there were two dra-matic changes in perspective. These are worthnoting because they may be taken as primary evi-dence supporting the HTN Triad Relationship. Weturn first to the responses of the non-digital specta-tor8 from the Bunker and Koesters project. Thenineteen-year-old male previously expressedanger towards digital technology and complainedof the dehumanising effects such technology hason society. He was educated in a private school,which purposefully did not introduce children tothe use of digital technology. We suggest that bybeing in an educational environment that voidsthe use of and prevents the relationship to digitaltechnology, he was influenced against acceptingthe benefits associated with such technologies.After his experience of the Bunker and KoestersCoastal Forest performance, he expressed theopinion that his experience “felt nice” and was“pleasant”. Now that he has had a positive techno-logically mediated experience, perhaps overtimehis early negative notions about technology willcontinue to change. It would be interesting tofollow up ten years from now to discover if hewill have introduced digital artefacts into his life,and whether he will have fully integrated with them.

The second dramatic change occurred duringthe Leith project. One of the Leith project specta-tors eagerly defended her changed notion during apost-interview. Another spectator said he did notfeel a sense of interconnection, but rather heexperienced an awareness of separation of thehuman-built from nature. He explained that thisoccurred because he thought the analogue technol-ogy positioned was artificial. He further stated thathe did not believe that the overall experience“would work with digital technology”.9 Ironically,this spectator had agreed to the possibility of theHTN Triad Relationship during a pre-interview.Thomson, another sound artist, used digitaltechnology in the natural setting and spectatorsfrom that study indicated the sense of intercon-nectedness.

The remaining twenty spectators indicatedduring a pre-interview that they believed thenotion of HTN was possible; however, some

Digital eco-art

11

Dig

italC

rea

tivity,V

ol.

26

,N

o.

1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.8

7.7.

126]

at 1

5:31

24

Apr

il 20

15

indicated they were not sure how they would cometo know it. Yet, after experiencing the artist’s workand during a post-interview, a majority of theremaining twenty spectators agreed they hadsensed an interconnection with nature within thetechnology-mediated experience. Some commen-ted that they considered that the artist’s skill ofincorporating the landscape was expertly inter-preted. This was stated emphatically at the con-clusion of Pignon’s Water Words and Kozinuk’sCome Here. Both of these artists incorporatedthe contours of the landscape into their installa-tions and positioned the equipment out of viewso that the spectator did not sense it being there.Several spectators from Thomson’s projectremarked that the oscillation between the human-built world and the natural realm influenced theirperceptions of the natural landscape, while onespectator indicated he did not think the urbanwoodland was at all “natural”.

Within the artist study group, three out of sixparticipant artists were highly sceptical of thenotion of the HTN Triad Relationship during pre-interview. These artists were Anne F. Bunker,Gerald “Chuck” Koesters and Dinka Pignon.However, all three artists indicated a markedchange in perspective at the conclusion of partici-pating in the research study. Bunker and Koestersexpressed a new sense of embodiment and spatial-ity, as well as a new sense of how well the elementsof performance, digital technology and naturalsetting can fuse together. Bunker and Koestersbelieved that they sensed an interconnection andwere “surprised” by it. For Pignon, I concludethat her experience of repositioning and reorientat-ing her typical media practice from an indoorsetting to a natural setting changed her perspective.She initially exclaimed the projectors to be “meretoys” and humorously scoffed at them. She ques-tioned the technological limitations of the AaxaP1 Jr. LCoS pico projector. She indicated concernsof whether she would get anything of quality, or thatwhich would meet her artistic standards, much lesshave display capability for an expansive outdoorsetting. Yet, at completion of her project sheadmitted she experienced a sense that her installa-tion felt as if it was “absorbed” into landscape,

where previously she was uncertain whether thisperceptual task would be possible.

While the sense of the existence of HTN TriadRelationship may occur only momentarily, andobviously not everyone senses it at the samemoment, there is evidence that this experience isreproducible. Our research and analysis revealedthat the testing for the HTN Triad Relationship isreproducible within a variety of situations usingtechnology in natural settings. The first studywas conducted on the Big Island of Hawai’i, thesecond series conducted in urban natural settingsof Vancouver, BC. Neither of these two studygroups interacted with one another. Further,results from these study groups were measuredagainst independent observations made by arttechnology group ecoarttech, who upon interviewdeclared their audiences expressed similarresponses to those of our participants (L. C.Nadir, e-mail conversation, May 13, 2012 (LauraLee Coles, interviewer)). However, a largerstudy is warranted to find deeper meaning withinthe human capacity to recognise the HTN TriadRelationship, and how changes in the brain,based on the use of digital technology, may be con-tributing to this sensed relationship.

We have expressed the perceived disconnectionbetween nature and technology—and between thetechnologised human and the natural world—as agap, or lacuna, to be bridged. By affirming the exist-ence of the HTN Triad Relationship, the results ofour study help dispel concerns of human–naturealienation as a result of technology, altering the per-ception that nature and technology are incompatible.While it could be argued that an awareness or experi-ence of the HTN Triad Relationship is illusory, orspawned from suggestion, and human imagination,participants reported an actual enhanced sense ofconnection to, and awareness of, the natural worldthrough experiencing new media art in natural set-tings and had pleasant feelings. Because the HTNTriad Relationship is not a long-term presence thatcan be kept in place for lengths of time, but ratherappears within an instance of experience, does notdiscount its existence. Turning to Latour, it definesthe moment that it does appear (visibly connected)and is sensed and understood by the participant

Coles and Pasquier

12

Dig

italC

rea

tivity

,V

ol.

26

,N

o.

1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.8

7.7.

126]

at 1

5:31

24

Apr

il 20

15

because it “acts” as an “intermediary”—and thelacuna is closed.

Mithen reminds us that “a re-design of themind took place”, facilitating the creation of thefirst wall paintings (151–153). The innovativemaking of an artefact became an embodied exten-sion of self, while the image created was an exten-sion and externalisation of inner sense and internalrepresentation. The early cave painters experi-enced the world and then developed in order toexpress their world experience. These tools andtheir evolution parallel the development and crea-tive use of contemporary new media tools anddigital artefacts as technologies that “fit” whenemployed by artists within natural settings.

We conclude that the practice of using digitaltools to create art representative of a rearticulatedhuman–nature relationship leads to an enhance-ment of this relationship. Through the blendingof the three ingredients to the mediated experience(humans, technology and nature), there is amomentary presence that bridges the lacuna andaffirms the HTN Triad Relationship. This providestransformative possibilities in the ever-changingrelationship of human–machine interaction. Mar-shall McLuhan perceived the future culturaleffects of technology on art and nature:

I expect to see the coming decades transformthe planet into an art form; the new man,linked in a cosmic harmony that transcendstime and space, will sensuously caress, andmold and pattern every facet of the terrestrialartefact, as if it were a work of art, and manhimself will become an organic art form . . .

we have begun the journey . . . the storybegins only when the book closes. (McLuhanand Zingrone 1995)

Notes1 Deep Ecology presents the belief that humans are an

equal and integral part of ecosystems, or nature,rather than as a force, acting upon an external natureand the non-human realm and frown upon exploitivetechnologies that arise from mechanistic views ofnature, and on what ecologist Neil Evernden terms“resourcism” (Evernden 1985). However, Deep

Ecologists look favourably upon technologies that“fit”, insofar as they work within, rather thanagainst, natural systems, are not aggressivelyexploitive, and enhance the relationship of human toworld, or nature to culture (Lomba-Ortiz 2003, 1).

2 A research study conducted at the University ofMaryland reveals that when students were deprived oftheir computers, cell phones, iPods, use of the internetand social networking for several hours, symptoms ofwithdrawal, anxiety and depression occurred. Alsosee: http://www.merrill.umd.edu/deadline/index.php/2010/04/22/merrill-studycollegestudentsunable-to-disconnect/ and Seattle Times, Editorials/Opinion(2010), “Are we Becoming Addicted to Technology?”Accessed October 23, 2014. http://seattletimes.com/html/editorials/2011896575_edit19tech.html.

3 Extensive details of the initiating LocoMotoArt studyare found in Utilizing the Natural Environment for theExhibition of New Media (Coles, Pasquier, andGromala 2012); User as Explorer: Interaction withthe Natural Environment Using Mobile ProjectionTechnology (Coles and Pasquier 2011a, presented atCHI-2011) and LocoMotoArt: Interacting WithinNatural Setting Through Performance Using Pico-projection (Coles and Pasquier 2011b, presentedand part of the proceedings of ISEA—Istanbul).

4 Bohm states that the meaning of the word “artifact”(sic) means, “That which has been made to fit.” Heintroduces a “new word—artamovement, whichmeans the movement of fitting.”

5 Further emphasizing that “Humans are thus both thecreative artists, the actors, and the participatoryaudience in the environmental drama” (125).

6 We use the term reciprocity to mean as Abram notes,“Perception, in Merleau-Ponty’s work, is preciselythis reciprocity, the ongoing interchange betweenmy body and the entities that surround it” (1996, 52).

7 A soundwalk is a directed walk through anenvironment where the listener is immersed withinthe relationship of sounds to the environment.

8 This spectator is called the “non-digital spectator”,because he was raised and educated in anenvironment that emphasized a non-digitalenvironment, that is, void of interaction with digitaldevices and has Neo-Luddite philosophy regardingtechnology (Coles, Pasquier, and Gromala 2012).

9 Leith’s custom built synthesizers are analogue.

ReferencesAbram, D. 1996. Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and

Language in a More-than-Human World. New York:Random House.

Digital eco-art

13

Dig

italC

rea

tivity,V

ol.

26

,N

o.

1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.8

7.7.

126]

at 1

5:31

24

Apr

il 20

15

Berleant, A. 2010. Sensibility and Sense: The AestheticTransformation of the Human World. Exeter: ImprintAcademic Philosophy Documentation Center.

Berman, M. G., J. Jonides, and S. Kaplan. 2008.“Research Report: The Cognitive Benefits of Inter-acting with Nature.” Psychological Science 19:1207–1212.

Bohm, D. 1996. On Creativity. London: RoutledgeClassics.

Booth, W. C., G. G. Colomb, and J. M. Williams. [1995,2003] 2008. The Craft of Research. 3rd ed. Chicago,IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Bouchard, T. J. 1976. “Field Research Methods: Inter-viewing, Questionnaires, Participant Observation,Systemic Observation, Unobtrusive Measures.” InHandbook of Industrial and Organizational Psy-chology, 363–413. Chicago, IL: Rand McNallyCollege.

Burtner, M. 2011. “EcoSono: Adventures in InteractiveEcoacoustics in the World.” Organized Sound 16:234–244.

Butler-Kisber, L. 2010. Qualitative inquiry: Thematic,Narrative and Arts Informed Perspectives. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Coles, L. 2015a. “Technologically Mediated Space andPlace: Re-visioning Urban Natural Environments.”Presented at the conference Arts In Society Rome,Italy.

Coles, L. 2015b. “LocoMotoArt: Digital Art Practices inNatural Settings.” The International Journal of NewMedia, Technology and the Arts. Presented at Arts InSociety, Budapest, Hungary. Proceedings publi-cation, 10 (1): 1–10. Champaign, IL: CommonGrounds.

Coles, L. L., and P. Pasquier. 2011a. “User as Explorer:Interaction with the Natural Environment UsingMobile Projection Technology.” Presented at CHI2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Accessed April 3,2012. http://side-creative.ncl.ac.uk/userflux/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/LLColes_UserExplorer.pdf

Coles, L. L., and P. Pasquier. 2011b. “LocoMotoArt:Interacting Within Natural Setting Through Perform-ance Using Pico-projection.” Proceedings of theInternational Symposium of Electronic Artists,ISEA—Istanbul. Accessed April 3, 2012. http://isea2011.sabanciuniv.edu/ma-candidate.coles

Coles, L. L., P. Pasquier, and D. Gromala. 2012. “Utiliz-ing the Natural Environment for the Exhibition ofNew Media.” Master thesis. Available from SimonFraser University Theses Database.

Creswell, J. W. 2007. Qualitative Inquiry and ResearchDesign: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Evernden, N. 1985. The Natural Alien. Toronto: Univer-sity of Toronto Press.

Glendinning, C. 1995. “Technology, Trauma and theWild.” In Ecopsychology: Restoring the Earth andHealing the Mind, edited by T. G. Rozak, M. E.Gomes, and A. D. Kanne, 41–54. San Francisco,CA: Sierra Club Books.

Kahn, P. H. 2011. Technological Nature: Adaptationand the Future of Human Life, xiii. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Kahn, P. H., and P. H. Hasbach. 2012. “Introduction toEcopsychology: Science, Totems, and the Technologi-cal Species.” In Ecopsychology: Science, Totems, andthe Technological Species, edited by P. H. Kahn andP. H. Hasbach, 1–21. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Kahn, P. H., R. L. Severson, and J. H. Ruckert. 2009.“The Human Relation with Nature and Technologi-cal Nature.” Current Directions in PsychologicalScience 18: 37–42.

Kandell, J. J. 1998. “Internet Addiction on Campus: TheVulnerability of Collage Students.” CyberPsychol-ogy & Behavior 1: 1–17.

Kellert, S. R. 1997. Kinship To Mastery: Biophilia InHuman Evolution and Development. Washington,DC: Island Press.

LocoMotoArt research site. Accessed April 29, 2014.http://www.locomotoart.com/ and http://www.locomotoart.com/locomotoart_field_system

LocoMotoArt residency blog. Accessed April 29, 2014.http://locomotoart.weebly.com/

Lomba-Ortiz, E. A. 2003. “Questioning EcologicalDesign: A Deep Ecology Perspective.” AccessedMay 9, 2012 from Ecotecture: The Journal of Ecologi-cal Design. http://www.ecotecture.com/library_eco/appropriate_tech/Lomba-Ortiz_questioningEco.html

Louv, R. 2012. The Nature Principle: Reconnectingwith Life in a Virtual Age, 4. Chapel Hill, NC: Algon-quin Books.

McLuhan, E., and F. Zingrone, eds. 1995. “The PlayboyInterview: Marshall McLuhan—A Candid Conver-sation with the High Priest of Popcult and Meta-physician of Media.” In The Essential McLuhan,233–269. New York: BasicBooks.

Mithen, S. 1996. The Prehistory of the Mind: A Searchfor the Origins of Art, Religion and Science. London:Thames and Hudson.

Coles and Pasquier

14

Dig

italC

rea

tivity

,V

ol.

26

,N

o.

1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.8

7.7.

126]

at 1

5:31

24

Apr

il 20

15

Nagy Hesse-Biber, S., and P. Leavy. 2011. “DesigningQualitative Approaches to Research.” In The Prac-tice of Qualitative Research Second Edition, editedby S. L. Nagy Hesse-Biber, 31–57. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Nisbet, E. K., J. M. Zelenski, and S. A. Murphy. 2011.Happiness Is in Our Nature: Exploring Nature Relat-edness as a Contributor to Subjective Well Being.Journal of Happiness Studies 12 (2): 303–322.

Prensky, M. 2011. “Digital Natives, Digital Immi-grants.” In The Digital Divide—Arguments AgainstFacebook, Google, Texting, and the Age of SocialNetworking, edited by M. E. Bauerlein, 3–25.New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penquin.

Ranciere, J. 2009. Emancipated Spectator. London:Verso.

Sampson, S. D. 2012. “The Topophilia Hypothesis:Ecopsychology Meets Evolutionary Psychology.”In Ecopsychology: Science, Totems, and the Techno-logical Species, edited by P. H. Kahn and P. H.Hasbach, 23–53. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Seattle Times, Editorials/Opinion. 2010. “Are weBecoming Addicted to Technology?” May 10.Accessed October 23, 2014. http://seattletimes.com/html/editorials/2011896575_edit19tech.html

Small, G. A., and G. Vorgan. 2011. “Your Brain IsEvolving Right Now.” In The Digital Divide:Arguments for and Against Facebook, Google,Texting, and the Age of Social Networking, editedby M. E. Bauerlein, 76–96. New York: JeremyP. Tarcher/Penguin.

Sullivan, G. 2010. Art Practice as Research: Inquiry inVisual Arts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Suzuki, D., with A. McConnell. 1997. The SacredBalance: Rediscovering Our Place in Nature. Van-couver: Greystone Books.

Szerszynski, B. 2005. Nature, Technology and theSacred. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1974. Topophilia: A Study of Environ-mental Perception, Attitudes, and Values. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

University of Maryland. April, 2010. “Merrill Study:College Students Unable to Disconnect.” http://www.

merrill.umd.edu/deadline/index.php/2010/04/22/merrill-study-college-students-unable-to-disconnect/

Wilson, E. O. 1984. Biophilia. Boston, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Laura Lee Coles is a researcher and multidisci-plinary artist whose interests include human, tech-nology and nature interaction, and the re-visioningof public space. She is a published author and pre-sents her research internationally. As an exhibitingartist, her practice consists of photography, videoinstallation (interactive, contemplative and sitespecific) and naturalist collage making, and hasshown in Canada, Europe and the USA. Laura isalso the founder of the arts group LocoMotoArt,currently artists-in-residence at the historicAberthau Mansion via the Vancouver ParkBoard’s Arts, Culture and Environment studio pro-gramme (2013–2016). She holds a Master of Artsfrom the School of Interactive Arts and Technol-ogy at Simon Fraser University.

Philippe Pasquier is Associate Professor atSimon Fraser University’s School of InteractiveArts and Technology. He is both a scientist special-ised in creative computing and a multidisciplinaryartist. His contributions range from theoreticalresearch in artificial intelligence, multi-agentsystems and machine learning to applied artisticresearch and practice in digital art, computermusic and generative art. Philippe is the Chairand investigator of the AAAI series of Inter-national Workshop on Musical Metacreation(MUME), the MUME-WE concerts series andthe International Workshop on Movement andComputation (MOCO), and is symposium directorfor ISEA2015. He has co-authored over 100 peer-reviewed contributions, and his multidisciplinarypractice encompasses music concerts and interac-tive installations, public art and urban screenpieces.

Digital eco-art

15

Dig

italC

rea

tivity,V

ol.

26

,N

o.

1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.8

7.7.

126]

at 1

5:31

24

Apr

il 20

15