References

Ascott, R. (1966) ‘Behaviourist art and the cybernetic vision’, in Telematic Embrace.

Ascott, R. (1968) ‘The Cybernetic Stance: My Process and Purpose’, Leonardo, 1(2), p. 105. doi: 10.2307/1571947.

Ascott, R. (ed.) (2006) Engineering nature: art & consciousness in the post-biological era. Bristol: Intellect.

Ascott, R. and Shanken, E. A. (2003) Telematic embrace: visionary theories of art, technology, and consciousness. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Beeren, W. A. L. (1979) ‘Actie, werkelijkheid en fictie in de kunst van de jaren ’60 in Nederland’. Available at: https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/beer006acti01_01/beer006acti01_01_0007.php (Accessed: 15 September 2018).

Bianchini, S. and Verhagen, E. (eds) (2016) Practicable: from participation to interaction in contemporary art. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Biggs, M., Karlsson, H. and Riksbankens jubileumsfond (eds) (2010) The Routledge companion to research in the arts. 1st ed. New York: Routledge.

Bishop, C. (2005) Installation art: a critical history. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bishop, C. (ed.) (2006) Participation. London : Cambridge, Mass: Whitechapel ; MIT Press (Documents of contemporary art).

Bongers, B. (2004) Interaction with our electronic environment an e-cological approach to physical interface design.Utrecht: FCJ.

Bongers, B., Eggen, B. and Oosterhuis, K. (2014) ‘Interactive Infrastructures—Distributed Interfaces for the Built Environment’, Next Generation Building, Vol 1 (2014): Game Changers. doi: 10.7480/ngb.1.1.1537.

Bongers, B. and van der Veer, G. C. (2007) ‘Towards a Multimodal Interaction Space: categorisation and applications’, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 11(8), pp. 609–619. doi: 10.1007/s00779-006-0138-8.

Bonnett, J. (2000) ‘How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics (N. Katherine Hayles)’, Ann Arbor, MI: MPublishing, University of Michigan Library, 3(3). Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3310410.0003.323.

Bourriaud, N. (2009) Relational aesthetics. Dijon: Presses du réel.

Cabrita, N. and Bernardes, G. (2016) ‘Relational Interactive Art: A Framework for Interaction in a Social Context’. The Eurographics Association. doi: 10.2312/exp.20161264.

Clements, A. (2011) ‘Performa 11: Fluxus and the Tendency Toward Coherence’. Available at: http://www.thelmagazine.com/2011/11/performa-11-fluxus-and-the-tendency-toward-coherence/ (Accessed: 6 September 2018).

Costall, A. P. (1984) ‘Are theories of perception necessary? A review of Gibson’s The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception.’, Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41(1), pp. 109–115. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1984.41-109.

Costello, B. et al.(2005) ‘Understanding the Experience of Interactive Art: Iamascope in Beta_space’, in Proceedings of the second Australasian conference on Interactive entertainment. IE ’05, Sydney, Australia: Creativity & Cognition Studios Press, pp. 49–65.

Costello, B. and Edmonds, E. (2007) ‘A study in play, pleasure and interaction design’, in Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Designing pleasurable products and interfaces. Helsinki, Finland: ACM Press, p. 76. doi: 10.1145/1314161.1314168.

Costello, B. and Edmonds, E. (2009) ‘A tool for characterizing the experience of play’, in Proceedings of the Sixth Australasian Conference on Interactive Entertainment – IE ’09. Sydney, Australia: ACM Press, pp. 1–10. doi: 10.1145/1746050.1746052.

Cramer, F. (2013) Anti-media: ephemera on speculative arts. Rotterdam : New York, NY: nai010 publishers (Studies in network cultures).

Dewey, J. (1934)Art as experience. New York, NY: Perigee.

Dinkla, S. and Klotz, H. (1997) Pioniere interaktiver Kunst von 1970 bis heute: Myron Krueger, Jeffrey Shaw, David Rokeby, Lynn Hershman, Grahame Weinbren, Ken Feingold. Ostfildern: Cantz [u.a.] (Edition ZKM).

Eco, U. (1989)The open work. Translated by A. Cancogni. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Eco, U. (1962) ‘The poetics of the open work’, in Participation, pp. 20–40.

Edmonds, E. (2010) ‘The art of interaction’, Digital Creativity, 21(4), pp. 257–264. doi: 10.1080/14626268.2010.556347.

Fenech, G. (2017) ‘Intermezzo: play trajectories in mixed reality worlds’, Journal for Cultural Research, 21(4), pp. 383–393. doi: 10.1080/14797585.2017.1370489.

Friedman, K. and Smith, O. (2006) ‘The Dialectics of Legacy’, Visible Language, 40(1), pp. 4–11.

Gibson, J. J. (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Graham, B. (1999) ‘A Study of Audience Relationships with Interactive Computer Based Visual Artworks’, Leonardo, 32(4), pp. 326–328. doi: 10.1162/leon.1999.32.4.326.

Graham, B. and Cook, S. (2010) Rethinking curating: art after new media. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press (Leonardo).

Halkes, P. (2009) ‘Caught in the Act: The Viewer as Performer’, Border Crossings, 28(1), pp. 96–99.

Her, J.-J. (2014) ‘An analytical framework for facilitating interactivity between participants and interactive artwork: case studies in MRT stations’, Digital Creativity, 25(2), pp. 113–125. doi: 10.1080/14626268.2013.776974.

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2018) ‘Hannah Arendt’. Available at: https://www.iep.utm.edu/arendt/#H4 (Accessed: 12 September 2018).

Iversen, M. (ed.) (2010) Chance. London: Cambridge, Mass: Whitechapel Gallery ; MIT Press (Documents of contemporary art).

Kaprow, A. and Kelley, J. (1993) Essays on the blurring of art and life. Berkeley: University of California Press (Lannan series of contemporary art criticism, 3).

Koenitz, H. (2010) ‘Towards a Theoretical Framework for Interactive Digital Narrative’, in Aylett, R. et al. (eds) Interactive Storytelling. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 176–185. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-16638-9_22.

Kozel, S. (2010) ‘The virtual and the physical: a phenomenological approach to performance research’, in The Routledge companion to research in the arts, pp. 204–222.

Kwastek, K. (2013) Aesthetics of interaction in digital art. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Lushetich, N. (2014) Fluxus: the practice of non-duality. Amsterdam: Rodopi (Consciousness, literature & the arts, 41).

Manovich, L. (1996) ‘On Totalitarian Interactivity’. Available at: http://manovich.net/index.php/projects/on-totalitarian-interactivity (Accessed: 7 September 2018).

Morrill, E. (2012) Between object and interpretation: Allan Kaprow’s Happenings and environments. University of California.

Paik, N. J. (1963) ‘To the Symphony for 20 rooms’, in An Anthology of Chance Operations.

Ponzini, M. (2007) ‘Rafael Lozano-Hemmer: relational architecture’. Available at: http://digicult.it/design/rafael-lozano-hemmer-relational-architecture/ (Accessed: 1 September 2018).

Pooke, G. (2012) Contemporary British Art: an Introduction.Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Available at: http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=1075008 (Accessed: 12 October 2018).

Preston, D. (2014) ‘Some Ontology of Interactive Art’, Philosophy & Technology, 27(2), pp. 267–278. doi: 10.1007/s13347-013-0134-7.

Reiss, J. H. (2001) From margin to center: the spaces of installation art. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Sanders, J. T. (1993) ‘Merleau-Ponty, Gibson, and the materiality of meaning’, Man and World, 26(3), pp. 287–302. doi: 10.1007/BF01273397.

Seel, M. (2005) Aesthetics of appearing. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press (Cultural memory in the present).

Shanken, E. A. (1995) ‘Telematic Embrace: A Love Story? Roy Ascott’s Theories of Telematic Art’. Available at: http://telematic.walkerart.org/timeline/timeline_shanken.html.

Shanken, E. A. (2002) ‘Cybernetics and Art: Cultural Convergence in the 1960s’, From Energy to Information, 155-77. Edited by B. Clarke and L. Dalrymple Henderson, Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

Sharits, P. (1976) ‘A cinematics model for film studies in higher education’, Quarterly Review of Film Studies, 1(4), pp. 394–416. doi: 10.1080/10509207609360964.

Shulgin, A. (1996) ‘Art, Power, and Communication’. Available at: http://v2.nl/archive/articles/art-power-and-communication (Accessed: 7 September 2018).

Simanowski, R. (2011) Digital art and meaning: reading kinetic poetry, text machines, mapping art, and interactive installations. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press (Electronic mediations, 35).

Smuts, A. (2009) ‘What Is Interactivity?’, The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 43(4), pp. 53–73. doi: 10.1353/jae.0.0062.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2016) ‘Dewey’s Aesthetics’. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dewey-aesthetics/ (Accessed: 3 September 2018).

Svanæs, D. (2000) Understanding interactivity: steps to a phenomenology of human-computer interaction. Trondheim: Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet, Institutt for datateknikk og informasjonsvitenskap.

Tekinbaş Salen, K. and Zimmerman, E. (2003) Rules of play: game design fundamentals. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Thomsen, B. D. and Chraudin, M. (2013) ‘A reflection model for sensing and development of experience’, in Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education. Dublin Institute of Technology, Dublin, Ireland: The Design Society, pp. 760–765.

van der Veer, G. C. (2015) ‘The future of visual perception’, in Interact (ed.) Adjunct Proceedings: 15th IFIP TC.13 international conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Bamberg: Univ. of Bamberg Press, pp. 283–293.

‘Willem de Ridder website’ (2018). Available at: https://www.willemderidder.com (Accessed: 11 September 2018).

Young, L. M. (ed.) (1963) An Anthology of Chance Operations. New York: Young and Mac Low. Available at: https://ubutext.memoryoftheworld.org/AnAnthologyOfChanceOperations.pdf (Accessed: 15 September 2018).