skip to main content
10.1145/3290605.3300260acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Failing with Style: Designing for Aesthetic Failure in Interactive Performance

Authors Info & Claims
Published:02 May 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Failure is a common artefact of challenging experiences, a fact of life for interactive systems but also a resource for aesthetic and improvisational performance. We present a study of how three professional pianists performed an interactive piano composition that included playing hidden codes within the music so as to control their path through the piece and trigger system actions. We reveal how apparent failures to play the codes occurred for diverse reasons including mistakes in their playing, limitations of the system, but also deliberate failures as a way of controlling the system, and how these failures provoked aesthetic and improvised responses from the performers. We propose that creative and performative interfaces should be designed to enable aesthetic failures and introduce a taxonomy that compares human approaches to failure with approaches to capable systems, revealing new creative design strategies of gaming, taming, riding and serving the system.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

paper030p.mp4

mp4

3.1 MB

References

  1. Ross J. Anderson. 2010. Security engineering: a guide to building dependable distributed systems. John Wiley & Sons. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Steve Benford, Matt Adams, Nick Tandavanitj, Ju Row Farr, Chris Greenhalgh, Andy Crabtree, Martin Flintham, Brendan Walker, Joe Marshall, Boriana Koleva, Stefan Rennick Egglestone, and Gabriella Giannachi. 2013. Performance-Led Research in the Wild. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 20, 3: 1--22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Steve Benford, Chris Greenhalgh, Adrian Hazzard, Alan Chamberlain, Maria Kallionpää, David M. Weigl, Kevin R. Page, and Mengdie Lin. 2018. Designing the audience journey through repeated experiences. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 568. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. S M Astrid Bin. The Show Must Go Wrong: Towards an understanding of audience perception of error in digital musical instrument performance. (Doctoral Dissertation, Queen Mary University of London). 368.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Glenn A. Bowen. 2006. Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International journal of qualitative methods 5, 3: 12--23. https://doi.org/10/gcdvbtGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Paul J. Feltovich, and Matthew Johnson. 2012. 13 Human--Agent Interaction. The Handbook of Human-Machine Interaction: A Human-Centered Design Approach.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Gregor Broll and Steve Benford. 2005. Seamful design for locationbased mobile games. In International Conference on Entertainment Computing, 155--166. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Kim Cascone. 2000. The aesthetics of failure: "Post-digital" tendencies in contemporary computer music. Computer Music Journal 24, 4: 12--18. https://doi.org/10/bmb6ts Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Matthew Chalmers, Ian MacColl, and Marek Bell. 2003. Seamful design: Showing the seams in wearable computing. https://doi.org/10/fjrdw4Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Cello Fortress - A game by Joost van Dongen. Retrieved January 3, 2019 from http://www.cellofortress.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Arshia Cont, José Echeveste, Jean-Louis Giavitto, and Florent Jacquemard. 2012. Correct automatic accompaniment despite machine listening or human errors in Antescofo. In ICMC 2012International Computer Music Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Lowell Cross. 1999. Reunion: John Cage, Marcel Duchamp, Electronic Music and Chess. Leonardo Music Journal 9: 35--42. https://doi.org/10/cf3f2jGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Anna Dickinson, John Arnott, and Suzanne Prior. 2007. Methods for human--computer interaction research with older people. Behaviour & Information Technology 26, 4: 343--352. https://doi.org/10/fwztwh Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Guo Freeman and Donghee Yvette Wohn. 2017. eSports as an emerging research context at CHI: Diverse perspectives on definitions. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1601--1608. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Anders Friberg. 2006. pDM: an expressive sequencer with real-time control of the KTH music-performance rules. Computer Music Journal 30, 1: 37--48. https://doi.org/10/d4krt9 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Kenneth H. Goodrich, Paul C. Schutte, Frank O. Flemisch, and Ralph A. Williams. 2006. Application of the H-mode, a design and interaction concept for highly automated vehicles, to aircraft. In 25th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2006 IEEE/AIAA, 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Michael A. Goodrich and Alan C. Schultz. 2008. Human--robot interaction: a survey. Foundations and Trends® in Human--Computer Interaction 1, 3: 203--275. https://doi.org/10/b9k4td Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Chris Greenhalgh, Steve Benford, Adrian Hazzard, and Alan Chamberlain. 2017. Playing fast and loose with music recognition. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 4302--4313. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Official Site of Guitar Hero. Retrieved January 3, 2019 from https://www.guitarhero.com/uk/en/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Guy Hoffman and Gil Weinberg. 2011. Interactive improvisation with a robotic marimba player. Autonomous Robots 31, 2--3: 133-- 153. https://doi.org/10/d993sp Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Stephen A. Hedges. 1978. Dice music in the eighteenth century. Music & Letters 59, 2: 180--187. https://doi.org/10/bgjcpkGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Herbert H. Clark. 1996. Using language. 1996. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge 952: 274--296.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Kristina Höök and Jonas Löwgren. 2012. Strong concepts: Intermediate-level knowledge in interaction design research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 19, 3: 23. https://doi.org/10/f225d4 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Ioanna Iacovides, Anna L. Cox, Patrick McAndrew, James Aczel, and Eileen Scanlon. 2015. Game-Play Breakdowns and Breakthroughs: Exploring the Relationship Between Action, Understanding, and Involvement. Human--Computer Interaction 30, 3--4: 202--231. https://doi.org/10/gfsmxz Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Jesper Juul. 2013. The art of failure: An essay on the pain of playing video games. Mit Press. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Maria Kallionpää. 2016. Performing the super instrument: reaching beyond technical and expressive capabilities. In Proceedings of the conference on Electronic Visualisation and the Arts, 28--33. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Maria Kallionpää and Hans-Peter Gasselseder. 2016. The imaginary friend: crossing over computer game scoring techniques and musical expression. In Proceedings of the conference on Electronic Visualisation and the Arts, 42--48. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Nina Keith and Michael Frese. 2008. Effectiveness of error management training: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 93, 1: 59. https://doi.org/10/fbksqfGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Patrick Lin, Keith Abney, and George Bekey. 2011. Robot ethics: Mapping the issues for a mechanized world. Artificial Intelligence 175, 5--6: 942. https://doi.org/10/fxhj4b Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Henry Lowood. 2008. High-performance play: The making of machinima. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development 7, 1: 25--42.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Clemens Maidhof, Martina Rieger, Wolfgang Prinz, and Stefan Koelsch. 2009. Nobody is perfect: ERP effects prior to performance errors in musicians indicate fast monitoring processes. PLoS One 4, 4: e5032. https://doi.org/10/bj5stjGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Elizabeth McNutt. 2003. Performing electroacoustic music: a wider view of interactivity. Organised Sound 8, 3: 297--304. https://doi.org/10/ddk46k Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Imogene Newland. 2013. Embodying failure: Music performance, risk and authenticity. Somatechnics 3, 1: 98--118. https://doi.org/10/gd7d5vGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Martin Porcheron, Joel E. Fischer, Stuart Reeves, and Sarah Sharples. 2018. Voice Interfaces in Everyday Life. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 640. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Bruno H. Repp. 1996. The art of inaccuracy: Why pianists' errors are difficult to hear. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal 14, 2: 161--183. https://doi.org/10/gd7d5xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Jean-Claude Risset and Scott Van Duyne. 1996. Real-time performance interaction with a computer-controlled acoustic piano. Computer music journal 20, 1: 62--75. https://doi.org/10/d9bv5bGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. William Ryan and Martin A Siegel. Evaluating Interactive Entertainment using Breakdown: Understanding Embodied Learning in Video Games. In DiGRA Conference. 2009. 9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Martina Angela Sasse, Sacha Brostoff, and Dirk Weirich. 2001. Transforming the "weakest link'-a human/computer interaction approach to usable and effective security. BT technology journal 19, 3: 122--131. https://doi.org/10/cj5hm4 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Amanda Sharkey and Noel Sharkey. 2012. Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics and information technology 14, 1: 27--40. https://doi.org/10/cdd62t Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. SingStar. Retrieved January 3, 2019 from https://www.singstar.com/home.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Plurality Spring by Paul Turowski and Simon Hutchinson. Retrieved January 3, 2019 from https://batta.itch.io/plurality-springGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Lucy A. Suchman. 1987. Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge university press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Yousician -- Your personal music teacher. Retrieved January 7, 2019 from https://yousician.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Dieter Zapf, Michael Frese, Felix C. Brodbeck, C. Graf Hoyos, D. Frey, and D. Stahlberg. 1999. Fehler und Fehlermanagement. Arbeits-und Organisationspsychologie.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson. 2007. Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 493--502. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Failing with Style: Designing for Aesthetic Failure in Interactive Performance

        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 Conferences
          CHI '19: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
          May 2019
          9077 pages
          ISBN:9781450359702
          DOI:10.1145/3290605

          Copyright © 2019 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: 2 May 2019

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          CHI '19 Paper Acceptance Rate703of2,958submissions,24%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format