Collaboration as Differentiation: Rethinking interaction intra-actively

Authors

  • Teoma Naccarato Centre for Dance Research, Coventry University
  • John MacCallum Inria, CNRS, Université Paris-Saclay

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21476/PP.2019.42234

Keywords:

Diffraction, Intra-Action, Intra-Active (Design), Interaction Design, Boundary Objects, Critical Appropriation, Collaboration, Process Philosophy, Feminist Philosophy, New Materialism

Abstract

This paper is a invitation to interaction designers across disciplines to rethink the shaping of interaction “intra-actively”. Whether in human-computer interaction design or interdisciplinary and interactive performance practices, we propose to shift the emphasis from interaction between things, towards the intra-active processes of differentiation by which such things are continually made and unmade. Expanding interaction design by engaging in processes intended to bring awareness to the value systems involved in the local production of “interaction” and “things that interact” offers an opportunity to treat these values, and likewise the designers (be it engineers or choreographers or composers), as objects themselves in the design process. In the traditions of feminist, new materialist, and process philosophy we weave a narrative of appropriated perspectives in order to dismantle hegemonic accounts of correlationism and representationalism in interaction design, while investigating the concepts of boundary objects, diffraction, and critical appropriation as potential approaches to intra-active design.

Author Biographies

Teoma Naccarato, Centre for Dance Research, Coventry University

Teoma Naccarato (Canada/UK) is a choreographer and interdisciplinary artist. Through collaborative creations for stage, video and installation she explores the appropriation of surveillance and biomedical technologies in contemporary dance and performance practices.  Recent creations and publications related to her long-term collaboration with composer John MacCallum are available at <https://teomanaccarato.com> and <https://iii-iii-iii.org>. Naccarato completed an MFA in Dance and Technology at the Ohio State University (OSU) in 2011, and has since held appointments as a Visiting Artist in Dance at OSU, Concordia University, Sam Houston State University, and Florida State University. Naccarato is presently pursuing a practice-based PhD at the Centre for Dance Research (C-DaRE) at Coventry University.

John MacCallum, Inria, CNRS, Université Paris-Saclay

John MacCallum (Paris): As a composer, MacCallum’s practice is heavily reliant on technology both as a compositional tool and as an integral aspect of performance. His works often employ carefully constrained algorithms that are allowed to evolve differently and yet predictably each time they are performed. MacCallum studied at the University of the Pacific (B.M.), McGill University (M.M.), and UC Berkeley (Ph.D., Music Composition). From 2010-2016 he was a postdoctoral researcher at the Center for New Music and Audio Technologies (CNMAT). Since 2017 he has been based in Paris as a postdoctoral researcher with the Extreme Interaction (EX-SITU) research team at Inria Saclay/Université Paris-Sud/CNRS. http://john-maccallum.com

References

Barad, Karen. 2014. “Diffracting Diffraction: Cutting Together-Apart.” Parallax 20 (3): 168–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2014.927623

Barad, Karen. 2012. “Matter Feels, Converses, Suffers, Desires, Yearns and Remembers.” In New Materialism: Interviews & Cartographies. Edited by R. Dolphin and I. van der Tuin, n.p.. Michigan: Open Humanities Press.

Barad, Karen. 2010. “Quantum Entanglements and Hauntological Relations of Inheritance: Dis/continuities, SpaceTime Enfoldings, and Justice-to-Come.” Derrida Today 3 (2): 240–268. https://doi.org/10.3366/drt.2010.0206

Barad, Karen. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822388128

Barad, Karen. 2003. “Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter.” Signs 28 (3): 801–831. https://doi.org/10.1086/345321

Bowker, Geoffrey C., and Susan Leigh Star. 1999. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex.” New York: Routledge.

Callon, Michel. 1986. “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay.” In Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? Edited by John Law, 196–233. London: Routledge.

Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. (1980) 1987. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Edited and Translated by Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Derrida, Jacques. 2008. The Gift of Death. Edited and Translated by David Wills. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Foucault, Michel. (1976) 1990. The History of Sexuality: Volume 1: An Introduction. New York: Random House.

Foucault, Michel. 1982. “The Subject and Power.” Critical Enquiry 8 (4): 777–795. https://doi.org/10.1086/448181

Guattari, Félix. 1995. Chaosmosis: An Ethico-Aesthetic Paradigm. Edited and Translated by Paul Bains and Julian Pefanis. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Guattari, Félix. 2015. Psychoanalysis and Transversality. South Pasadena: Semiotext(e).

Haraway, Donna. 1991. “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century.” In Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, 149–181. New York: Routledge.

Haraway, Donna. 1992. “The Promises of Monsters: A Regenerative Politics for Inappropriate/d Others.” In Cultural Studies. Edited by Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, and Paula A. Treichler, 295–339. New York: Routledge.

Henderson, Kathryn. 1999. On Line and On Paper: Visual Representations, Visual Culture, and Computer Graphics in Design Engineering. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Huvila, Isto. 2011. “The Politics of Boundary Objects Hegemonic Interventions and the Making of a Document.” JASIST 62 (12): 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21639

Lee, Charlotte P. 2007. “Boundary Negotiating Artifacts: Unbinding the Routine of Boundary Objects and Embracing Chaos in Collaborative Work.” Computer Supported Collaborative Work 16: 307–339.

Maffie, James. 2014. Aztec Philosophy: Understanding a World in Motion. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

Star, Susan Leigh. 1989. “The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogenous Distributed Problem Solving.” Distributed Artificial Intelligence 2: n.p.

Star, Susan Leigh. 2010. “This Is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 35 (3): 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243910377624

Star, Susan Leigh, and James R. Griesemer. 1989. “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39.” Social Studies of Science 19 (3): 387–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001

Downloads

Published

01-02-2019

How to Cite

Naccarato, T., & MacCallum, J. (2019). Collaboration as Differentiation: Rethinking interaction intra-actively. Performance Philosophy, 4(2), 410–433. https://doi.org/10.21476/PP.2019.42234

Issue

Section

Articles