Sanatsal VR Ortamlarında Somut Kavrayış ve Kullanıcı Özduyu Süreçleri

Abstract

Bu makale, sanal gerçeklik sanat eseriyle etkileşimde bulunma durumunda ortaya çıkan kullanıcı özduyu süreçlerini araştırmaktadır. Kullanıcı özduyu süreçlerinin halihazırdaki yorumlarının sanallık teknolojileri ile yeniden değerlendirilmesi gerekliliğinden dolayı bu durum araştırılan konuyla alakalı görülmüştür. Çalışmada farklı sanatsal yaratımlar ve buna yönelik tespit edilen duyuşsal süreçler araştırılmıştır. Araştırmada kullanıcı ve çevre arasındaki belirli empatik bağlantı mekanizmaları vasıtasıyla duyusallığı geliştirmenin mümkün olduğuna ve sanal ortamlarda olup bitenlerle bağlantılı olan bedenlerin duyusal bilgileri alıp geliştirdiği sonucuna varılmıştır.

Keywords

• Sanat
• beden
• algı
• deneyim
• üstevren
• özduyu
• sanal gerçeklik

Embodied Cognition and User Proprioceptive Processes in Artistic Virtual Reality Environments

Abstract

This article explores the user sensory processes that emerge in contact with the virtual reality artwork. This is relevant because with virtuality technologies it is necessary to reevaluate the existing interpretation of the proprioceptive processes of the user. Different artistic creations and sensory processes detected are explored. This study concludes that through certain mechanisms of empathic connection between the user and the environment it is possible to expand sensorialities. Bodies connected to virtual environments receive and expand sensory information.

Keywords

• Art
• body
• cognition
• experience
• metaverse
• proprioception
• virtual reality

References

1. Abramovic, M. (2018). Rising [VR]. https ://ac utear t.com /arti st/ma rinaabramovic/
2. Alsina, P. (2007). Arte, ciencia y tecnología. Editorial UOC.
3. Anderson, L., & Huang, H. C. (2018). Chalkroom [VR]. http: //www .laur ieanderson .com/ ?port folio =chal kroom
4. Bailenson, J., Baughman, S., Ogle, E., Asher, T., Laha, B., & Karutz, C. (2016). The Stanford Ocean Acidification Experience [VR]. https ://st anfor dvr.c om/so ae/
5. Barrett, L. F. (2017). La vida secreta del cerebro: Como se construyen lasemociones. Paidós.
6. Biocca, F. (1997). The cyborg’s dilemma: Progressive embodiment in virtualenvironments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,3(2).
7. Cybernetic Serendipity. (1968). [Exhibition]. https://cyberneticserendipity.net/
8. Damasio, A. R. (1999). El error de Descartes: La razón de las emociones. Andrés Bello.

9. Davies, C. (1995). Osmose [VR]. https ://ww w.dig itala rtarc hive. at/da tabas e/gen eral/ work/ osmos e.htm l
10. De la Peña, N., Weil, P., Llobera, J., Spanlang, B., Friedman, D., Sanchez-Vives, M. V., & Slater, M. (2010). Immersive journalism: Immersive virtual reality for the first-person experience of news. Presence: Teleoperatorsand Virtual Environments, 19(4), 291-301.
11. Dewey, J. (2005). Art as experience. Penguin.
12. Froese, T., & Di Paolo, E. A. (2011). The enactive approach: Theoretical sketches from cell to society. Pragmatics and Cognition, 19(1), 1-36.
13. Gallagher, S., & Lindgren, R. (2015). Enactive metaphors: Learning through full-body engagement. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 391- 404.
14. Gibbs Jr., R. W. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge University Press.
15. Gibson, J. J. (2014). The ecological approach to visual perception: Classic edition. Psychology Press.
16. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought (Vol. 640). Basic books.
17. Lemmerz, C. (2018). TRAUM [VR]. https ://kh oraco ntemp orary .com/ project/ch risti an-le mmerz -2/
18. Metzinger, T. (2009). The ego tunnel: The science of the mind and the myth of the self. Basic Books (AZ).
19. Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, 77(12), 1321-1329. https ://ww w.res earch gate. net/p ublic ation /2315 14051 A_Taxonom y_of_ Mixed Real ity_V isual Disp lays/ link/ 02e7e 52ade 5e1713ea00 0000/ downl oad
20. Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A., & Kishino, F. (1995). Augmented reality: A class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies, 2351, 282-292.
21. Penny, S. (2012). Trying to be calm: Ubiquity, cognitivism, and embodiment. In U. Ekman (Ed.), Throughout: Art and culture emerging with ubiquitous computing (p. 263). The Mit Press.
22. Rancière, J. (2010). El espectador emancipado. Ediciones Manantial.
23. Shin, D. (2018). Empathy and embodied experience in virtual environment: To what extent can virtual reality stimulate empathy and embodied experience?. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 64-73.
24. Simó, A. (2019). La realidad virtual en la creación artística: conceptos, tecnologías, trayectoria y actualidad. Arte y Políticas de Identidad, 20, 131-146.
25. Slater, M. (2009). Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 364(1535), 3549-3557.
26. Slater, M. (2018). Immersion and the illusion of presence in virtual reality. British Journal of Psychology, 109(3), 431-433.
27. Steyerl, H. (2014). Los condenados de la pantalla (M. Expósito, Trad.). Caja Negra.
28. Thompson, E. (2005). Sensorimotor subjectivity and the enactive approach to experience. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 407-427.
29. Tikka, P., Väljamäe, A., De Borst, A. W., Pugliese, R., Ravaja, N., Kaipainen, M., & Takala, T. (2012). Enactive cinema paves way for understanding complex real-time social interaction in neuroimaging experiments. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 298.
30. Tversky, B. (2019). Mind in motion: How action shapes thought. Basic Books.
31. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1997). De cuerpo presente: Las ciencias cognitivas y la experiencia humana (C. Gardini, Trad.). Gedisa.