Figure 1. Cat’s Cradle linking users.

Paul Davies

May + June 2008

interactions

not know where the light was coming from or how the light was able to change. The chaotic elements of the programming prevented the experience from becoming predictable. The butterflies that flocked around users’ feet would fly away, out of the projection, if the user moved too quickly or out of the projected area. The ghostly feet, whilst following the users’ pathways, would dictate their own routes to a degree. Sometimes users would run after the escaping butterflies or footprints to try to recapture them, reacting to the computer programming so that any linear equation of action/ reaction was disrupted and the game-like qualities were therefore enhanced.

The recognition of the game aesthetic here was crucial to the experience. The user would walk into the space and realize that the lights were responding directly to his or her motion in space. People naturally played with that response. The “rules” were understood by users as part of the game—with the behavior of the images enabling, responding, or failing to respond. For example, if the user moved within the parameters of space and timing that the computer could sense, then the images responded, but if the user

stepped out of the range of the thermal camera, then the images no longer responded to his or her movements.

Many visitors to the installation described the experience as “playful,” “transparent,” or “ magical.” The position of the square, set back and up from the street, encouraged the impression that visitors had moved further away from the thoroughfare than the distance traveled. It was almost like stepping onto a stage, with the lights picking out the users in the darkness. The remoteness of the space from “normal” life supported the potential for a magical experience, particularly at night when the space was dark. The introduction of colorful, moving lights to that dark space created a feeling of festival and celebration. Passers-by on Davygate could not see exactly what was happening in the square, but they could see people moving, lit up as if by colored spotlights—unconsciously dancing in the streets.

Equally, users brought their own independent choices and modes of engagement to the work, as they discovered the rules and worked out how they wished to interact with them. They could step in and out of the light source, selecting the images with which they wished to inter-

act. (Some groups even worked out the length of time between cycles of the football game and would return regularly to the square to participate energetically in this highly competitive element.) One of the key factors that made the installation so successful was its simplicity from the user’s point of view. The rules of engagement were not written down or taught, but were inherent in the design of the images and their programming.

The installation was most effective when more than one person was interacting within it. The introduction of other people into the simple yet chaotic relationship allowed for still more-sophisticated interactive experiences. It had been a major aim to get strangers dancing together and communicating through movement where they might otherwise remain isolated, passing on the street. The clear sense of purpose and goal-oriented play led to reports of particularly strong experiences of interaction and communication. Yet it was interesting that the more abstract digital images encouraged a different kind of playful communication.

One of the installation elements was a game of Cat’s Cradle (Figure 1), with lines of