A new medium between humanity and nature

An affordance analysis of bio-art as a new medium

THIS IS A TRANSLATION OF THE ORIGINAL

27 Jan, 2022

(Translated on the 27 May, 2022)

2021-2022 2 BA-eindwerkstuk Media en cultuur (ME3V15026)

BSc Media en Cultuur
Job Santé (6190103)
Supervising teacher: Elize de Mul

Pages: 31| Wordcount: 7989| Annotation: Chicago Footnotes

Kernwoorden: media-art, bio-art, affordance, biofeedback
A new medium between humanity and nature

Summary
This research illustrates the development of the new medium of bio-art and analyzes it within
the context of media science. This research discusses the increasingly named concept of bio-
art within the context of media science. By performing a media-oriented analysis on Saša
Spačal’ s bio-artwork Myconnect, this research hopes to show how bio-art can gain more
recognition as a new medium within media science. In doing so, this research aligns with the
claims of Mitchell and Porath who argue that media science can benefit from a more broadly
oriented view that extends beyond digital media.
Within this research, the academic debate surrounding media art is first mapped.
Under discussion of the literature of Hauser and Mitchell, the definition of the concept of
medium within the context of bio-art is discussed and the positioning of bio-art as a process-
oriented phenomenon is examined. In addition to bioart, the concept of interactivity is
discussed using Kluszczynski and Bendor. It examines how interaction can be classified within
forms of interactive art and what the possible meanings can be of this implementation of
interaction.
Following this discussion is a media-oriented analysis towards the work Myconnect by
Saša Spačal. Through her work, Spačal has created an interactive environment in which
humans and nature can interact. By applying Ritter's person-media variables, the different
elements of interaction within Myconnect are designated. Next, the concept of affordance,
borrowed from Jeong &Park is applied. This concept describes how the viewer can interact
with the work within Myconnect. In conclusion, the concept of biofeedback as described by
Khut is applied. Based on this concept, it is analyzed how the passive interaction created by
Myconnect results in a connection between nature and man.

2
 Job Santé

Contents
Summary ................................................................................................................................2
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................4
2. Myconnect and Saša Spačal ................................................................................................8
3. Theoretical framework ......................................................................................................9
3.1 Bio-art ...........................................................................................................................9
3.2 Interactivity ................................................................................................................12
4. Methodology ....................................................................................................................13
4.1 Person-media variables ...............................................................................................14
4.2 Affordance ..................................................................................................................15
4.3 Biofeedback ................................................................................................................17
5. Analysis ............................................................................................................................18
5.1.1 Between spectator and interaction ..........................................................................18
5.2 Affordances of Myconnect ..........................................................................................21
5.3 In touch with nature ...................................................................................................26
6. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................28
Bibliography .........................................................................................................................30

3
A new medium between humanity and nature

1. Introduction

Bioart, a recent term coined in 1977 refers to a development within the art world towards the
incorporation of living nature as an artistic medium through the use of biotechnology.1
Biotechnology describes all biological practices in which natural, living organisms are used for
various purposes. Forms of genetic engineering or the creation of plastic from mold are
examples of such biotechnology. Several artists have worked to explore, expand, and exhibit
the field of bioart in recent years. Within expressions of bioart, the relationship between
humans and nature is almost always emphasized. For example, a work such as GFP BUNNY by
Eduardo Kac highlights the ethics of genetic manipulation by manipulating the genes of a
rabbit so that it gives off light in the dark (Fig. 1) Lucie Draai's work, Outsider within: A
Conversation, also prompts a critical approach to our relationship with the natural world
around us through lecture and performance (Fig. 2).2 Organizations such as Bioart
Laboratories in Eindhoven and V2_ in Rotterdam are increasingly exhibiting bio art and
competitions such as the BAD award (bio art design) are appearing more and more often.3
However, bio-art does not only occupy public minds. Since the emergence of the art form and
the introduction of the term 'bioart', a lively academic debate has developed around bioart,
focusing mainly on its meaning and function. In recent years, this interdisciplinary debate has
seen a growing demand for research into bio-art from a media studies perspective. For
example, Robert Mitchell, a scientist specializing in the relationship between science and art,
argues that bioart constitutes a new medium because it allows elements of art and
biotechnology to interact.4 He also argues that media studies currently pay too little attention
to researching developments such as that of bio-art.

1
‘KAC BIO - 300 WORDS’, accessed 22 October 2021, http://www.ekac.org/kacbio300.html.
2
‘Outsider Within: A Conversation’, Lucie Draai, accessed 8 December 2021,
https://www.luciedraai.nl/outsider-within-a-conversation.
3
‘BioArt Laboratories |’, accessed 27 January 2022, https://bioartlab.com/; ‘Bio Art & Design Award’, accessed
27 January 2022, https://www.badaward.nl/?fbclid=IwAR3bMsfI-QCjhS0cf8mdXqi6DwWYVD_rlEFwD1-
8FgeUsLxlir0pOVFQ98A; ‘Lab for the Unstable Media’, Collection, V2_Lab for the Unstable Media, accessed 27
January 2022, https://v2.nl/home.
4
Robert Mitchell, Bioart and the Vitality of Media, In Vivo: The Cultural Mediations of Biomedical Science
(Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2010), 116.

4
 Job Santé

Fig. 1: Eduardo Kac, GFP Bunny, 2000, http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/works/gfp-bunny/

Fig. 2: Lucie Draai, Outsider Within: a conversation, 2020, https://www.luciedraai.nl/outsider-within-a-

conversation

5
A new medium between humanity and nature

He argues that because the field of new media focuses too much on developments of digital
technology, developments such as bioart have remained off the radar of new media science.5
Erik Porath adds to this claim when he argues that cultural science and media studies
systematically understudy the natural sciences.6 Bioart, due to characteristics of nature and
biology, falls outside the focus area created within cultural and media science. Whereas
Porath and Mitchell argue that media science could be enriched by also giving bioart space
within the debate, media philosopher John Durham Peters argues that nature as a whole can
be understood from within media science.7
Through a media-focused analysis of the work Myconnect by Saša Spačal, this research
attempts to demonstrate how media-oriented research into bio-art can take place. By doing
so, I want to contribute with this research to the developments around a media science-
oriented approach to bio-art. Myconnect is an interactive installation work in which the visitor
is connected to a mycelium colony through sensors, light and vibration. This creates a
circulating interaction in which mycelium and the visitor react to each other. 8 This work by
Spačal, because of its interactive aspect, lends itself particularly well to a media-oriented
analysis that seeks to connect to the subject of bioart. Interactivity is widely studied in both
media science and art science, therefore there is a lot of literature that makes it possible to
connect (bio)art to media science through the concept of interactivity. For example, Roy
Bendor writes about interactive art leading to a greater awareness of sustainability in
Interactive Media for Sustainability.9 And Ryszard Kluszczynski, in Strategies of interactive art,
explores what the various uses of interactivity within art are 10
Myconnect lends itself very well to a media-oriented analysis of bioart because, in
addition to being a bioart work, it also behaves as an interactive artwork within which the
viewer must take a seat. Within this work, the spectator is positioned so that she interacts
with a mycelium. I argue that this interactive aspect is a good starting point for a broader

5
Robert Mitchell, Bioart and the Vitality of Media, 114.
6
Jens Hauser, ‘Biomediality and Art’, in Recomposing Art and Science: Artists-in-Labs, door Irene Hediger en Jill
Scott (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016), 209.
7
John Durham Peters, The Marvelous Clouds: Toward a Philosophy of Elemental Media (University of Chicago
Press, 2015), https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226253978.001.0001, 4.
8
‘Myconnect – Agapea Saša Spačal’, accessed 24 November 2021,
https://www.agapea.si/en/projects/myconnect.
9
Roy Bendor, Interactive Media for Sustainability (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018),
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70383-1.
10
Ryszard Kluszczynski, ‘Strategies of Interactive Art’, Journal of Aesthetics and Culture 2 (22 October 2010),
https://doi.org/10.3402/jac.v2i0.5525.

6
 Job Santé

media-oriented analysis into bioart. To find linkage between media science and bioart, I
propose research in which the relationship between humans and nature mediated by
Myconnect is put central. This is to see how Spačal's work approaches the viewer and
hopefully in a broader sense how bio-art instills in viewers a redefinition of the concepts of
nature and medium.
In this research I ask the main question: how does Myconnect, through an interactive
relationship with its spectator, bring about a new understanding of nature and medium? To
answer this question, the following sub-questions are posed: how do the affordances of
interactivity take shape within Myconnect, how does interaction take place within Myconnect,
what role does nature (biotechnology) have within Myconnect and how does Myconnect
position its viewers? To answer these questions, this research will use both conceptual and
affordance analysis. In doing so, it will first broadly address the role that media science can
play within the field of bio-art after which specific examples will be given through an
affordance analysis of Myconnect. By seeking answers to these questions, I hope that with
this research I can indicate how media science and bioart can be connected and, in a broader
sense, what media science can mean for art science.

7
A new medium between humanity and nature

2. Myconnect and Saša Spačal

Fig. 3: Damjan Svarc, Myconnect, 2013, Kapelica Gallery

Saša Spačal is an artist who deals primarily with the theme of posthumanism. She focuses in
her work on the relationship between man, nature and technology where man is no longer
the central focus.11
Spačal describes Myconnect as a connector between two different species that creates
a symbiotic relationship between humans and nature through biological and technological
means. By providing sensory stimuli to humans, Spačal attempts to create a connection
between humans and mycelium within Myconnect. "Myconnect creates an experience of
connectedness, of unqualified immersion through the sensory system of the body." 12
Myconnect works by measuring the spectator's heartbeat and converting it into an
electronic signal. This signal is then passed through mycelium. Mycelium is the network of
threads of a fungus, these threads can respond to electrical signals by resisting them. The
randomness of the resistance determines the strength of the electrical signal that the
mycelium gives off. This electrical signal determines the way the lamps, audio, etc. react within

11
‘About – Agapea Saša Spačal’, accessed 27 January 2022, https://www.agapea.si/en/about.
12
‘Myconnect – Agapea Saša Spačal’.

8
 Job Santé

Myconnect. The way the lamps, audio, etc. react influences the heartbeat of the participant
and initiates a new cycle. In this way, Myconnect puts the viewer in a symbiotic relationship
with mycelium, according to Spačal.13

3. Theoretical framework
3.1 Bio-art
To conduct research on Saša Spačal’ s work, it is first of all important to have a clear idea of
the concept of bio-art. In order to reflect on how the discourse surrounding bioart is situated,
this research primarily uses the work of Robert Mitchell. Mitchell is a scholar who specializes
in the relationship between science and the arts, and in his book Bioart and the Vitality of
Media, he clearly outlines the discourse surrounding bioart. Mitchell argues that bioart defines
an art form that implements biotechnology (as a subject or medium).14 Biotechnology
describes the practices in which research is conducted on living organisms, often with the goal
of developing products. Mitchell takes this further by distinguishing between two different
forms of bioart, namely "prophylactic bioart" and "vitalist bioart." Profylactic bioart defines
bioart in which biotechnology is represented through, for example, photographs or video
work. According to Mitchell, prophylactic bioart is a way to get the viewer to focus on certain
aspects of biotechnology. An example of this is the work of Lucie Draai discussed in the
introduction (Fig. 2). Within vitalist bioart, on the other hand, biotechnology is implemented
as part of the work. An example of this is the work of Eduardo Kac also discussed in the
introduction (Fig. 1). Mitchell argues that this form of bioart results in new relationships
between spectators and biotechnology. Vitalist bioart is, in Mitchell's words, "primarily
exploratory and experimental: that is, rather than seeking [...] the meaning of life, vitalist
bioart instead explores what life can do." 15 Mitchell describes vitalist bioart as an art form that
fuses the relationships between the public, research institutions, and the corporate sphere
(around biotechnology).16
To describe how vitalist bioart positions spectators, Mitchell appeals to the concept of
"affect”.17 Here, Mitchell refers to the work of Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari and Brian

13
‘Myconnect – Agapea Saša Spačal’.
14
Mitchell, Bioart and the Vitality of Media, 22.
15
Ibid., 32.
16
Mitchell, Bioart and the Vitality of Media, 69.
17
Jdem., 71.

9
A new medium between humanity and nature

Massumi, in which affect refers to the possibility of causing a situation to change. The most
important thing about this concept is that it does not see the spectator as a separate factor
within a work of art but makes them part of the work itself. Affect describes the way the
spectator's actions affect a work, but also how the actions of a work (physically) affect the
spectator.18 Through the concept of "affect," Mitchell describes the spectator of vitalist bioart
as both passive and active. Mitchell argues that the spectator of vitalist bioart has both the
role of being affected and the role of influencing.19
In addition to the spectator’s relationship to bio-art, Mitchell also questions the
meaning of the concept of "medium" within the context of (vitalist) bio-art. Mitchell argues
that bioart situates the concept of medium in a unique way. He names the different meanings
of the word medium and the different roles they play within bioart. Medium within the
humanities refers to a way of conveying information, within the arts to the materials that
make up a work, and within bioscience to the fluids or materials used to keep cells and
organisms alive during investigations.20
Mitchell argues that the two different forms of media that occur within bioart result in
a new "environment" in which bioart can exist. To substantiate this, Mitchell refers to the
philosopher Gilbert Simondon who states that a medium defines itself as a way of connecting
two disconnected elements.21 Mitchell uses this media theory to portray vitalist bio-art as
being a new medium that connects spectator, bio-science and art in a new way.22 According
to Mitchell, the field of media science needs to broaden its focus and reduce its focus on digital
media.23
Another scientist working on bioart is Jens Hauser, he is a media scientist and
approaches bioart primarily from the perspective of life science. Unlike Mitchell, Hauser
focuses primarily on the role of biotechnology within bioart. Hauser argues that the bio-artist
acts as an "art-researcher" who attempts to bridge the gap between the humanities and
natural sciences.24 Like Mitchell, Hauser argues that media science places too little emphasis

18
Ibid., 76.
19
Ibid., 76.
20
Ibid., 93.
21
Ibid., 107.
22
Ibid., 113.
23
Mitchell, Bioart and the Vitality of Media, 116.
24
Hauser, ‘Biomediality and Art’., 206.

10
 Job Santé

on natural science.25 And like Mitchell, Hauser argues that the definition of medium as merely
a way of communicating is no longer adequate.26 Hauser therefore joins Mitchell's point that
bioart is an amalgamation of multiple definitions of the word medium. Hauser sees the
description of medium within bioscience as merely a means of keeping organisms alive as
inadequate. He therefore introduces the concept of "biomediality" which describes how
biological processes and organisms are reorganized to function as being a medium within
bioart. Within the concept of biomediality, Hauser describes three different forms of
biomediality namely: Biological media, the media that enables the life of organisms. Biomedia,
the media that enables the manipulation or reorganization of a biological environment or
biological subject.27 Media of biology, the means used to make measurements of biological
systems or to make something presentable within a biological system.28 Hauser argues that
because bioart consists of a multiplicity of different disciplines and processes it cannot be
understood as merely an aesthetic art object. Instead, he argues, bio-art should be seen as a
process by which new knowledge is created. "Art here is no longer merely concerned with the
aesthetic transposition of knowledge, but of knowing and feeling how knowledge is
produced".29 In an article by Anne Byerley & Derrick Chong, both scholars specializing in art
history makes similar point. Byerley and Chong describe bio-art as a "critical practice" in which
bio-art opposes the prevailing norm in society. According to Byerley and Chong, bioart
encourages critical thinking about what art is and how the relationship between humans and
nature is structured. Media philosopher Joanna Zylinska also makes a similar point when she
writes about the ethics behind bioart. Zylinska emphasizes the performative power of bio-art,
she argues that because bio-art exposes the relationship between humans and nature, bio-art
has a performative power to prompt viewers to think differently about this relationship.30

25
Ibid., 209.
26
Ibid., 208.
27
Ibid., 206.
28
Jens Hauser, “Rehabilitating Bacteria An Epistemological Art/Science Interface,” in Shifting Interfaces An
Anthology of Presence, Empathy, and Agency in 21st-Century Media Arts, by Hava Aldouby (Leuven: Leuven
University Press, 2020),196-197.
29
Hauser, ‘Biomediality and Art’., 218.
30
Joanna Zylinska, “Green Bunnies and Speaking Ears: The Ethics of Bioart,” in Bioethics in the Age of New
Media (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2009), 159.

11
A new medium between humanity and nature

3.2 Interactivity
To conduct research on the interactivity that takes place within Myconnect, it is important to
have a clear idea of how interactivity can be defined within a new medium such as bioart.
Ryszard Kluszczynski, a media scholar specializing in digital culture and new media has
developed a theory that distinguishes eight different strategies for interaction within art.
Kluszczynski argues that an interactive artwork always takes the form of an event. That is, an
interactive artwork is never complete and requires action from the viewer to take its final
form. 31 In this way, Kluszcynski also argues that each new interaction with an interactive
artwork, in turn forms its own new "work," for each interaction with the artwork is unique and
personal to the viewer.32 The eight strategies of interaction suggested by Kluszczynski are as
follows:

• Strategy of instrument", in this form of interactivity the interface of a work is central.

The artwork puts the interface at the center and the viewer is invited to experiment
with this interface.33
• "Strategy of game", here the interaction is bound by rules set up by the work, the
spectator participates in a kind of game that leads to the creation or creation of a work
of art.34
• "Strategy of archive", in this form of interaction the viewer can navigate through a
collection of information.35
• "Strategy of labyrinth", is remarkably similar to the strategy of archive but differs from
it in that in the strategy of labyrinth the information is hidden in the interaction, the
viewer must actively act to extract the information from the work. 36
• "Strategy of rhizome", describes a form of interaction, in which the spectator must
take action to gain information from a work, but at the same time causes new
information to be gathered in the work.37

31
Ryszard Kluszczynski, “Strategies of Interactive Art,” Journal of Aesthetics and Culture 2 (October 22, 2010),
https://doi.org/10.3402/jac.v2i0.5525, 2.
32
Kluszczynski, "Strategies of Interactive Art", 2.
33
Ibid., 4.
34
Ibid., 7.
35
Kluszczynski, "Strategies of Interactive Art", 10.
36
Ibid., 13.
37
Ibid., 15.

12
 Job Santé

• "Strategy of system", is a form of interaction that does not focus on the viewer but
interacts in a different way with, for example, a website or data from outside. 38
• "Strategy of network," a form of interactivity in which spectators are connected in a
network, here it is not necessarily the interaction itself that takes the lead role but the
network that eventually emerges.39
• "Strategy of spectacle", in this form of interactivity, the action of a spectator creates
the possibility of creating a "spectacle", which the spectator can then observe. 40

Expounding on the relationship between viewer and interactive art, Roy Bendor writes in
his book Interactive Media for Sustainability how different forms of interactivity can
contribute to a sense of responsibility for our planet in viewers. 41 In doing so, Bendor
names the factor of "unfinishedness" of interactive art.42 According to Bendor,
unfinishedness describes the extent to which interaction adds to a work; a work in which
the viewer has to do a lot to achieve an end result has a greater degree of unfinishedness
than a work in which the only thing that needs to be done is press a button. Bendor states
that the degree of unfinishedness of a work determines how much the spectator must fill
in within such a work and therefore also how much is left to the imagination. Interactive
works, according to Bendor, thus enable the viewer to imagine different realities.43

4. Methodology
The methodology that will be applied for the analysis within this research is built upon the
concept of "affordance", the "person-media variables" methodology and the concept of
"biofeedback". Within the analysis that follows using this methodology, I first identify the
elements of interaction within Myconnect for which I utilize Ritter's "body" variables.44 Next,
I employ Jeong and Park's methodology to set forth the affordances of Myconnect, thereby

38
Ibid., 19.
39
Ibid., 22.
40
Ibid., 24.
41
Bendor, Interactive Media for Sustainability, 132.
42
Ibid., 148.
43
Ibid., 159.
44
Donald Ritter, ‘A TECHNIQUE FOR CREATING NEW VISUAL PHENOMENA’ (Waterloo, Ontario, Canada,
University of Waterloo, 1988), 25.

13
A new medium between humanity and nature

answering the sub-questions "how do the affordances of interactivity take shape within
Myconnect?" and "how does interaction take place within Myconnect?" Lastly, an extension
of this affordance analysis follows through the concept of biofeedback as discussed by Khut. 45
Through this expansion, the sub-questions "what role does nature (biotechnology) have
within Myconnect?" and "how does Myconnect position its audience?" are answered. A
schematic structure of the methodology applied within this research is shown below (Fig. 4).

Affordance Biofeedback
Identifying analysis of and the
elements of the affordances
interaction elements of of
within interaction interaction
Myconnect within within
Myconnect Myconnect

Fig. 4: Analysis within this research

4.1 Person-media variables

Don Ritter uses his "person-media variables" to describe the psychological and physical factors
related to human-media communication.46 These person-media variables, according to Ritter,
provide a way to analyze how medium and human interact.47 In his first publication on person
media variables, Ritter focuses mainly on visual art forms such as film and painting, but in later
publications he also adds interactive art forms.48 In total, Ritter names sixty-eight different
variables that play a role in communication between people and media. He divides these into
four categories, namely:

45
George Poonkhin Khut, ‘Development and Evaluation of Participant-Centred Biofeedback Artworks’ (Sydney,
University of Western Sydney, 2006).
46
Ritter, ‘A TECHNIQUE FOR CREATING NEW VISUAL PHENOMENA’.
47
Ritter, 19.
48
Don Ritter, ‘The Intersection of Art and Interactivity’ (Ars Electronica Festival 96, Vienna: Springer
International Publishing, 1996), 1–7.

14
 Job Santé

• Input variables, the variables that influence the creator of a medium, for example the
knowledge needed to build a radio or the motivation to assemble a car.
• Output variables, the variables that affect the person using the medium, such as the
senses that are stimulated while using it or the attitude that a person should adopt
while using it.
• Formal variables, the physical properties of a medium, such as the size of a TV or the
location of a billboard.
• Content variables, the meaning of a medium, such as the description of a work of art
or the knowledge required to understand a medium.
4.2 Affordance
The concept of affordance describes, in the words of Rex Hartson, a scientist who specializes
in the study of human computer interaction, that "in design, affordance is offering something
to help a user with a desired action".49 In other words, according to Hartson, the concept of
affordance describes the properties of an object that make it possible to perform an action
with that object. Hartson's concept of affordance focuses primarily on the design of utilitarian
objects. Therefore, this analysis also relies on the publication Affordances in Interactive Media
Art Exhibition by Rhee On Jeong & Seungho Park.50 This paper discusses Hartson's theory in
the context of interactive media art and establishes a methodology focused on an affordance
analysis of this art form.
Hartson, as mentioned earlier, defines the concept of affordance as the design
properties of an object that help the user perform an action. Hartson states that there are
four different affordances of this type that can be analyzed within the design of a utilitarian
object. These four different affordances are as follows:

• "Cognitive affordance" describes a feature of a use object that helps or prompts the
user to learn about or think about the function or possible uses of an object. For
example, the I/0 logo on a computer's power button shows the user what the button
does, the text "push" on a door tells the user how the door opens, etc. “
• Physical affordance" is a design feature that helps the user perform an action. An
example of a physical affordance is, for example, the size of the space bar on your
keyboard that makes it easier to press space.

49
Rhee On Jeong and Seungho Park, ‘Affordance in Interactive Media Art Exhibition’, International Journal of
Asia Digital Art and Design Association 17, no. 3 (2013): 94, https://doi.org/10.20668/adada.17.3_93.
50
Jeong and Park, ‘Affordance in Interactive Media Art Exhibition’.

15
A new medium between humanity and nature

• "Sensory affordance" is a design feature that helps users perceive or feel something.
For example, the bold letters with an exclamation point on a bottle of detergent that
warn of poisoning.
• "Functional affordance" which describes a design feature that helps perform an action
and gives a physical affordance utility.51 When you unfold a folding chair, the physical
affordance of being unfolded suddenly makes room for the physical affordance of
sitting down.

To apply Harston’s methodology for affordance analysis to a media artifact, a bridge is

built to the literature of Jeong and Park. Jeong and Park set forth the discourse surrounding
affordance and illustrate how Harston’s methodology for affordance analysis can be
applied to media artworks.
Jeong and Park juxtapose Harston’s methodology with media artworks and from here
define affordances that they argue are relevant to an analysis of media art. Jeong and Park
categorize five different affordances of media art, these are: "Spatial affordance", with this
form of affordance Jeong and Park describe the spatial elements of an exhibition. They
argue that the spatial elements of a work determine how viewers react to, and navigate
around, an artwork.52 A dark room brings a starker atmosphere, and a few spotlights can
quickly capture a viewer's focus.

• "Physical affordance" Jeong and Park refer to the interface within the physical
affordance of a media artwork. The interface determines which actions can and cannot
be performed within the interaction with a work. A work with only one button limits a
viewer in her possibilities while a mouse allows the viewer to perform many different
actions.53
• "Cognitive affordance," by cognitive affordance Jeong and Park mean the elements of
a work that allow the viewer to predict how a work functions and how it will respond
to interaction.54 When the word "lights on" appears above a button, a viewer can

51
Rex Hartson, ‘Cognitive, Physical, Sensory, and Functional Affordances in Interaction Design’, Behaviour &
Information Technology 22, no. 5 (September 2003): 321, https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290310001592587.
52
Jeong and Park. 96.
53
Jeong and Park, ‘Affordance in Interactive Media Art Exhibition’, 97.
54
Jeong and Park, 97.

16
 Job Santé

expect lights to turn on within a work, an icon of a microphone indicates that a work
responds to sound, etc.
• “Feedback affordance", by feedback affordance Jeong and Park refer to how an
interactive media artwork responds to a viewer's input. If a work provides little or too
slow feedback to a viewer's interaction, then it is difficult for the viewer to determine
if her actions are having an effect.55
• “Sensory affordance", lastly Jeong and Park derive the concept of sensory affordance.
Jeong and Park define sensory affordance as the result of all the aforementioned
affordances. The way space, input and output interface come together determines
how natural an interaction is for the viewer.56

Affordance Definition Hartson Definition Jeong & Park

Cognitive Feature that helps in understanding Property that helps predict how a work
function. responds to interaction.
Physical Property that assists in performing an Property of the interface that determines
action. which operations can be performed.
Sensory Feature that helps in perceiving and Interplay of other affordances.
feeling.
Functional Property that gives a physical _
affordance utility.
Spatial _ The spatial elements surrounding an
artwork.
Feedback _ The way an interactive artwork responds to
viewer input.

Fig. 5: The definitions given by Hartson and Jeong & Park to the different categories of affordance

4.3 Biofeedback
George Khut describes the concept of biofeedback as a process in which physiological
properties of a person are fed back to that person using biosensors. 57 An example of this is
the app on your smartwatch or phone that shows how high your heart rate is at the moment.

55
Jeong and Park, 97.
56
Jeong and Park, 98.
57
Khut, ‘Development and Evaluation of Participant-Centred Biofeedback Artworks’, 18.

17
A new medium between humanity and nature

Khut describes how awareness of one's own physiological characteristics (heart rate,
breathing, etc.) affect that person's own perception of her body. He also states that using
biofeedback as an interaction within so-called "biofeedback art" results in a more passive form
of interaction.58

5. Analysis
5.1.1 Between spectator and interaction
In order to analyze which affordances of interaction are part of Myconnect, it is first important
to create a clear picture of the different elements within Myconnect that lead to interaction
with the viewer. To this end, this analysis makes use of Don Ritter's "person-media variables"
discussed earlier.59 As mentioned above, Ritter distinguishes between four different groups of
variables. To analyze which elements within Myconnect enable interaction between work and
spectator, this analysis derives only the "body" variables that Ritter has placed under the
category of "output variables."60 In Ritter's methodology, these variables describe the
positioning of the spectator in relation to a medium and the physical elements involved. By
analyzing Myconnect using these variables, it can be concluded which physical elements of
Myconnect have an effect on the interactive relationship between the viewer and the work. 61
The three body variables as they appear within Myconnect are as follows:

• "Body position", describes the physical position of a spectator in relation to a medium.

A standing position enables a spectator to perform more actions than a lying position.
Myconnect places its spectators in a reclining position by having them sit on a large
mattress, thereby passively positioning the spectator. 62
• "Body parts utilized" variable, describes the body parts that a spectator uses while
perceiving a medium and the elements of a medium that claim them.63 From the body
parts utilized variable, we can reason which elements of Myconnect are connected to
the viewer.

58
Khut, 63.
59
Ritter, ‘A TECHNIQUE FOR CREATING NEW VISUAL PHENOMENA’, 18.
60
Ritter, 18.
61
Ritter, ‘The Intersection of Art and Interactivity’, 3.
62
Ritter, ‘A TECHNIQUE FOR CREATING NEW VISUAL PHENOMENA’, 26.
63
Ritter, 26.

18
 Job Santé

o The eyes, light windows and mycelial colony located behind glass create a
visual stimulus for the viewer.
o The ears, sound through headphones creates an auditory stimulus.
o The hand, Myconnect uses a heart sensor attached to the spectator's finger.
o The arms and legs, six vibrating motors are attached to the arms and legs of
the spectator with fabric straps.64
• "Body movements" variable, lastly the body movements variable captures how freely
and in what way a spectator can move in relation to a medium. 65 In the case of
Myconnect, the spectator is fixed in her position. Several elements from Myconnect
make it difficult for the spectator to move, thus emphasizing the passive position from
the body position variable.66

Ritter’s variable Expression inside Myconnect Element Myconnect

Body position Spectator lying Mattress
Body Parts Utilized Ears, eyes, arms, legs, hand Headphones, light windows,
mycelium, heart sensor,
vibration motors
Body Movements Spectator limited in movement Mattress, fabric straps

Fig. 6: Ritter's "body" variables as they appear within Myconnect

64
‘Myconnect – Agapea Saša Spačal’.
65
Ritter, ‘A TECHNIQUE FOR CREATING NEW VISUAL PHENOMENA’, 26.
66
Ritter, 29.

19
A new medium between humanity and nature

Now that the elements that are important within the interactive relationship between viewer
and Myconnect are clear, we can explain them further. As a starting point, the elements of
Myconnect have been placed in a schematic illustration for this purpose. (Fig.7)

Vibrating motor

Headphones Mycelium colony

Mattress

Heart sensor Fabric band

Light panels

Fig. 7: Schematic illustration of the elements of interaction within Myconnect

These elements are:

• Hart sensor, this is connected to the spectator's index finger.

• Mycelium, the signal from the heart sensor is connected to a mycelial colony within
the work, this one, in response to this signal, releases a new signal that activates the
sensory features of the work.
• Vibrating motor, these are attached to the spectator's upper arms, knees and ankles
by fabric bands.
• Light panels, these are located around the spectator's head.
• Headphones, the viewer puts these on while he/she is lying in the installation.
• Matress, provides a comfortable position for the spectator and encourages the
spectator to lie down.

20
 Job Santé

• Fabrid bands, connects the vibrating motors to the spectator and limit the spectator's
mobility.

Myconnect creates through these seven elements an environment in which the spectator can
interact with a mycelium colony. All elements have their own role within the interaction of
Myconnect and thus have their own effect on the spectator. To show how the spectator
interacts with Myconnect and how these elements play a role in it, the concept of affordance
is applied below.67

5.2 Affordances of Myconnect

Now that the different interactive elements of Myconnect have been outlined, the affordance
analyses of Hartson and Jeong & Park can be applied to Spačal's work. By analyzing the five
different forms of affordance of interactive media art that Jeong & Park outline within
Myconnect, it becomes clear how the viewer is placed within the work and how an interaction
with mycelium flows from this. Below is explained for each affordance Jeong & Park describe
how it takes shape within Myconnect and which of the above elements play a role in it.

Spatial affordance

"Spatial affordance," according to Jeong and Park, describes the way an artwork and
the space in which the work is located are arranged and how this arrangement affects
viewers. For example, Myconnect is illuminated by different spotlights to draw focus
to the work. Also, the work is almost always placed in a gallery, which confirms the
value of the installation as art and makes the viewer aware that she is approaching an
art object. The key design feature for the spatial affordance of Myconnect is the
minimalist way the space is laid out. This layout allows for no distraction from the work
and gives the viewer the opportunity to focus completely on Myconnect. 68

67
Jeong and Park, ‘Affordance in Interactive Media Art Exhibition’.
68
Jeong and Park, 96.

21
A new medium between humanity and nature

Physical affordance

The input interface of a work defines the way a viewer interacts with an interactive
artwork. The physical affordance of a work describes the design properties of a work
that allow a viewer to interact with a work. In other words, the design properties of a
work determine the actions a viewer can perform within that work. 69 For example, a
work with big red buttons allows the viewer to start pressing something, a work with
a microphone allows the viewer to interact through their voice, etc.
Other than a few big red buttons, Myconnect's input interface is only subtly
present. Input within Spačal's work occurs only through the heart sensor placed around
the spectator's finger (See Figs. 7 and 8). Because the use of a heart sensor does not
require active actions from the viewer, the physical affordances of Myconnect are very
limited. 70 A spectator will be able to do little more than lie down and observe in her
interaction with Myconnect. This affordance of little interaction is further emphasized
by the fabric bands used to attach the vibrators to the spectator. These bands bind the
spectator to the work, as it were (See Figs. 7 and 8), further confirming the spectator's
passive position within Myconnect. These restrictions ensure that the spectator has
little freedom of movement within the work but also little to do in her interaction with
the work. The passive way in which Myconnect approaches its spectator raises the
question of whether the work can be seen as interactive at all. Within the context of
Ritter's person-media theory, I argue that Myconnect does actually behave like
"active" media.71 A spectator will be able to do little more than lie down and observe
in her interaction with Myconnect.72 Passive media, according to Ritter, are forms of
media that require only the attention of the viewer, while active media require
continuous participation by a viewer to function. 73 I argue that although Myconnect
can be seen as a passive medium, it actually behaves as an active medium and should
therefore be approached in this way.
Myconnect can be seen as a passive medium under Ritter's definition because
within the work the spectator only needs to observe her surroundings. The spectator

69
Jeong and Park, 97.
70
Jeong and Park, 95.
71
Ritter, ‘A TECHNIQUE FOR CREATING NEW VISUAL PHENOMENA’, 29.
72
Ritter, 29.
73
Ritter, 29.

22
 Job Santé

does not have to perform any actions in relation to Myconnect. Her heartbeat is
transmitted through the sensor without effort from the spectator within the work. On
the other hand, I argue that Myconnect can be seen within Ritter's methodology as an
active medium. After all, the work requires continuous participation from the
spectator. Without the heartbeat of the spectator, the work lies still, Myconnect
functions as a medium between human and mycelium, both parties must be present
for Myconnect to be operative. Without the spectator Myconnect is the same as a
phone call where the other party does not answer, there is no interaction. In addition,
the creation of a heartbeat, although it takes place unconsciously, is still an action of
the spectator.74 The spectator may not have complete control or her own heartbeat,
but her heartbeat is affected by the way the work stimulates her senses. Thus,
although at first glance Myconnect presents itself as a passive work, the role of the
spectator within Myconnect illustrates that the opposite is true.

Cognitive Affordance

Jeong and Park define the cognitive affordance of an interactive media artwork as the
features of a work's design that help the viewer understand what effect their actions
will have on the work. For example, a label that says "start" above a large button that
lets the viewer know that that button starts the work. The fewer of these types of
"cognitive methods" of control the work uses the more natural the relationship
between spectator and work is.75 Myconnect makes virtually no use of cognitive
methods to direct the spectator's behavior. The work contains no instructions in the
form of text or symbols that direct the viewer. Thus, a spectator within Myconnect is
initially unaware of her effect on the work. The spectator must remain lying down and

74
Khut, ‘Development and Evaluation of Participant-Centred Biofeedback Artworks’, 2.
75
Jeong and Park, ‘Affordance in Interactive Media Art Exhibition’, 97.

23
A new medium between humanity and nature

observe what is happening around her in order to figure out how she is influencing the
work.

Fig. 8: Heart sensor on the index finger and vibration motors around arms and legs limit the viewer's
movement within the work

Feedback affordances

In order for the viewer to see her actions have an effect on the work, the work must
provide feedback. Here, it is not only important that feedback is delivered but also that
its timing is right.76 If pushing a button does not have an effect on an interactive work
until three hours later, chances are the viewer will not experience any interaction (and
has probably already left the museum). Myconnect provides feedback in three
different ways: by light, by sound and by vibration.

Light

Light plays an important role within Myconnect. It represents when the

spectator has just taken a seat the heartbeat of the spectator himself. When
the spectator is just "connected" to the work, the lights turn on and off to the
spectator's heartbeat. Later in the work, the lights respond to the output given
by the mycelium within Myconnect. Light forms the first connection between

76
Jeong and Park, 97.

24
 Job Santé

spectator and mycelium within Myconnect and causes the spectator to become
aware of her connection to the work. 77

Sound
Sound played through headphones constitutes the second form of feedback. In
Myconnect, a low pulsating tone is played through headphones that responds
to the output of the mycelium. If the resistance of the mycelium is high and the
heart rate is low then the sound is soft and slow, if the resistance of the
mycelium is low and the heart rate is high then the sound becomes louder and
faster.

Vibrations

Vibrations are the third and final form of feedback within Myconnect. In the
installation, six vibrating motors transmit gentle vibrations that match the
output of the mycelium. Like sound, they vibrate softly when output is low and
loudly when output is high; unlike sound, the feedback from the vibrations is
not continuous but pulsating.

Sensory affordance

Sensory affordance includes all the affordances listed above and describes how they
relate to each other. For example, the physical affordances of Myconnect shield the
viewer from the spatial affordances. A white capsule blocks the viewer from the
outside world and evokes a complete focus to what is happening inside the work. The
Cognitive, physical, and feedback affordances also simultaneously work together to
limit the spectator's actions, make her aware of the effect she is having on the work,
and relate to the mycelium.

Myconnect's affordances are categorized in such a way as to limit the spectator's possible
actions. Within the context of Kluszczynski's categories of interaction, the form of interaction
Myconnect creates would therefore be categorized under strategy of spectacle. Spačal's work,
through the use of affordances that call for little action, focuses primarily on observation. The
goal of Myconnect is therefore in Spačal's words "[to create] an experience of connectedness,

77
‘Context’, Myconnect (blog), 11 November 2013, https://projectmyconnect.wordpress.com/research/.

25
A new medium between humanity and nature

of unqualified immersion through the sensory system of the body." Myconnect is built to
impart an experience, the goal of the work is to enable the viewer to feel connected to
mycelium.78 Myconnect focuses on creating an experience where mycelium and human are on
equal ground, the interaction that takes place is only there to make this experience
possible.79,80

5.3 In touch with nature

Now that the interactive elements and interactive affordances of Myconnect are outlined, I
can answer the sub-questions "what role does nature have within Myconnect?" and "how
does Myconnect position its audience?" To do this properly, I use the concept of
"biofeedback." This concept describes, as discussed in the method, the feedback of
physiological data to the person who creates this data. This process of feedback also takes
place within Myconnect, as the viewer is made aware of their own heartbeat (physiological
characteristic) within the work. Psychologists Schwartz and Paul Olsen state that:

“the objectives [van biofeedback] are to help persons develop greater awareness and
voluntary control over their physiological processes that are otherwise outside
awareness and/or under less voluntary control […]”.81

Myconnect visualizes the spectator's heartbeat, thus emphasizing for the spectator a
physiological process that is taking place within the spectator himself. Khut argues that this
awareness results in a feedback loop. In Myconnect, this takes shape as follows:

A spectator takes a seat inside Myconnect and receives feedback on her heartbeat
through the light portals, vibrators, and headphones (see Fig. 9). Because the feedback
is tailored to the spectator's heart rate, the spectator becomes aware of her heart rate.
Because the spectator is aware of the effect of her heart rate on her work, she can
begin to try to make her heart rate change, i.e., she gains conscious control over her
heart rate. As the spectator's heart rate changes, the feedback from Myconnect also

78
‘Myconnect – Agapea Saša Spačal’.
79
‘Myconnect – Agapea Saša Spačal’.
80
Kluszczynski, ‘Strategies of interactive art’, 27.
81
Khut, ‘Development and Evaluation of Participant-Centred Biofeedback Artworks’, 18.

26
 Job Santé

changes again, the spectator receives different light signals, vibrations and sounds and
her heart rate changes again. (see Fig. 9)

Myconnect defines itself within Khut's theory as a Physiologically Reactive Work of Art. This
means that the work reacts to the physiological characteristics of the spectator of that work.82
That this is done within Myconnect through the heartbeat of the viewer is already clear, but
it is important to also include the second party within the work in this analysis. This second
party is the mycelium that is part of Myconnect. Just as the human observer is influenced by
the feedback provided by the mycelium, the mycelium is also influenced by the feedback from
the observer (see Fig. 9). Myconnect thus puts the mycelium and the spectator on equal
footing. For the mycelium, the feedback consists of an electrical signal (the spectator's
heartbeat). For the spectator, biofeedback is a signal measured by the response of the
mycelium (the resistance the mycelium gives to the electrical signal) which is converted into
light, sound and vibration signals that affect the spectator's heart rate. From this reasoning,
Myconnect is not just a work of art but forms a (new) medium between mycelium and
humans.

Spectator creates heart

rate (input) influenced
by the biofeedback

Mycelium generates Mycelium generates

new biofeedback biofeedback

Spectator's heart rate

(input) changes

Fig. 9: The biofeedback loop that takes place within Myconnect

It is important to note that the spectator cannot actively act within Myconnect (as discussed
above in context of Ritter). If this were the case, the spectator would automatically have more

82
Khut, 62.

27
A new medium between humanity and nature

influence on the mycelium than the mycelium has on the spectator. After all, a mycelium
colony cannot press buttons or grasp objects. Within Myconnect, the spectator faces the same
conditions that the mycelium faces. Like the mycelium, the spectator cannot go anywhere as
long as she is within the work, for she is tied to the work via the fabric bands attached to the
vibrating motors. Like the mycelium, she cannot physically respond to the feedback
Myconnect provides her. The affordances of Myconnect are thus virtually the same for both
the spectator and the mycelium. They delimit physical interaction with the work and
emphasize biofeedback.83 Myconnect places humans and mycelium in relation to each other
by connecting them on equal grounds. This emphasizes Mitchell's previously stated assertion
that within bioart, the viewer is not separate from the work, but inherently connected.84
This process in which Myconnect communicates with the viewer through biofeedback
relates to a proposition of Khut. Indeed, Khut argues that "bodily processes such as breathing
and heartbeat are never simply reflected back to the user unmediated [...] but are
transformed by the interactive strategies implicit in the design of the work and the conditions
of interaction [...].85 In doing so, he emphasizes the influence of the affordances of
interactive work on the representation of biofeedback. Khut takes this even further by arguing
that the experience of our bodies in relation to biofeedback is determined by the cultural and
technical properties of the interface that represents the biofeedback.86 Myconnect thus, by
involving mycelium in the process of biofeedback, structures an interface that allows one to
"communicate" with mycelium. In this sense, Myconnect also relates to Simondon; Spačal's
work connects the two disconnected elements of human and Myconnect.

6. Conclusion
In this analysis I have shown by means of affordance analysis how interaction takes place
within the bio-artwork Myconnect. The most striking aspect is how passively Myconnect
approaches the spectator. The eight elements that shape the affordances of Myconnect are
structured in such a way that they limit the viewer in her interaction with the work. In addition,
the fact that the work has only one form of input (namely, the heart sensor) further ensures

83
Khut, 63.
84
Mitchell, Bioart and the Vitality of Media, 76.
85
Khut, ‘Development and Evaluation of Participant-Centred Biofeedback Artworks’, 60.
86
Khut, 63.

28
 Job Santé

that Myconnect is limited in its interaction with the spectator.

Returning to the main question "how does Myconnect create a new understanding of
nature and medium through an interactive relationship with its spectator?". Myconnect
creates a new understanding of nature and medium by positioning the spectator on the same
level as nature within Myconnect. By restricting the spectator from interacting with
Myconnect, an environment is created in which the spectator can only observe what is
happening around her. In this situation, Myconnect creates a connection between humans
and mycelium in which the two are symbolically equal. This results on the one hand in a new
understanding of nature as equivalent to humans and on the other hand in a new
understanding of medium as a connection between two different identities. Unlike the
common definition of the word medium as a means of communication between people,
Myconnect argues that a medium can also be a means of communication between humans
and nature.
Answer to the sub-question "how do the affordances of interactivity take shape within
Myconnect?" relates back to how mycelium and human are positioned within Myconnect. The
affordances of Spačal’ s work invite little interaction and thus carry a picture through the fact
that the viewer can barely influence Myconnect. The mattress that encourages a lying posture,
the fabric straps and the heart sensor, as it were, tie the spectator to the work and limit
possible actions of the spectator. The way interaction takes place within Myconnect is
therefore rather passive. The spectator only interacts with the work through her heartbeat.
Because she has little control over her own heartbeat, as a spectator she is not completely
able to determine how she interacts with the work. The form of interaction that Myconnect
contains requires the spectator to make a form of surrender. Myconnect therefore positions
its spectators as an additional embodiment within the work. The spectator is treated in the
same way as the mycelium and, to a certain extent, forms a conductor for sensual input.
Nature in the form of mycelium then plays the same role as the spectator, the mycelium also
handles the "sensual" input and processes it into an output that can be converted by the
system of Myconnect.
This analysis illustrates the usefulness of a media-oriented affordance analysis to the
phenomenon of bioart. It aligns with Hauser, Mitchell and Peters' contention that (new) media

29
A new medium between humanity and nature

science needs to broaden its focus beyond digital media.87,88,89 The use of affordance analysis
within the context of interactive bioart sheds clear light on the relationship between viewer
and work. In doing so, the concept of biofeedback clearly illustrates the way in which artworks
focused on physiological features implement interactivity.
However, it is important to keep in mind that this analysis is only a set-up for further
and broader research into the phenomenon of bio-art within media studies. For example,
within this analysis there has only been room for the analysis of one bio-artwork, a comparison
of different forms of bio-art within media science could shed light on features that this analysis
has not been able to achieve. In addition, this analysis has been limited in its discussion of the
(media) philosophical aspects of bio-art. In addition, it
is also important to note that this analysis was written in times of the corona crisis. I did not
actually visit and interact with Myconnect during this research. In conclusion, I hope that this
analysis has shed some light on a phenomenon that is still under-researched within media
studies and that it will stimulate further research.

Bibliography
‘About – Agapea Saša Spačal’. Accessed 27 January 2022. https://www.agapea.si/en/about.
Bendor, Roy. Interactive Media for Sustainability. Cham: Springer International Publishing,
2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70383-1.
‘Bio Art & Design Award’. Accessed 27 January 2022.
https://www.badaward.nl/?fbclid=IwAR3bMsfI-QCjhS0cf8mdXqi6DwWYVD_rlEFwD1-
8FgeUsLxlir0pOVFQ98A.
‘BioArt Laboratories |’. Accessed 27 January 2022. https://bioartlab.com/.
myconnect. ‘Context’, 11 November 2013.
https://projectmyconnect.wordpress.com/research/.
Hartson, Rex. ‘Cognitive, Physical, Sensory, and Functional Affordances in Interaction
Design’. Behaviour & Information Technology 22, no. 5 (September 2003): 315–38.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290310001592587.
Hauser, Jens. ‘Biomediality and Art’. In Recomposing Art and Science: Artists-in-Labs, by
Irene Hediger and Jill Scott. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016.
———. ‘Rehabilitating Bacteria An Epistemological Art/Science Interface’. In Shifting
Interfaces An Anthology of Presence, Empathy, and Agency in 21st-Century Media
Arts, by Hava Aldouby, 193–212. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2020.
Jeong, Rhee On, and Seungho Park. ‘Affordance in Interactive Media Art Exhibition’.
International Journal of Asia Digital Art and Design Association 17, no. 3 (2013): 93–
99. https://doi.org/10.20668/adada.17.3_93.

87
Mitchell, Bioart and the Vitality of Media, 114.
88
Hauser, ‘Rehabilitating Bacteria An Epistemological Art/Science Interface’, 209.
89
Peters, The Marvelous Clouds, 4.

30
 Job Santé

‘KAC BIO - 300 WORDS’. Accessed 22 October 2021. http://www.ekac.org/kacbio300.html.

Khut, George Poonkhin. ‘Development and Evaluation of Participant-Centred Biofeedback
Artworks’. University of Western Sydney, 2006.
Kluszczynski, Ryszard. ‘Strategies of Interactive Art’. Journal of Aesthetics and Culture 2 (22
October 2010). https://doi.org/10.3402/jac.v2i0.5525.
V2_Lab for the Unstable Media. ‘Lab for the Unstable Media’. Collection. Accessed 27
January 2022. https://v2.nl/home.
Mitchell, Robert. Bioart and the Vitality of Media. In Vivo: The Cultural Mediations of
Biomedical Science. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2010.
‘Myconnect – Agapea Saša Spačal’. Accessed 24 November 2021.
https://www.agapea.si/en/projects/myconnect.
Lucie Draai. ‘Outsider Within: A Conversation’. Accessed 8 December 2021.
https://www.luciedraai.nl/outsider-within-a-conversation.
Peters, John Durham. The Marvelous Clouds: Toward a Philosophy of Elemental Media.
University of Chicago Press, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226253978.001.0001.
Ritter, Don. ‘The Intersection of Art and Interactivity’, 1–7. Vienna: Springer International
Publishing, 1996.
Ritter, Donald. ‘A TECHNIQUE FOR CREATING NEW VISUAL PHENOMENA’. University of
Waterloo, 1988.
Zylinska, Joanna. ‘Green Bunnies and Speaking Ears: The Ethics of Bioart’. In Bioethics in the
Age of New Media, 149–74. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2009.

31