Introduction

SYMBIOSIS –
ISEA2023 PROCEEDINGS INTRODUCTION

FOR A SYMBIOTIC APPROACH AT ALL SCALES

THE NEED FOR INSTITUTIONAL RECOGNITION OF PRACTICE-BASED RESEARCH (‘RECHERCHE-CRÉATION’)

KEY STRENGTHS

1. ORGANISATIONAL FORMS ARE ALSO CREATIONS

2. CRITIQUE OF THE OLD BINARITIES THROUGH PRACTICE-BASED RESEARCH

3. EMERGING DE/SUBJECTIVATION PROCESSES

4. GENERIC TOOLS DESIGNED AND SHARED BY COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE

5. BREAKING DOWN DISCIPLINARY BARRIERS AND THE EMERGENCE OF NEW RESEARCHER PROFILES: EVALUATION AS A TOOL FOR LEGITIMIZATION

6. PERCEIVE BEYOND OUR USUAL CAPACITIES TO BECOME AWARE OF SOCIETAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSFORMATIONS

7. WHEN CREATIVE RESEARCH BECOMES CRITICAL ACTION-RESEARCH

CONCLUSION 

For a symbiotic approach at all scales

Of the 660 proposals received for the academic call (and a total of 1,400 including the call for artistic projects), from over 70 countries, 230 were selected, including 99 short and long papers, for the Symposium held at the Forum des Images, in the heart of Paris.  200 international researchers and experts evaluated these applications in a double-blind process. More than 50 global organizations, including schools, universities, research bodies and associations, were selected to present their research activities and facilitate exchanges among them. In addition, more than 50 partner venues, such as art and design schools, galleries and institutes, offered a rich complementary program of exhibitions, performances and debates on a national scale. This mobilization of a range of contributors, evaluators, and a public of several thousand spectators once again attested to the vitality of ISEA, an annual event initiated more than 30 years ago by pioneers.

The central theme of the 2023 edition was Symbiosis, as demonstrated by the 99 previously unpublished papers in these proceedings. The full program, including these papers and all the other symposium formats - artist talks, panels, workshops, tutorials, posters and demos - can be consulted online. This program was in itself a form of symbiosis.

But what types of symbiosis are we talking about exactly? How do they manifest themselves? Going beyond the strict definition of the term and interpreting it as an operative metaphor, how can we envisage and put into practice a genuine ‘symbiotic’ approach? The aim of the call for entries was to encourage the reconsideration of any creation, experimentation or research through this prism, even if symbiosis was not necessarily the main theme. ISEA2023 offered a sort of ‘core sample’ at a given moment of the different strata of contemporary creation and research underway in the world.

Our idea was that the symposium's programming should also serve as a collective manifesto, promoting the fundamental principle of symbiosis to be respected at all times and places: a lasting and mutually beneficial association between organizations and actors, whether human, non-human or hybrid. Considered in a broad sense, symbiosis also manifested itself at the level of the symposium itself: it was a transdisciplinary event combining creation and research (in the fields of visual arts, theatre, music, design, film, human and social sciences, engineering sciences, natural sciences) and cross-sector (involving art, craft, industry, research, education and cultural innovation).

Before highlighting what we consider to be some of the strengths of this particularly rich body of work, in terms of both knowledge creation and innovation, it is important to mention our commitment to promoting practice-based research in all its forms and formats. This approach fosters the invention of modes of cooperation between different areas of expertise and enables the emergence of hybrid researcher profiles. Symbiosis does not lie in the homogenization of its components, but rather in the creation of a hybrid and symbiotic entity, where each element is essential to the other in devising new ways of existing. Together, they offer innovative ways of perceiving, understanding and acting on the world.

The need for institutional recognition of practice-based research (‘recherche-création’) 

It often happens that artist-researchers or designer-researchers are valued for their creative abilities, while at the same time being perceived as illegitimate in their research skills. Indeed, there is a perception that one cannot be both a researcher, publishing scientific articles for example, and a creator, exhibiting one’s work. This perception differs from country to country. In countries like Canada, for example, this is not a problem. In France, for example, despite recent progress, not all research institutions are yet clear about this. Yet these publications and exhibitions (‘publicizations’) both stem from the same practice-based research process. New generations of researchers are challenging this perception, and ISEA is a testament to this, since the event enables creators and researchers to share their research results in an international A-rank publication that meets the standards of peer-reviewed scientific journals. Institutional structures have also become aware of this reality, as shown by the doctoral programs specializing in practice-based research which, through their official recognition, mark a fundamental evolution both in the academic world (universities, art and design schools) and in the professional sector, and not only in the cultural field (health, transport, housing, ecology, etc.). However, we can only encourage research and teaching institutions to take this major development into consideration, by proposing, for example in countries where it does not yet exist, the status of lecturer, associate or full professor (‘enseignant-chercheur’ in France) in art and design schools.

The older generations, pioneers who are still very active, were also present at ISEA2023. In Paris, for example, the pioneers of digital arts active since the 1980s rubbed shoulders with doctoral students just beginning their research careers. This cross-generational aspect is rare enough to be highlighted and celebrated.

Key strengths

As Academic Chair and co-Chairs, we propose here to highlight what we see as the strategic trends running through all the papers. This collective work reflects our different disciplinary fields, countries and educational backgrounds. Our aim is not to summarize such a rich corpus, but to propose several common threads to encourage more in-depth reading of the articles and, of course, to contradict or consolidate our proposals.

Although this exercise is limited and subjective, partial and biased, it is nonetheless enriching. It reveals that, despite the diversity of the proposals, it is possible to find convergence points, despite the divergences, and even, sometimes, diametrically opposed approaches. The theme of symbiosis encourages us to look not for what unifies, but rather for what the different perspectives or visions proposed, even if they take different forms and are based on heterogeneous conceptual frameworks, can generate together. After all, symbiosis thrives on difference.

1. Organisational forms are also creations

Faced with the urgent environmental and democratic challenges of our time, the development of new collaborative methods is essential. Creative research is an innovative methodological response, offering an effective means of strengthening and better coordinating interdisciplinary dynamics. It opens the way to a new era of organizations and individuals working together in symbiosis. Although the approaches may vary, the common objective is clear: to give increasing importance to research within institutions and to recognize the vital role of associative networks and companies involved in this process.

Organizations, whether stable or changing, are study entities in their own right. Namely, E. Armand, A. Asensio and D. Foresta encourage the creation of new cooperative ecosystems between the arts and the technosciences, underlining the importance of collaborative innovation. Transforming organizations from within is also seen as a promising way forward. Y. Hu, C. Chou and Y. Kakehi, for example, are calling for the creation of laboratories within art centers, as they have done by setting up a ‘controlled environment space’ at the heart of an exhibition. Y. Breuleux, A. Thibault and R. Lapierre, for their part, advocate the idea of occupying and reappropriating industrial wastelands, which are often included in digital art festivals, to give them a new lease of life.

Organizational architecture also extends to the digital domain. V. Hilsberg looks at the use of DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) based on blockchain, arguing that this technology has a direct influence on artistic creation through distribution methods, perhaps recalling Marshall McLuhan’s famous adage: ‘the medium is the message’. This specific focus on the medium or media is a key feature of ISEA.

Print media have always been and remain essential to the evolution of academic structures. C. Frémontier-Murphy traces the history of the journal Leonardo, published by MIT since 1966, which became an international benchmark by promoting a then nascent field of research. More recently, S. Bianchini and G. Lallemand have broken new ground by launching the online academic journal ‘.able’, with the support of more than 30 international partner institutions and the Arts and Sciences Chair at Polytechnique, EnsAD and the Daniel and Nina Carasso Foundation. This new image-based medium does not seek to compete with the written word, but rather emphasizes the importance of the visuals generated by practice-based research projects, referring to them as ‘publicizations’. This approach is based on the fundamental idea that to publish is to make public. In the academic context, this means subjecting new knowledge, whether textual or visual, to the critical scrutiny of peer communities.

When Leonardo was created, organizational innovation was also underway in South America. J.-C. Mariategui recalls the birth of the Centre for Art and Communication (CAyC), a Latin American network dedicated to art and cybernetics. Today, international collaboration between researchers has become the norm, as shown by the example of SEADS (Space Ecologies Art and Design), a transdisciplinary and multicultural collective on a global scale.

Sometimes developments are the result of unforeseen circumstances, sometimes predictable but poorly anticipated by public authorities. Recently, the Covid-19 pandemic forced cultural institutions to reinvent themselves. N. Ricci and M. Agogué share the lessons learnt by the Montréal festivals, illustrating the resilience and adaptability of organizations in the face of global challenges. These organizational issues also have their counterparts in the production of works. For example, W. Zhang and S. Su make visible the ‘voids’ between individuals subjected to the social distancing put in place during the Covid-19 pandemic.

All these examples illustrate the growing interest in the creation of new organizational forms in various fields. The concept of symbiosis originated in the natural sciences. By borrowing the vocabulary of these sciences, it is possible to suggest that all these organizational forms together give rise to new ecosystems. The term ‘ecosystem’ was proposed by Arthur George Tansley in 1935 in the journal Ecology. The concept then gradually migrated into the human and social sciences, particularly economics. Today, it is often used to designate a complex environment that encourages creation and innovation. Widely adopted by those involved in entrepreneurial innovation (makers, startupers, entrepreneurs, etc.), this metaphor of scientific origin can also be applied to art and design research.

These ecosystems, through their interrelationships, are contributing to the emergence of a renewed ‘biosphere’, forming a vast practice-based research network on a global scale. This network can be seen as a favourable climate for invention, a phenomenon that Nowotny, Scott and Gibbons had already described in their analysis of knowledge production in contemporary society in 2001. Thus, this organizational and creative landscape can be compared to a dynamic biosphere, where innovation emerges from interaction and collaboration, as Wenger, McDermott and Snyder emphasized in 2002 in their study of communities of practice. This is the case in Québec, but not everywhere. Like any ecosystem, the equilibrium found is fragile and subject to forces that can destabilize it, as in the case of Symbiotica, which is now threatened with extinction, even though it is a laboratory with an international reputation for its work in bioart. Ionat Zurr, an artist-researcher and co-director of this structure, spoke about this during her keynote speech. She also appealed to our community for help, which we are relaying here.

Each new organizational arrangement is both the product and the result of a process of transformation which also operates within conceptual frameworks. It is not surprising, therefore, that these frameworks are themselves put under strain by these arrangements, which ‘reorganize’ - or, depending on one’s point of view, disorganize - traditional ways of thinking.

2. Critique of the old binarities through practice-based research

The questioning of the traditional dichotomy between culture and nature is now shared by many in the academic community, particularly in anthropology. Artistic works embody and make perceptible this profound reconfiguration of paradigms of thought. N. Georgakopoulou, D. Zamplaras, S. Kourkoulakou and C.-Y. Chen explore a ‘sympoetic’ interaction with materials in interactive art, inviting us to question old dichotomies such as subject/object, mind/body, and nature/culture, in order to embrace a new understanding of materiality. P. Purg and K. Pranjić oppose a human-centered science, putting forward an ‘emergent symbiotic mutualism’ that transcends mere species coexistence, from a posthuman perspective. M. Zolotova, for her part, sees the posthuman turn in many contemporary discourses as a serious attempt to move beyond anthropocentrism. Such approaches are therefore not identical, and can even sometimes be seen as opposed, but they all involve a critique of analyses centered solely on the human.

This criticism can be found in other fields too. For example, Bakke questions biocentrism and focuses on the interactions between minerals and non-human life forms. Adopting an approach of working ‘with’ rather than ‘on’ is another way of challenging these human-centered biases. M. da Rocha Montanari uses generative art as a collaborative research methodology with indigenous Guarani and Kaiowá communities, co-creating a ‘poetics of attention’ that draws on sounds and plants in their cosmology. A. Wollensak, B. Terry and B. Baird present extracts from community testimonies relating to water, accompanied by processed environmental sounds from Alaska.

For R. Wright and S. Howden, the adoption of indigenous perspectives is crucial to developing ‘sentient machines’ capable of reflecting the complexity of ecological patterns, where computational ecology fails. C. Schnugg, D. Brill and C. Stary merge aesthetics, performance and digitalization to reinterpret the world, going beyond the rational production of knowledge. Although these initiatives are diverse, they share a common goal: by hybridizing different rationalities and subjectivities, they seek to transcend existing approaches in order to invent new ways of understanding and addressing contemporary crises, both geopolitical and climatic.

3. Emerging de/subjectivation processes

These methodological and epistemological reflections are accompanied by a transformation in the ways in which we conceive of human ‘identity’, the conceptual as well as practical ‘making’ of the way in which we define ourselves, or not, as human subjects. Indeed, the processes by which individuals construct themselves as subjects (a process of subjectivation), or sometimes deconstruct themselves (a process of de/subjectivation), are present in many practice-based research projects. For example, the performance by T. Chiaravalloti and A. Meshi’s, explores a symbiotic relationship between humans and an artificial intelligence algorithm, enabling participants to experience a ‘collective consciousness’. Although this work aims to highlight the limits of AI’s ability to recognize emotions, it also opens the way to reflections on future developments in this field and the ethical dilemmas they raise. P. Gemeinboeck and Rob Saunders, for their part, propose ‘hybrid entanglements’ between humans and robots, based on bodily empathy between humans and non-humans. S. Cîrcu and C.Y. Chen explore movement to question the anthropomorphism of humanoids through a mimetic dance between a human and a robotic arm.

These approaches use translation, imitation, differentiation and empathy as means of criticizing, but also realizing, the hybridization between machines and humans as formalized by a number of artists and theorists at the Symposium: M. Smigielska uses AI to take account of spectators’ behaviour, E. Amato & E. Péreny claim a ‘co-individuation’ with our technological avatars, J. Bae and his VR comic strip explore the relationship between humans and AI, D. Batsis, M. Grigoriadou, or with K. ElRaheb and A. Politis, who advocate the body as a phenomenon and an extension of ‘hyperreality’.

Even the most fiercely critical creative research into intrusive technologies is unwillingly participating in this general trend. C. Brunner and J. Fritsch look at the transhumanist movement through the prism of Gilbert Simondon’s thinking, in particular his notion of ‘human energetics’, and are inspired by a video work by the Nigerian artist Otobong Nkanga. G. J. Shin, using the concept of the ‘superjet’ in a post-digital context, highlights the emergence of new creative human subjects, capable in her view of weaving new social relationships.

This critical exploration of the way in which humans conceptualize and experience themselves also manifests itself in a decentering of the human, highlighting the processes of subjectivation at work in the ‘non-human’ or ‘other-than-human’ world. Adopting a Bruno Latour perspective, elements such as forests and water are no longer simply reduced to objects of study for humans; they are seen as actors in their own right, subjects in the active sense of the term. In this vein, G. Trudel, who studies climate change, integrates data from tree communities, the media arts and forest sciences. She attributes a ‘voice’ to trees through what she calls ‘individuations of symbiotic modulations’, drawing on and extrapolating the work of Gilbert Simondon.

Approaches to thinking about and experimenting with symbioses between humans and machines, as well as between non-human entities, vary widely. However, they all point to a probable reconfiguration of the general cartography of subjectivation processes: the contemporary human seems ready to move away from the central and dominant position it has hitherto attributed to itself. At least, that is what the observations and discussions at the Symposium seem to indicate. The question is what this will mean in the long run, and whether the promise of emancipation will really be fulfilled.

4. Generic tools designed and shared by communities of practice

As the notions of objects and subjects evolve, research tools and methodologies are also changing. This transformation is contributing to the emergence of new practices and methods for ‘measuring’ phenomena that were previously difficult to quantify. The evolution of instruments and their impact in the field of creative research are particularly interesting. Just as there are creators of works of art, there are also innovators in the organization and design of instruments. Artists, designers, scientists and engineers frequently collaborate to provide research and creation with platforms and tools that are not only at the service of creation, but that also stimulate innovation among those who use them.

For example, MARCEL (Multimedia Art Research Centres and Electronic Laboratories), of which the pioneer D. Foresta is one of the designers and promoters, offers an online collaborative platform dedicated to the specific formats of the interactive arts, a project that was born in 1997 and, even then, was the continuation of a process of reflection and practice that began in 1981. This desire to offer shared tools is obviously not a recent development and is now reflected in a wide range of proposals, from generalist platforms to tools dedicated to specific fields or uses. S. Thurow, D. Del Favero, M. Scott-Mitchell, M. Ostwald and H. Grehan have developed a network modelling system which facilitates the planning of opera rehearsals thanks to an interactive ‘cyber-physical’ spatial aesthetic, opening the way to new imaginaries. C. Lengelé and P.-A. Gauthier traced the genealogy of ‘Live 4 Live’, an open-source tool designed to simplify the creation and real-time control of spatialized sound objects. D. Cunin, E. Durand and M. Seta developed generic devices to facilitate the creation of immersive environments with video tracking and collective interactivity on smartphones.

This trend towards developing platforms for artists and designers is also to be found in the field of curation. Y. Hofmann, through the ‘intelligent.museum’ project, has put forward a system based on data analysis for artistic and cultural institutions. This prototype uses data from a variety of sensors in exhibition spaces to tailor museum experiences to visitors’ needs. I. Družetić-Vogel, A. Fuchte and M. Bauernfeind proposed ‘ARt chat’, an application for museums that combines augmented reality, art and communication, allowing visitors to share their impressions in the exhibition space.

These initiatives are not just about providing functional services; they can also take a critical approach. V. Guljajeva, M. C. Sola and I. J. Clarke, for example, have analyzed several existing tools in the field of AI, stressing that ‘AI does not create a work at the touch of a button, but requires a deep understanding of the underlying technology, as well as a creative and critical approach’.

In addition to the creation of platforms, there is also a trend towards modelling, although approaches vary considerably. The very term model indicates a desire to provide communities with frameworks based on general principles to be adopted. Z. Wu, D. Fei, X. Ma, M. Fan and K., for example, see NFT as ‘a sustainable business model for media arts, involving audience interaction’. Others, such as D. Xu, M. H. Lamers and E. van der Heide, propose a ‘relational model of co-located interaction’ between spectators and an interactive work.

These various proposals, although heterogeneous, share a common view: they point to a constant trend towards the uninterrupted emergence of specialized communities of practice that design generic devices for instrumental purposes. These communities are also expanding thanks to the instruments they are inventing, enabling their practices to be disseminated more or less widely, a form of ‘standardization’ with a creative aim, while at the same time encouraging the integration of their own approaches to uses in the fields of art, often including the active participation of audiences as a central component of the design of the works.

5. Breaking down disciplinary barriers and the emergence of new researcher profiles: evaluation as a tool for legitimization

ISEA stimulates multidisciplinary exchanges while consolidating the existence of a specific community through annual gatherings. The enthusiasm for creation, in synergy with technology and science, forges a solid link between researchers and creators from a variety of backgrounds. This positive dynamic encourages the exchange of diverse perspectives, whether practical, theoretical or methodological, around a common subject, a specific field, or more simply a medium or instrument. The cross-disciplinary aspect of these interactions is particularly enriching, as it helps to create a diverse community while respecting the disciplinary affiliations of each individual.

Adopting a double-blind peer review process, ISEA’s call for applications conforms to academic standards and promotes cross-disciplinary or multidisciplinary approaches. In an academic environment that is often segmented by discipline, this recognition is crucial. The symposium thus provides a sanctuary for unclassifiable minds, while giving them international exposure. The evaluation criteria we have chosen enable artist-researchers and designer-researchers to assert their legitimacy.

The criticism often levelled at the latter - that the dilution of the boundaries between the arts and sciences would jeopardize the quality of research and creation - ignores the symbiotic nature of these two spheres of creation. In fact, they are mutually nourishing, while retaining their specificity, whether through collective work or individual skills, not forgetting the importance of the distinct ecosystems to which these players belong. Although this does not systematically guarantee the relevance of the results, whether scientific or artistic, this approach is like that practiced in professional art and science circles, where peer judgement is commonplace.

ISEA’s aim is to bring these hybrid profiles to the fore. Although cross-disciplinarity can be perceived as a risk of levelling out skills, it is essential for innovating, experimenting with new methods and tackling issues from a fresh angle. The contribution of these cross-disciplinary approaches can be extremely beneficial to established disciplines and sectors, enabling them to evolve and renew their own fields of research. Venturing outside our disciplines through creative research allows us to rediscover them in a new light.

If practice-based research can create new knowledge in science and engineering, it also brings new practices to the field of creation. Y. Blanchi, for example, links cognitive science and architecture, while S. Gatz criticises architecture as a means of control by proposing a ‘cosmo-techno-poiesis’. Urbanism as it exists is questioned by artistic and digital practices, like the infrastructures of networked urban screens imagined and implemented by M. Thorogood, K. McCulloch and A. Dulic.

In dance, N.N. Correia, D. Souza, I. Nêves and J. Lobato are trying to make the dance process understandable within a performance using a multisensory approach. I. Teles de Castro e Costa, H. T. Hong and C. Y. Chen have designed a performance co-created with an autonomous virtual system. In the field of cinema, R. Sagot-Duvauroux, N. Quaetaert, F. Garnier and R. Ronfard explore how film editing cannot be transposed into virtual environments and must be reinvented. Questions about the transposition of creative techniques into VR also arise in the case of Chinese calligraphy with Shum, P.Y.S. & Klein. C. Salter, T. Thomasson and P. Uro are carrying out what they call a ‘theatrical exploration’ based on augmented reality, with the aim of making climate change visible.

The ‘adjustment’ between different vocabularies is necessary to give an account of this research. O. Kobryn, M. Couteau, R. Sagot-Duvauroux, S. Balcon, F. Garnier, R. Ronfard and G. Soulez, researchers from different disciplines (aesthetics, ergonomics, design, engineering, cognitive sciences), are working to reconsider the concept of the ‘virtual’.

In the cultural sector, curation and conservation are also invested with methods derived from practice-based research to redefine or apprehend their activities in a new way. M. Jones, M. Wester and M. Blottiere present a new approach to curating as practice-based research and propose the acronym ‘CRC’ to establish it as a specific field. D. Irrgang and M. Skłodowska take up the curatorial notion of the ‘exhibition of thought’ co-invented by Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel, who have put it into practice with curators, artists and researchers at the ZKM.

The circulation of thoughts and practices, the mutual acculturation of different research players and cross-disciplinary cooperation are all expressions that would remain abstract without these numerous experiments. These compositional arrangements, to paraphrase Latour, make us see differently.

6. Perceive beyond our usual capacities to become aware of societal and environmental transformations

Making perceptible what naturally escapes our senses is not a new concept in the world of art, or even in that of design, as the example of decasualization shows. This approach is even less novel in the field of science, where modifying our perception and understanding of the world forms the basis of a great deal of research. Nevertheless, the way in which this is done varies from one field to another, with a current tendency to merge different approaches in order to make discoveries or visions of the world that are not immediately accessible - often because of their scale - ‘sensitive’, i.e. perceptible to the senses.

In this context, many research and creation projects aim to reveal new sonic and visual ‘landscapes’, constituting what might be called an informational aesthetic. There are two main thrusts: the first seeks to materialise technological artefacts, which are increasingly miniaturized and interconnected; the second aims to raise awareness of climate change through the collection of biological or geophysical data, with the two thrusts sometimes overlapping.

In the first category, H. Scurto and A. Chemla-Romeu-Santos generate soundscapes from data collected in 28 locations around the world via the Locustream online platform, highlighting AI infrastructures. On the other hand, M. Lukaszuk and S. Bahng exploit gesture and spatiality through electroacoustic and video improvisation to make intelligible the preponderant role of machine learning.

In the second, Mc Farlane proposes a method of co-creating artistic acoustic ecologies centered on the Great Lakes in the USA, combining sound data collection and research methodologies enriched by indigenous knowledge.

In terms of sonification, L. Foo and J. Fritsch create a ‘cryogenic landscape’ to engage listeners emotionally with climate change, broadcasting the movement and melting of the ice in Greenland almost in real time, presenting the ice pack as a living being. J.C. Duarte Regino goes a step further by making atmospheric processes audible, helping us to perceive our atmosphere beyond our usual senses.

At the intersection of the two, L. Moren and T. Bachvaroff's ‘Under the Bay’ is an augmented reality project that turns smartphones into ‘microscopes’ to explore marine life invisible to the naked eye. J. Ottavi and J. Pickett are exploring the interaction between humidity and the decomposition of printed circuits, converting soil acidity and electronic compost into electrical signals.

Visibility projects can also illustrate disappearance, a radical type of invisibility. H. Sareen, Y. Fu and Y. Kakehi depict endangered species as micro-bubbles formed by the nucleation of CO2 in water, which shrink and disappear in a few days to raise awareness of the threat to biodiversity. B. Ammar-Khodja brings to life the residues of heavy metals in contaminated urban landscapes, highlighting a kind of point of no return if the pollution persists. G. Legrand, V. Thornhill, I. Clarke, through the installation ‘Spectral Plain’, explore how information technologies can integrate and reflect specific socio-cultural beliefs, creating new symbiotic interrelationships with the non-human and the non-living, thus influencing the participants' perception of their understanding of the world.

These practice-based research projects aim to make complex issues or abstract realities tangible. Designed to transform our perspective, they encourage us to adopt different behaviours and develop new critical approaches.

7. When creative research becomes critical action-research

N. Georgakopoulou and her collaborators aspire to create a ‘sonic consciousness’ within urban spaces. Their project aims to create musical experiences that invite active participation from citizens, while paying special attention to people with hearing and visual impairments. For his part, R. Ridgway strongly criticizes the collection of personal data by the main players in the network. In the same vein, B. Gaylor and K. Hennessy encourage the development of a critical understanding of Big Data to better counter the ‘piracy of affect’.

From a techno-feminist perspective, G. Lautenschlaeger explores post-human maternity in media art. P. Costa, L. Ribas and M. Carvalhais analyze the tendency to feminize digital assistants and suggest strategies for reversing this trend. L. Haute urges us to think about our methods of collaborating with the environment, inspired by the symbiotic culture of bacteria and yeast. C. Gould and Isabel Stenger urge us to take action to initiate change in our lifestyles and consumption habits, while J. Garančs explores, through virtual reality, dystopias based on market values.

Y. Zhang, in his interactive installation, uses machine learning to generate fictional speeches by Xi Jinping and Donald J. Trump. P.R. İ. Yeginsu highlights the need for artists to find new ways of collaborating to avoid the negative impacts of commercialization linked to NFTs. The fight against social prejudice is also a recurring theme, with S. Brueckner, S. Yeung, J. Liu, D. Choberka, K. Shedden, J. Turner, I. Gillet, M. Lu and Xingwen Wei identifying the biases present in face detection and race classification.

Faced with the environmental crisis, techno-solutionism is criticized through the surrealist and ‘pataphysical’ approach of M.-L. Bourgeois’s project, without systematically rejecting engineering, as many of the projects are situated at the intersection of the arts and the engineering sciences. The appeal to various forms of decolonization is also marked, namely with H. Rashtian and G. Aceves-Sepulveda who question the construction of historical narratives.

These contributions, which oscillate between denunciation and calls for resistance, aim to provide the public with critical, conceptual, sensory and emotional tools to raise awareness of the issues of pollution, gender and democracy. The subjects addressed are varied, and the methods proposed are diverse. Although critics of these works may fear that activism will predominate over rigorous research, it is clear that these contributions, by their provocative nature, offer food for thought and relevant tools for the scientific community, inviting ongoing debate among peers.

From this perspective, this type of action research fulfills a fundamental dual critical function: on the one hand, it is devoted to exploring the invisible, hidden, unexpressed, or even oppressed elements within society; on the other hand, it simultaneously engages in the struggle against doxas, including those with which it finds itself unwittingly associated. This bifocal approach is relevant to all fields of study, encompassing both research and creative work with a critical intent. This approach enables a clear distinction between activist practices and research activities, thereby amplifying their respective impacts through an enriching critical symbiosis.

Conclusion

As we have emphasized, the choice of these key strengths represents a challenge, due to its necessarily limited and subjective nature. Not all the authors are cited in this introduction, due to lack of space, and we can only encourage readers to read all the articles. We could have highlighted other aspects, such as the importance attached to feminism, gender issues, the ecological transition, or the various processes of decolonization. These are essential thematic entries, but they are already very present in current debates, and we offer additional reading keys. It was also possible to group the proposals according to the type of technologies used or invented, or by sector of activity. The thematic clusters we proposed during the Symposium could have encouraged us to do this. However, we have chosen to base ourselves on all the contributions published in these proceedings and to resume the programmatic work in ‘bottom up’ mode. This approach offers a new perspective on how everyone can benefit from this work for their own research.

We hope that these guidelines illustrate, if proof were needed, that these proceedings are a rich source of ideas, methods and formats that are both varied and innovative. It is also important to note that the proposals go beyond the scope of these proceedings, and we encourage you to explore the online video archive platform, including artist presentations, demos and roundtables.

These exchanges between art, design, science and technology are essential for generating knowledge and creating meaningful works. They allow us not only to analyze the present (a form of real-time analysis), but also to lay the foundations for future discoveries and new approaches that are still being developed. These initiatives can be seen as precursors, offering a glimpse or intuition of what is emerging and could materialize in the next ten to twenty years. In a way that complements science fiction, which imagines the future, these proposals are starting points for extrapolating the present and considering possible future developments. A work in constant evolution!

Paris, London, Bilbao, Montréal,

Emmanuel Mahé (École des Arts Décoratifs – PSL University, France, EU), Academic Chair

Elena Papadaki (University of Greenwich, UK), sub-thematic co-Chair

Maria Ptqk (Spain, EU), sub-thematic co-Chair

François-Joseph Lapointe (Université de Montréal, Canada), sub-thematic co-Chair

DOI: 10.69564/ISEA2023-1-Mahe-et-al-introduction