VR art after new media

Barbara Nino Carreras Digital Innovation and Management IT

University of Copenhagen

Conclusion With this paper I discuss specific examples of past and recent practices in art appropriating
VR technology. Informed primarily – but not exclusively – by the work of Char Davies, Oliver Grau,
Brenda Laurel and Janet H. Murray, I contextualise specific notions (immersion, presence and
embodiment) which are worth recapitulating when discussing the opportunities and challenges of VR in
art contexts. This paper presents narratives and practices which evoke concerns and challenges when
exhibiting VR art accompanied by approaches to cope with them.

I define VR in art as a participatory medium that uses HMDs and, in some cases, additional multimodal
stimulation in order to immerse participants in virtual spaces. Rather than relying on technical mediation, I
argue that VR as a medium, like other traditional media, requires appropriate execution, presentation and
contextualisation in order to evoke immersion. Moreover, how the participant’s mental and situational
context also influences how these works are experienced. As a response to misconceptions regarding the
power of VR in art, this paper recommends specific research defining immersion, presence and
embodiment as key notions in order to understand the opportunities (not powers) of the medium in art
contexts. Specifically, I propose the combination of human cognition, HCI and participatory art as fields of
study which can inform practitioners interested in working with VR art exhibitions.
Informed by a theoretical and empirical analysis, this paper presents a set of recommendations for artists
and curators who wish to exhibit VR art: 1) to allocate staff that welcomes, introduces and assists gallery
and museum-goers, 2) to consider the relevance of the physical space in relation to the virtual space, 3)
to rely on direct personal experience when curating VR works, and 4) to consider the audience’s diverse
backgrounds and expectations when encountering VR works at exhibition spaces.

It is yet unclear where and how VR will be most present in the future. As it is now, VR is increasingly
explored in hospitals and for educational purposes. Having in mind all the possibilities that this technology
brings, it will be relevant to continue studying the ethical and bodily dimensions that VR exhibition
contexts rise. More studies and interventions are to be made addressing the conflicts of power that arise
with VR mediated experiences. As these technologies (and the giant corporations making them)
penetrate our everyday life and creative processes, artists and curators are becoming more accountable
for the ways in which VR is discussed and used. Given the apparent challenges expressed in this paper
concerning audiences and their bodies, it will be important to reflect and care about near and future
initiatives using VR technology to question what it means to immerse, stimulate and process audiences
and their bodies.

Acknowledgements This paper is a summarized version of my master’s thesis at the IT University of

Copenhagen, which I wrote over the course of four months. During this time, I had the pleasure to be
supervised by curator and writer Sarah Brin. I thank all the artists and curators mentioned in this paper
who shared their stories and work with me. I learned greatly from this experience. Big thank you to
Ragnhild and Xenia for organising the Artificial Intelligence/IntelligentArt conference and to Lone Koefoed
Hansen for proof-reading an early version of this paper. Last but not least, thank you, Sarah Brin and
Cancan Wang, for your support in reviewing and improving my writing and inspiring me through your
recommendations, experience and rigor.
18
Abstract Virtual reality art (hereafter VR art) has
long been studied at the intersection of art
history and human- computer interaction. An
example, is the VR artistry demonstrated in the
early 1990s by Canadian artist Char Davies.
With the use of an interdisciplinary approach, I
examine the revival of VR art and illustrate
examples from previous and recent artistic
explorations of VR in art. Through a literature
review followed by qualitative findings from
expert interviews with two established curators
(Christian Lund and Tina Sauerländer) and two
artists specialised in VR art (Manuel Roßner
and Sarah Rothberg), specific
recommendations and critical approaches are
proposed to curators and artists working with
VR exhibitions.
Introduction Well-informed art curators and
artists working with virtual reality (VR) know that
the history of the medium in art began more
than two decades ago. While in the 1990s the
technology was prohibitively expensive and only
accessible to those working in funded research
projects (Grau, 2003), today, and since 2016,
the consumer-headset and better and cheaper
computers, allow more people to explore the
immersive opportunities of VR technology
(Murphy, 2017).
Interestingly, despite the historical trajectory of
VR in art, emerging entrepreneurs using the
technology in art contexts have presented it as
something new. The newness of VR art has
then become a controversial topic discussed by
VR pioneers (Laurel, 2016) or art critics (Lee,
2018). Such view, from an innovation studies
perspective, is typically recurrent. Technological
innovations can be perceived as new even if
they have been used and developed in the past
(Rogers, 2010).
In the particular case of VR, its technological
advances and different initiatives adopting it in
art may have derived in a perceived newness
that does not reflect the history of VR in art.
Therefore, in this paper I recapitulate on
previous and recent examples of VR exhibitions
as a way to advance debates on curatorial
practices interested in this type of experiences.
In addition to the apparent discrepancy
concerning the novelty of VR art, experts in the
field and pioneers have also expressed
disagreements related to the “powers” and
opportunities of VR to enable empathy (see
Milk, 2015). Recent critical essays by experts in
the field of immersion and human-computer
interaction (HCI) have heavily criticized claims
regarding VR as an ‘empathy
19
machine’ (Murray, 2016). In order to recapitulate
on the opportunities studied by pioneers
working with VR, I also provide a theoretical
section that identifies key notions related to VR
art: immersion, presence and embodiment.
As a result of revisiting the above-mentioned
theoretical notions, I discuss how curators and
artists become responsible for the well-being of
participants experiencing VR art at exhibitions
spaces. I support this argument informed by
recent studies illustrating how VR can process
bodily data and send multimodal stimuli with
affective and physical effects in participants
(Madary and Metzinger, 2016). In addition, I
identify bodily concerns when working with VR
in the literature review and qualitative findings of
this paper.
In this paper I address the following research
questions (RQ):
RQ1: What kind of challenges and opportunities
do specific curators and artists working with VR
art express in their stories and practices?
RQ2: How do recent stories and practices
related to exhibiting VR art relate to early
challenges and opportunities narrated by
practitioners and scholars working with VR in art
contexts?
In order to address the challenges and
opportunities when working with VR art
exhibitions, the first part of this paper introduces
the work of VR pioneer Char Davies. In this
section, her body of work and critical stand
serves as an example of the historical trajectory
of VR in art and current controversies.
Following Char Davies’s section, I present
recent artistic and curatorial examples of VR art.
In doing so, illustrating the myriad ways in which
VR in art has been exhibited in recent years.
Following specific examples, I present a
literature review where the specific notions of
immersion, presence, and embodiment are
connected to the study of the art history of VR
and its exhibition. Given the scope of the paper,
I focus primarily on immersion and touch upon
presence and embodiment as a way to
acknowledge their importance. To expose these
concepts, I draw from various disciplines
including cognitive theory, art history, media
theory and HCI. My paper primarily focuses on
art history and HCI. I found these fields to be
the most relevant when studying exhibition
contexts for VR which are participatory. In the
second part of this paper, I provide findings from
AI IA
a qualitative interview study. Through narrative
analysis, I analysed four semi-structured
interviews with two curators and two artists
working with VR exhibitions.
Methodology In order to respond to my first RQ I
decided to interview four experts working with
VR exhibitions (two curators and two artists).
When analyzing the data resulting from the
interviews, I took a narrative approach. In this
way I could address my second RQ in which I
link how previous ways of writing about VR in
art relate (or not) to the interviewees’ narratives.
In addition, I complement findings from
interviews with written material about my
informants’ exhibitions. In order to support
discursive material about the exhibition making
processes, I also use observations from
attending exhibitions and events related to “VR
art” and from experiencing VR works exhibited
at gallery spaces in Copenhagen and Madrid
over the course of 2017 and 2018. These
exhibitions were made by artists and curators
linked to my informants’ network. Artists
interviewed also sent me their works which I
experienced at the game lab of my university
(the IT University of Copenhagen). Some parts
of the interview are not cited respecting the
confidentiality agreed with my informants.
In this study, I understand curators and artists
working with VR art as consumers and
producers of virtual reality experiences. Hence,
also as narrators shaping the development of
discourses within their daily life and professional
experiences (Andrews et al., 2013). As a
critique to my choice of method, I acknowledge
the challenge of studying social phenomena
through narratives because these are influenced
by the act of storytelling itself. In other words,
experience-centred narratives are ‘texts which
bring stories of personal experience into being
by means of the first person’s oral narration of
past, present, future or imaginary experience’
(Andrews et al., 2013, p. 43). Due to the
changeable aspect of narratives, the final
outcome is influenced by the interviewee’s
interpretation, his or her storytelling skills, the
interview event, and my analysis. Therefore,
when using this methodology, it was important
to include non-oral media .
From ‘Immersive Virtual Spaces’ to ‘VR art’ In
order to contextualize conflicts regarding the
novelty, powers and challenges of exhibiting VR
art I will start by revisiting the book Virtual Art:
From Illusion to Immersion

20
by German art historian Oliver Grau (2003).
Amongst others, Grau investigates the body of
work and ideas by Canadian artist Char Davies
who created Osmose (1994-1995) and
Ephémère (1998). To date, these two works are
historical examples of VR artistry (see Grau,
2003; Paul, 2003; Graham and Cook, 2010;
Murray, 2017; Laurel, 2014).
appropriate the technology in different forms, as
a medium of expression (Molleindustria, 2016),
social platform (VRchat, 2019), or as
entertainment (Crows Crows Crows, 2017).
However, after more than two decades of
research and artistic practice (Sutherland, 1965;
Paul, 2003) when asking Davies about the
arrival of the consumer headsets, she remains
critical about what could be denominated as the
“third wave” of hype surrounding VR technology
(Paul, 2018, 42:38). In Davies’s own words:

When referring to her works, Davies used the “While I was understandably happy that wide-
term immersive virtual space (IVE) which she field-of- view HMDs finally resurfaced in the
defined as works that allowed full body form of the HTC Vive, Oculus, and others. I
immersion and interactive 3D imagery and was, and am, deeply
sound (Davies, 2004). In Grau’s own words:
“The psychological power of this new art of
illusion becomes apparent in this work as in no

AI IA
other genre” (Grau, 2003, p. 199). As he
explains, the visual suggestion produced in
Osmose and later in Ephémère went beyond
saddened that the technology is now in the
the emotionality and interactivity of realistic
control of giant corporations like Facebook. I
simulated air battles by the U.S. Air Force in the
remain very skeptical about their priorities, not
late 1980s.
only in terms of their drive to monetize the
medium (to sell more advertising), but also to
Davies’ works were solo experiences in which
bind users ever more tightly into a culture of
participants could navigate virtual spaces –
consumer-surveillance. However, what saddens
similarly as divers do underwater – through
me most of all is that widespread use of such
leaning, exhaling and inhaling. This was
technology will have the effect of further
possible by using a head- mounted display
distracting people from what is happening in the
(HMD) and a data-tracking vest (which would
non-human world, where massive extinctions
track breathing and movement data). With
are going on all around us. It feels like the world
artistic explorations of VR in the early 1990s,
itself is disappearing, but like lobsters in a
including Davies’ work, Grau argues that VR
warming pot, people won’t even notice, or care.
technology became a powerful medium of
I wrote about this as far back as 1991.” (Davies,
expression and illusion. After a short hype span
1991; Davies, personal communication, June
in 1990s, VR technology became exclusive to
2018)
research and university labs. The technology
was too expensive to enter the mainstream
Even though Davies has reconfigured Osmose
market (Laurel, 2014).
and Ephémère for current HMDs, she declares
how no curator has offered her a reasonable
Even when VR lost popularity, scientific and
exhibition proposal that would allow her to
curatorial reflections persisted as research
properly exhibit her works again together with
initiatives (Davies, 1991; Grau, 2003; Graham
her team – three years after the arrival of the
and Cook, 2010; Laurel, 2014; Murray, 2017). In
consumer-headset.
2016, with the arrival of consumer head-
mounted displays (HMDs), VR has resurfaced
Some of the specific issues mentioned are for
again allowing artists and a wider public to
instance, recklessness when it comes to
allocating and financing trained staff that would
properly assist exhibition-goers or difficulties
finding (or building) the right architecture that
would allow intimacy for participants to
experience Davies’s works. In addition, Davies
also expresses concerns in regard to
surveillance, privacy, and environmental issues
embedded in how current organizations and
individuals overlook power relations that emerge
when commercial goals intermingle with
individual and collective aspirations to explore
the aesthetic opportunities of VR.
Through Davies’s thoughts on the current VR
landscape, what becomes apparent – and
crucially alarming – is how there are specific
concerns and responsibilities that curators and
artists could pay attention to when working with
VR and exhibiting art experiences to audiences.
Despite Davies’s criticism to the current hype
surrounding VR technology, we are able to
witness noble initiatives embracing the term “VR
art”. Specific examples can be explored on the
online platform Radiance, co- founded by
curator Tina Sauerländer and VR artist Philip
Hausmeier. This project serves two main
purposes: 1) to archive and showcase
documentation and information about VR
artworks and artists, who have given consent to
do so, and 2) to position and define these type
of VR explorations as artistic ones – differing
from purely recreational content available
elsewhere (personal communication, May
2018). In addition, Sauerländer in
collaboration with Peggy Schoenegge (under
their curatorial project peer to space) have been
curating VR works archived on Radiance at
different art related institutions, commercial and
non-commercial galleries, and museums. The
exhibition The Unframed World at Hek in Basel
in 2016 is one example that derived in a
publication under a similar title: The Unframed
World: Virtual Reality as an Artistic Medium
(Himmelsbach, 2017). In this publication the
works of Char Davies are acknowledged and
contextualised within the history of VR art.
In contemporary art today, the adoption of VR
art is deriving in diverse types of collaborations
across disciplines and industries. Renown
artists have also adopted the medium by
collaborating with upcoming VR studios which
co-produce and curate their works. Examples
that can illustrate these collaborations are the
works co-produced by Acute Art or Khora
Contemporary independently. In the U.S., The
New Museum in collaboration with the art
organisation Rhizome and the VR cloud service
EEVO have also created exhibitions
internationally accessible through their app,
First Look: Artist VR, available on Google Play
and Apple store. Google’s Tilt Brush Artist in
Residence program in 2017 or Vive Arts in 2018
are also examples of collaborations between
artists and software and hardware providers. In
addition, specific works such as VR_I, co-
produced by the research lab Artanim and the
choreographer Gilles Jobin, exemplify
collaborations between scientific institutions and
individual artists.
These partnerships are not new either.
Collaborations between research institutions
and artist already began in the 1980s and 1990s
when scientific institutions, owning the latest
technologies of the time, would include artists in
their research projects as a way to explore the
aesthetic opportunities of their experimentations
(Grau, 2003).
The multimedia artist Laurie Anderson, who was
an artist in residency at NASA (Louisiana
Museum, 2018), recently paired with engineer
Hsin Cheng Huang to produce virtual
experiences through HMDs. In 2017 the artistic
duo won ‘Best VR experience’ at the 74th
Venice International Film Festival for their piece
Chalkroom (2017). Interestingly, the style of
Chalkroom’s tree resembles Char Davies’s Tree
in Osmose.
In 2018 Hsin Cheng Huang and Laurie
Anderson collaborated once again with the
museum and created a new VR experience for
the exhibition The Moon – From Inner Worlds to
Outer Space which opened in September
(Louisiana Museum, 2018, p. 56).

21 AI IA
With a brief illustration of the current landscape
of VR art, it is possible to question how VR
technology reappears as a novelty in the
artworld after decades of technological
development and experimentation. While
experts in the field critically approach VR as
recognisable concept, others discuss and
appropriate the medium in new ways and under
new terms such as “VR art”.
After contextualising current uses of the
technology and emerging creative opportunities
of VR exhibitions, this paper will aim at
recapitulating specific terms paramount to
understanding the opportunities and challenges
of VR art. These are identified in theoretical
discussions about VR within recent and past
curatorial and artistic practices.
Murray 2017). In order to clarify what the power
of VR technology could be in art it is then
relevant to address specific notions closely
related to the medium.
Immersion In order to shed light on the
discussion of how VR allows curators and artists
to evoke feelings in their audiences it is key to
revise the notion of immersion. According to
Grau, immersion is both a mental and bodily
experience. As he explains, a virtual space can
evoke immersion, thus becoming an immersive
virtual environment (IVE). Any type of IVE is
characterized by

The contested powers of VR art In 2018 at Art

Basel Hong Kong, Marina Abramović and Jeff
22
Koons in collaboration with Acute Art premiered Installation shot: THE UNFRAMED WORLD (2017), curated by
Tina Sauerlaender, House of Electronic Arts Basel, artwork by
two new VR works Rising and Seated Ballerina
Rachel Rossin. Photo by Franz Wamhof.
respectively, these were also distributed online
through Acute Art’s subscription-based platform.
In response to this collaboration, two art critics
denounced both Acute Art’s marketing strategy
and the artists’ claims affirming the power of VR
technology to evoke empathy (Voon, 2017; Lee,
2018).

Nevertheless, Hyperbolic claims that support

the “power” of VR technology (Milk, 2015) to
evoke empathy – in anyone and for anything –
when displaying content through bulky HMDs
have been extensively criticized by academics
and experts in the field (Laurel 2016; Murray
2016). According to Laurel and Murray, who are
both contributing to study of HCI and game
theory, empathy is not guaranteed through VR
mediation, nor the feeling of being immersed or
feeling presence in a virtual space (Laurel 2014;
Installation shot: Speculative Cultures. A Virtual Reality
Exhibition (2019), curated by Tina Sauerlaender, Peggy
Schoenegge, and Erandy Vergara, Anna-Maria and Stephen
Kellen Gallery, Sheila C. Johnson Design Center, Parsons/The
New School. Photo: Marc Tatti.
AI IA
how it aims at decreasing the critical distance to
what is shown while increasing the participant’s
emotional involvement in what is happening
within it (2003). The IVE addresses the senses
of the participant with different multimodal
stimuli. In the specific case of VR, given that the
technology tracks the field of view of the
participant and can also respond to body
movements with additional components (e.g.
haptic suits or other wearable tracking gear),
one’s own actions in relation to technological
stimuli contribute to the feeling of immersion. As
Grau describes it:
‘The intention is to install an artificial world that
renders the image space a totality or at least fills
the observer’s entire field of vision... Unlike, for
example, a cycle of frescoes that depicts a
temporal sequence of successive images, these
images integrate the observer in a 360° space
of illusion, or immersion, with unity of time and
place.’ (2003, p. 13).
Still Image from Chalkroom video documentation courtesy of
Louisiana Channel (2018).
23 AI IA
instead proposing the mental willingness (to
seek for immersion) of individuals to being
surrounded by a different reality. The argument
The HMDs encapsulate participants in artificial
worlds generated by a computer. However, the
technical components contributing to immersion
are not only visual. Back in the 1990s, as Grau
illustrates, illusion techniques providing the
immersive effect in VR were e,g., spatial sound,
‘tactile and haptic impressions’, and
‘thermoreceptive and even kinaesthetic
sensations’ (2003, p. 15).
In contrast to Grau, and his understanding of
immersion related to technical mediation,
professor Janet H. Murray expands the feeling
of immersion in media that doesn’t depend on
technological stimuli. In her book Hamlet and
the Holodeck (1997-2017), paramount to the
study of digital media and traditional ways of
storytelling, interestingly, she exemplifies how
immersion occurs in e.g., literature, films,
theatre, participatory theatre, video games, role
playing and VR. In order to understand how, it is
key to observe how she defines immersion in
contrast to Grau:
‘Immersion is a metaphorical term derived from
the physical experience of being submerged in
water. We seek the same feeling from
psychologically immersive experience that we
do from a plunge in the ocean or swimming
pool: the sensation of being surrounded by a
completely other reality, as different as water is
from air, that takes over our attention, our whole
perceptual apparatus.’ (2017, p. 124)
When using the metaphor of diving, Murray,
similarly to Grau exemplifies the multimodal
stimulation needed to perceive oneself in a
different reality. However, without the reliance of
advanced technological mediation and
Still from live performance (1995) of Tree in Osmose by Char
Davies. Courtesy of the artist.
is then how a well- written novel can evoke
immersion in a similar way to highly
technological mediation. This is a result from
other factors influencing immersion; a well-
structured plot or interaction design, the
physical context when consuming specific
narrative forms, and the attitude of the
participant towards the experience.
When reflecting on immersion from the
perspective of a participant interacting with
digital media, Murray argues that not having a
clear idea of what to do can disrupt the feeling
of immersion and instead lead to confusion or
ambiguity (2017). Participants’ doubts about
how to navigate an interaction or IVE, if not
intended, can thus overshadow the purpose,
story or concept behind specific experiences.
Furthermore, she explains how immersion can
also be interrupted when other people are
present. Experiencing VR surrounded by other
people can either reinforce or detract from the
feeling of immersion i.e., the social context can
both serve as an invitation or disruption of
immersion in VR.
When Char Davies planned the exhibition of her
works, she always trained a group of assistants
that would be present at the exhibition in order
to 1) welcome immersants to the works 2) help
them “suit up” and 3) teach them how to
navigate the virtual spaces or help if they had
problems throughout the experience (Davies,
personal communication, June 2018). In a
similar way, Murray also reflects on two factors
to be considered when facilitating VR
experiences: 1) immersion depends on the
attitude and openness of the participant
encountering the IVE, and 2) the experience
needs to be designed in order to invite and
guide the participant into learning how to
navigate a virtual space (2017).
Brenda Laurel, who also experimented – and
pioneered – with VR in the 1990s with her work
Placeholder (1993) explains how the narrative,
performative and technological elements of IVE
experiences are part of the strategy of
immersion, but their success depends on the
participants' desire to accept the represented
world as real. Thus, Laurel attributes this desire
as the ‘willing suspension of disbelief’ (2014).
According to Laurel (when comparing the
elements in HCI to traditional theatre) during
dramatic interaction participants attenuate their
knowledge to pretend as if the representation is
real (p. 139). Hence, participants are able to
have an emotional response in the interaction.
In relation to this desire, engagement is
described as the moment when participants are
able to give themselves to the representational
context unambiguously.
24
In the second edition of her book Hamlet on the
Holodeck (2017), Murray builds on the notion
‘willing suspension of disbelief’ to exemplify how
due to the active role of participants in creating
meaning in HCI experiences (such as VR art),
immersion also depends on the ‘active creation
of belief’. Assuming that participants desire to
experience immersion, they act in order to
‘reinforce rather than question the reality of the
experience’ (p.136). Similarly to how readers
encounter a novel, in IVEs or other digital
spaces with narrative and dramatic qualities
(i.e., video games or role playing); one brings
‘personal, cognitive, cultural, and psychological
templates to every story as one assesses the
characters and anticipate the way the story is
likely to go.’ (Murray, 2017, p.137).
Importantly, the capacity of meaningfully acting
in a representational context is what Murray
describes as agency. As she explains, 'the
delights' of electronic environments are
immersion and agency (2017, p. 125). What VR
practitioners can learn from Murray and Laurel
is how storytelling is a powerful strategy to
engage and guide participants in HCI. And how
artists can benefit from drawing inspiration from
traditional elements in literature, theatre and
HCI. Comparably, Laurel (2014) and Murray
(2017) explore ways to orchestrate meaningful
experiences before, during, and after
technological mediated interactions.
The concept of evoking emotions in one’s
audience or creating meaningful experiences
has also been theorized by Laurel with the
Aristotelian notion of catharsis, which is
described as ‘the arousal and release of
emotions’ from an experience (2014, p. 165). As
she explains, the arousal of emotions can lead
to various emotions depending on the intention
of the author, similarly to how audiences
experience a comedy or a tragedy. Participants
may feel e.g. empathy, sadness, fright or joy if
the author of the experience, in combination
with the different elements conforming an
interaction, succeeds in the orchestration of an
intended emotional response.
Laurel and Murray’s ideas are not isolated
examples understanding media consumption in
this way, other cross-disciplinary studies also
exemplify how immersion is not limited to
technological mediation (Wirth et al., 2007).
Presence As a result, from feeling immersed in
a virtual environment, participants can perceive
themselves in the specific IVE. This experience
is described as the
AI IA
feeling of ‘being there’ (Heeter, 1992) later
developed as the notion of presence. For more
than 20 years professor and researcher Mel
Slater has dedicated his career to the study of
presence in IVEs (2009). Differently from
Murray and Laurel, he understands immersion
as a quality in technological mediation.
Recently, Slater refers to presence with the
notion of ‘place illusion’ (Slater, 2009, p. 3551).
Other terminology such as ‘spatial presence’
has been used to describe this phenomenon
comprehending the possibility of immersion in
less technologically mediated experiences
(Wirth et al., 2007, p. 497).
Wirth et al. (2017) theorizes how regardless of
the feeling of being located in a virtual
environment, the mediation and
acknowledgement of the participants body in
reality is still inevitable. Thus, as a reflection, it
is possible to clarify that when discussing
presence in VR, it is relevant to demystify
utopian/dystopian narratives where the mind
and body merge with the virtual space through
HMDs.
When understanding the feeling of presence
evoked by a VR system, it is necessary to
acknowledge the mediation itself, one’s own
body, and one’s own relation to a physical
space. A clear definition of these factors can be
observed in the definition of spatial presence: ‘a
binary experience, during which perceived self-
location, and, in most cases, perceived action
possibilities are connected to a mediated spatial
environment, and mental capacities are bound
by the mediated environment instead of reality.’
(Wirth et al., 2007).
It is out of the scope of this paper to investigate
further on this notion. Nonetheless, it is relevant
that curators and artists interested in VR are
aware of how current research is dedicated to
the study of presence in IVEs. Regardless of the
different standpoints conceptualizing or
understanding immersion and presence, what
becomes clear is that the evocation of emotions,
immersion and presence are not automatically
granted in VR mediation.
Embodiment Some studies dealing with VR
technology are exposing the possibility of body
ownership of virtual body parts and full body
representations. Professor Mel Slater, who has
been studying VR for more than 20 years, has
argued how participants in his experimentations
feel “ownership of virtual limbs or human-like
avatars in IVEs” (Slater, 2009, p. 218).
Importantly, some of these studies have been
 He is also co-editor of the video platform
25 Louisiana Channel and organizer of the
museum’s yearly literature festival. He was
complemented with the use of additional chosen as an informant for his collaboration with
wearable components such as suits or data Laurie Anderson and Hsin-Chen Huang,
gloves which allow a higher level of movement curating Chalkroom for Louisiana’s literature
and ability to act in virtual spaces according to festival in the summer of 2017. The interview
one’s own body. Conversations about body took place at the museum in March, 2018.
ownership, have also led to exploring
disembodiment. In art history disembodiment
A second interviewee was Tina Sauerländer, art
has been subject of recognizable debates within
historian and new media curator who co-
new media art (Graham and Cook, 2010).
founded the previously mentioned VR projects;
Regardless of the type of mediation, the
Radiance and peer to space. She was chosen
existence of the participant’s reality when
for her curatorial work showcasing VR works
interacting in VR experiences is indisputable. As
from international VR artists. Sauerländer is
literary critic N. Katherine Hayles explains “in
also a frequent guest speaker at different
fact, we are never disembodied... We can see,
festivals and conferences dealing with new
hear, feel, and interact with virtual worlds only
media art such as; House of Electronic Arts
because we are embodied” (1995, p.1).
Basel or Toronto Digifest 2018. The interview
took place at Sauerländer’s home, in March
After briefly presenting immersion, presence, 2018.
and embodiment as a response to
misconceptions related to the “powers” of VR in
My third interview was with Sarah Rothberg, a
art, the following section introduces qualitative
multimedia artist and creative writer. Rothberg
findings concerning specific practices of
has exhibited at Sotheby's s2 gallery, MUTEK
curating and exhibiting VR art. Importantly, this
festival, Mana Contemporary, and bitforms
section highlights the relevance of taking care of
gallery among other places. She also teaches
audiences and their bodies when successfully
VR production at NYU (Tisch) and the New
exhibiting VR works.
School (Lang) in New York. The interview was
held over Skype in March 2018.

Informants’ profiles My first informant was

Christian Lund who works as a curator for
Louisiana Museum of Modern Art in Denmark. AI IA
works As a fourth informant, I chose to interview Char Davies,
for the first time on the day of the installation. In but due to her work in the forest, the interview was
these cases, curators rely on previous works made by postponed and I was unable to include this
interview
the artist and their artist’s statement. in my master’s thesis delivery. However, her written responses to
specific inquiries served as an additional
In order to illustrate the relevance of direct personal data source (Davies, personal communication, June
11).
experience it is useful to refer to Sarah Rothberg’s work Touching a Cactus. This VR piece is a loop of In
order to follow a consistent method, I chose to
five interactive vignettes in which lines of poems are arrange an interview with VR artist Manuel Roßner.
The
activated by the participants depending on virtual German artist was selected for his portfolio and career.
touching through hand controllers. Roßner has gained recognition for the creation of the first gallery in
Europe only existing in VR, Float Gallery.
Rothberg programs the interaction, even for Roßner is a curator and VR artist. In the past years
participants who decide to be passive observers. he has worked as a designer and has translated the
This allows the plot and lines of poems to perform navigation of physical exhibitions into VR experiences.
regardless of who interacts with the work. However, if He has exhibited at e.g., インフラ INFRA Festival in the

participant decides to act and touch in the virtual Tokyo and has been part of the exhibition Unreal (where
space, she or he will change the order and pace of how he expanded the exhibition space in VR) at the
NRW-
the scenes and poetic lines appear in the experience. Forum in Düsseldorf. The interview was held over
Skype in May 2018.
In addition, the participant is required to be surrounded by real cacti at the exhibition space. Even though
video, photographic and textual documentation can
Learnings from exhibition design This section will present specific challenges that both artists and
curators highlight as most important when
communicate the aesthetic qualities of the work; direct personal experience is what allows this piece to
communicate the artist’s conceptual intentions.
designing VR art exhibitions. Each concern has a dedicated section illustrating specific examples and
ways to work around them.
The relevance of direct personal experience can also be exemplified in the way curator Christian Lund
visited artist Laurie Anderson at her studio in New York to experience Chalkroom. The experience of
visiting
Direct personal experience One of the most difficult challenges embedded in VR art, expressed by the
informants and observed at exhibition spaces, is how to communicate the value of VR artworks to people
who can’t experience the works or do not have access to the technology. VR art documentation in the
form of a film or still images is not enough to grasp the overall concept behind the work.
the artist and going through the work contributed to planning the space at the museum. Interestingly, the
chair where Lund sat while experiencing the work was later reproduced at the literature festival. Because
participants fly and float in this work, Anderson and Lund realized that a turnable chair would assure that
museum-goers – including seniors – would not risk falling or loosing balance while navigating in the work.
Image documentation is not enough because the interaction in this particular type of works is influenced
by how it is co-created by the participant in a specific time and place. This is particularly important when
studying the immersive qualities of a particular work which may need to be orchestrated both in the virtual
and physical space according to the exhibition space and audience. When analyzing the narratives at
hand, curators and artists prefer to grasp VR works when designing exhibitions through direct personal
experience. However, this is a challenge for contemporary art curators who do not have access to the
expensive technology and rely on limited budgets. The high costs of the equipment needed to experience
VR leads to some cases where curators experience the
Furthermore, Lund contributed to the simplification of the first scene in the experience which was too
difficult for inexperienced VR users. Because Laurie had experimented with the technology for longer than
Lund, who was experiencing VR for the first time, they realised that there were different levels of difficulty
in the work. Thus, the first scenes in Chalkroom were reconfigured to facilitate an easier navigation at the
start of the experience. Apart from these changes, the experience which had no time limit was restricted
to 15 minutes and scheduled online by booking slots before the festival, so that as many people as
possible would be able to experience the work. Those who did not book online, had the chance to queue
at the museum in case people did not show up to their slot. By experiencing the work and collaborating
with the artist

26
AI IA
the curator was able to plan ahead how festival-goers would experience Chalkroom.

Audiences’ diverse profiles and expectations Art exhibitions showing VR works are challenged by the use
of VR technology in entertainment and gaming. On one hand, audiences may bring different expectations
when visiting an exhibition depending on their familiarity with the technology. On the other hand, the level
of familiarity with the technology can result in various levels of skill when interacting with the works.

As expressed by informants, curators and artists need to take into account those who are experiencing
VR for the first time and those who own and use VR technology on a daily basis. Gallery-goers with no
previous experience using VR may need to resolve simple questions, such as how to properly wear the
HMD and controllers. On the other hand, experienced VR users may be bored by the conceptual
interaction or try to disrupt or break the boundaries of the given virtual space.

When dealing with VR novices, artists and curators normally create a set of installation requirements and
user guidelines to teach both staff and exhibition-goers how to interact with the works and equipment.
These guidelines can also be part of the virtual space as a narrating voice or graphic guide within the
virtual space. In regard to experienced users, communication is the most efficient way to balance the
expectations given by the technology i.e., presenting the works as conceptual art and not as
entertainment products, or providing a storyline.

When considering the level of familiarity that participants have with VR technology, Rothberg explains
how most people interacting with her works at gallery spaces are VR novices. When she presents her
work at tech-related events, audiences tend to be more experienced. Thus, the context of the exhibition
also influences the type of audience that encounters her work. As an artist and as a teacher, Rothberg
normally encourages her students to create simple interactions that can accommodate as many
participants as possible, regardless of their skillsets. As she expressed during the interview, in addition to
different levels of expertise, an important issue for her is how VR gear is made for particular types of
people and bodies which undeniable rises questions of accessibility in her practice.

When talking about skillsets and experience, Manuel Roßner specifically refers to an example that
illustrates

27
Char Davies with Georges Mauro in the projection room of the Montreal Museum of Contemporary Art. Photographed by Jean- Frangois
Lenoir for Parcours L'lnfomateur des arts © Jean-Franqois Lenoir 1995.
Stills from Touching A Cactus and installation view at the pop-up gallery BUNKER at Sotheby's auction house. Courtesy of the artist.

AI IA
of diverse ways of experiencing VR art depending on the
VR art within art-related institutions and online audiences’ mastery of the devices at hand. At one of his
platforms such as Radiance. When artists decide exhibitions he created a journey where participants
could
to distribute their work online, they can either build navigate a virtual gallery and experience different VR
a platform or publish, independently, their work on works. Additionally, to the overall path between works,
available gaming distribution platforms that support he created an interaction in which participants could
their hardware and software. A problematic factor when grab and cast virtual concrete from the virtual
gallery
distributing art in gaming platforms (e.g., Steam or itch. walls. When the staff at the exhibition space
introduced
io) is how gamers misunderstand and criticize VR art as this journey to visitors, the additional interaction
was not
badly made entertainment. See the artist statement by communicated in order to avoid confusion.
However,
Theo Triantafyllidis on itch.io that is complemented with the staff working at the exhibition space, who
knew the
Youtuber play videos (2016). full possibilities within Roßner’s work and who skillfully maneuver the
controllers, ended up playing ping-pong
For this reason, upcoming studios are foreseeing with virtual concrete during empty time slots.
business opportunities in creating an online platform dedicated to distributing the medium as art. Although
this would also lead to a division between those who Exhibition contexts and distribution concerns
want to distribute their artworks alone and for free The apparent mismatch of expectations occurring at
(see Molleindustria’s A Short History of the Gaze, 2016), exhibitions spaces showcasing VR art has been
a great
those who want to monetize their artworks distributing concern both for artists and curators. Specifically,
online with the support of a larger studio, and those who informants present two main concerns: 1)
balancing
prefer the exclusivity of museums and gallery spaces as between intimate and social experiences, and 2)
exhibition contexts. defining the contexts and the works as something else than pure entertainment.
On the flip side of the discussion of how to differ art from games, in recent years scholars and art
historians have argued that even though video games were Balancing between intimate and social
experiences
originally intended to be purely recreational platforms, An important issue expressed by the informants
artists have adopted video games in both activist and when deciding where to exhibit works is the level of
artistic contexts (Brin, 2011). Curator and researcher intimacy given by the room and setup of the
exhibited
Sarah Brin, specialised in the discussion of video games works. While some artists such as Sarah
Rothberg
as art, illustrates how art institutions such as MoMA would prefer that gallery-goers have privacy and are
not
have selected popular video games in their exhibitions exposed to other people circulating the exhibition
(2015). Furthermore, Brin highlights how video games space, Roßner actually finds interesting how the
room
have art historical value and how game elements can positions a division between those who are
immersed
also be used as media for expression. and those who walk and look around the ones experiencing the
works. In relation to how to balance
Despite the affirmation that games can be considered the two, Char Davies created a specific setup
where
works of art and works of art using “game elements” immersants were encapsulated in a chamber and
only
can be considered games, it is possible to identify their shadow would be exposed to others circulating
the
discussions in favor and against this claim in the exhibition space. In addition, she allowed others
participants’ responses. Online distribution contexts to listen the live performance experienced between
the
generate dilemmas about commercial and non- participant and the IVE to include more people into the
commercial initiatives and about how VR games and experience even though it was intended only for one
art are defined. Furthermore, it also forces artists to person. In this way, Davies was taking the
exhibition’s
choose whether they want to limit VR art experiences architecture and setup as a way to create a
to site-specific installations or also distribute online for performative dimension in the exhibition of her
work
people to experience at home. (personal communication, June 2018). Importantly, the participation
occurring in these constructed spaces is as much part of the work as the code, sound or other elements
conforming it.
Qualified assistantship and technical support In order to immerse audiences in VR works, curators and
artists must orchestrate specific interactions that Distribution channels which are not entertainment
can cope with diverse type of audiences and exhibition Tina Saueränder encourages the contextualisation
contexts (small galleries, peak hours or openings). An

28
AI IA
important element at exhibitions spaces is experienced staff guiding audiences.

One of the motivations for assistantship is the presence of inexperienced audiences that calls for the
allocation of assistants at exhibitions spaces helping novices “suit up” and navigate virtual spaces.
Furthermore, in relation to the informants accounts it was apparent how hardware and software can easily
fail. In order to manage technological shortcomings, it is also key to allocate technical staff that can repair
specific installations at any time and make sure that the hardware and software works correctly—and that
the controllers and other additional devices are fully charged.

When encountering specific works, informants similarly express that welcoming and supporting
participants before, during, and after the experience is crucial. Staff assisting participants are therefore
required to know how to welcome and prime what will happen during the interaction. The specific ways of
guiding participants may include wall signs, wall warnings (in case of sensitive content), brochures and
specific furniture or wearables that assure a comfortable and successful experience. Moreover, hygienic
considerations are also highlighted as an important routine to take into account by staff and assistants.
After 15 minutes, VR installations frequented by a considerable number of strangers require the cleaning
of headsets in between participants. This concern was also noted by Brenda Laurel when explaining why
in the 1990s Japanese audiences rejected the technology due to hygiene concerns (2014).

Last but not least, time slot registration and more than one setup per work are also solutions explained to
solve the challenge of technical shortcomings and waiting lines. Especially during peak hours or popular
events, VR installations can cause waiting lines or limiting who is able to experience the works. Waiting
time and technological failures may confuse attendees and interrupt the intended immersive experience.

Recommendations for VR art exhibitions In the following section I provide a summary of

recommendations for curators and artists drawing from this paper’s theoretical and empirical work.

To allocate trained assistants and technicians. Depending on the resources that specific curators have,
they can decide whether they should allocate assistants
Documentation of Unreal exhibition at NRW-Forum in Düsseldorf. Courtesy of the artist and NRW-Forum.

Installation view of live performance of Ephémère (1998) by Char Davies. Immersant seen through shadow-silhouette screen at the
Australian Centre for the Moving Image, 2003. Courtesy of the artist.
29
AI IA
at the exhibition space or not. However, not attending the works is a risk that many curators and artists
might want to avoid. The identification of VR novices and technical shortcomings are important challenges
that curators need to take into account. Moreover, past and current examples of VR artistry demonstrate
that it is necessary to design how participants are welcomed and introduced to the installations. Given the
creative possibilities in VR art, in most cases artists rely on assistants that can guide participants through
the experience before, during and after. In addition, allocating time for simple tasks such as slot
scheduling, waiting lines, charging the controllers and cleaning the headsets should not be overlooked.

To consider the relevance of the physical space in relation to the virtual. The design of the physical
location can tailor how the participant encounters and moves before, during, and after the experience.
Narrative elements included in the design of the physical exhibition, communicated by staff members and
narrated in the virtual space can also help participants navigate and understand VR artworks. In addition,
immersion can be facilitated as either an intimate or a collective journey. In relation to museum or gallery
spaces, curators are also recommended to consider the number of visitors per day and to time how long it
takes to experience a work and how long it takes to get ready to experience a VR work or wait in line.

To rely on direct personal experience when selecting VR artworks. Video, photographic and textual
documentation of VR art can be used as a preview material. However, it is recommended that curators
and artists experience VR art first-hand to fully understand the concept behind the work and experience.

Consider audience’s backgrounds and expectations. As Murray theorizes, immersive VR experiences are
fragile and can easily be disrupted (2017). When attempting to immerse audiences in a particular work it
is important to remember that individuals’ engagement in a VR piece not only depend on the artistry of the
author or the technological mediation. The physical and mental context of the participant and the
willingness or desire to be engaged in a VR work is as important as the craft behind the technological
mediation. Therefore, the installation and storytelling at the place and time where the work is experienced
should be carefully orchestrated.

30
The opportunities and challenges of VR in art I began this study questioning the opportunities and
challenges that specific curators and artists working with VR art express in their stories and practices. I
address this question given the apparent disagreements concerning the novelty, “powers”, and
challenges of VR in art.

When recapitulating on immersion, presence and embodiment and reflecting on the stories and practices
related to VR exhibitions, it is possible to explore two ways of understanding VR as a medium in art. One
way, is to focus on VR development as the driver for “powerful” art experiences. The other approach,
which I argue is most valuable, does not rely entirely on technology development but rather seeks for
answers in understanding human cognition, the history of VR exhibitions and participatory art.

By revisiting the work of Char Davies, Oliver Grau, Brenda Laurel and Janet H. Murray and analyzing my
informant’s narratives and practices, it is possible to observe how immersion theory and participatory art
have had an important historical trace in what informants describe as “VR art” or “art made with VR”.
Rather than solely relying on the latest technology, I observe how artists and curators are most
preoccupied with figuring out ways in which they can guide audiences better, and understand their needs
as they experience immersive works, while also taking care of their well-being – avoiding harmful
experiences (e.g., motion sickness or confusion).

In order to cope with challenges embedded in exhibiting VR art, curators and artists should work with
technical experts. Furthermore, learning new skills or work in interdisciplinary teams and use cognitive
and HCI theory, or even, furniture design and architecture. In other words, the opportunities of the
technology are much more grounded in understanding audiences and their needs. Knowledge about the
human body and its cognitive and physical dimensions are as important as understanding the code and
technical backstage of VR artworks. For this reason, curators and artists can foresee opportunities in
following not only the development of the newest devices in the market, but also, new knowledge and
best practices from experts contributing to cognitive science, HCI and the history of participatory art
exhibitions (Graham, 2016).

In relation to the challenges that curators and artist face, an important question which this study has not
been able to address in depth, is the boundaries of artworks when these have bodily and physical effects.

AI IA
Since the technology is new for those who have not used it before, the vast majority of audiences in
museums and gallery spaces could still be considered novices, new to the gear and equipment. Curators
and artists are ever more accountable for the body and mind of participants experiencing works. This
leads to paramount considerations in terms of responsible design and decision making.

If VR experiences can evoke negative feelings in users such as confusion or balance loss, then artists
and curators are accountable for the physical and mental well-being of audiences in real-time and space.
As the technology advances, special care will have to be allocated to assure safe interactions and even
reject works that could potentially harm audiences. One way to address the negative effects of VR
experiences is to follow ethical considerations already present in scientific discussions about VR (Madary
and Metzinger, 2016). Ethical conduct in VR art exhibition design will be worth following and implementing
in the years to come.

Conclusion With this paper I discuss specific examples of past and recent practices in art appropriating
VR technology. Informed primarily – but not exclusively – by the work of Char Davies, Oliver Grau,
Brenda Laurel and Janet H. Murray, I contextualise specific notions (immersion, presence and
embodiment) which are worth recapitulating when discussing the opportunities and challenges of VR in
art contexts. This paper presents narratives and practices which evoke concerns and challenges when
exhibiting VR art accompanied by approaches to cope with them.
I define VR in art as a participatory medium that uses HMDs and, in some cases, additional multimodal
stimulation in order to immerse participants in virtual spaces. Rather than relying on technical mediation, I
argue that VR as a medium, like other traditional media, requires appropriate execution, presentation and
contextualisation in order to evoke immersion. Moreover, how the participant’s mental and situational
context also influences how these works are experienced. As a response to misconceptions regarding the
power of VR in art, this paper recommends specific research defining immersion, presence and
embodiment as key notions in order to understand the opportunities (not powers) of the medium in art
contexts. Specifically, I propose the combination of human cognition, HCI and participatory art as fields of
study which can inform practitioners interested in working with VR art exhibitions.
Informed by a theoretical and empirical analysis, this paper presents a set of recommendations for artists
and curators who wish to exhibit VR art: 1) to allocate staff that welcomes, introduces and assists gallery
and museum-goers, 2) to consider the relevance of the physical space in relation to the virtual space, 3)
to rely on direct personal experience when curating VR works, and 4) to consider the audience’s diverse
backgrounds and expectations when encountering VR works at exhibition spaces.

It is yet unclear where and how VR will be most present in the future. As it is now, VR is increasingly
explored in hospitals and for educational purposes. Having in mind all the possibilities that this technology
brings, it will be relevant to continue studying the ethical and bodily dimensions that VR exhibition
contexts rise. More studies and interventions are to be made addressing the conflicts of power that arise
with VR mediated experiences. As these technologies (and the giant corporations making them)
penetrate our everyday life and creative processes, artists and curators are becoming more accountable
for the ways in which VR is discussed and used. Given the apparent challenges expressed in this paper
concerning audiences and their bodies, it will be important to reflect and care about near and future
initiatives using VR technology to question what it means to immerse, stimulate and process audiences
and their bodies.

Acknowledgements This paper is a summarized version of my master’s thesis at the IT University of

Copenhagen, which I wrote over the course of four months. During this time, I had the pleasure to be
supervised by curator and writer Sarah Brin. I thank all the artists and curators mentioned in this paper
who shared their stories and work with me. I learned greatly from this experience. Big thank you to
Ragnhild and Xenia for organising the Artificial Intelligence/IntelligentArt conference and to Lone Koefoed
Hansen for proof-reading an early version of this paper. Last but not least, thank you, Sarah Brin and
Cancan Wang, for your support in reviewing and improving my writing and inspiring me through your
recommendations, experience and rigor.

31 AI IA
Bibliography Andrews, M., Squire, C., & Tamboukou, M. (2013). Doing Narrative
Research. SAGE Publications.
Brin, S. E. (2011). Artists' Game Mods and the
New Public Sphere. Master’s thesis. University
of Southern California, Roski School of Fine
Arts.
Brin, S. E. (2015). Games for Museums,
Museums for Games: A Report on Arts
Engagement for SFMOMA. SFMOMA.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods.
Oxford university press.
Crows Crows Crows (2017). Retrieved 1 August
2018, from https://crowscrowscrows.com/
sendy/w.php?i=S3l3UMZOruXnTmlSnVH7QQ/
sgz0VVKIJFXgGEEKFHQPvg/
o7kTzxHYsiBSGBG6gM7yQg
Davies, C. (1991). ‘Natural Artifice. Is there any
kind of defensible dualism between the
concepts of natural and artificial?’ In Richards,
C., Tenhaaf, N., Davies, C., Robinett, W.,
Rokeby, D., Rothenberg, D., ... & Lyotard, J. F.
(1991). Virtual seminar on the bioapparatus.
The Banff Centre for the Arts.
Davies, C. (2002). Changing Space: Virtual
Reality as an Arena of Embodied Being (1997).
(n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.immersence.com/publications/char/2
004- CD-Space.html
Davies, C. (2004). Virtual space. Space: In
science, art and society, 69-104.
Davies, M. (2012). Doing Research ‘on and
through’ new media narrative. In Andrews, M.,
Squire, C., & Tamboukou, M. (2013). Doing
Narrative Research. SAGE Publications.
Graham, B., & Cook, S. (2010). Rethinking
Curating: Art after New Media. Leonardo Books.
MIT Press.
Graham, B. (2016). Exhibition Histories and
Futures. A Companion to Digital Art, 575-596.
Grau, O., & Custance, G. (2003). Virtual art:
From Illusion to Immersion; translated by Gloria
Custance. MIT Press.
Hayles, N. K. (1995). Embodied Virtuality: Or
How to Put Bodies Back into the Picture. In
Mary Anne Moser and Douglas MacLeod, eds.
Immersed in Technology: Art and Individual
Environments, 1-28. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Heeter, C. (1992). Being there: The Subjective
Experience of Presence. Presence:
Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 1(2),
262-271.
Himmelsbach, Sabine, et al. The Unframed
World - Virtual Reality As Artistic Medium.
Christoph Merian Verlag, 2017.
Laurel, B. (2016, June 15). What Is Virtual
Reality? – Brenda Laurel – Medium. Retrieved
from https:// medium.com/@blaurel/what-is-
virtual-reality- 77b876d829ba
Laurel, B. (2013). Computers as Theatre.
Addison- Wesley.
Lee, S. (2018, March 13). Is There Hope for
Virtual Reality in Art? Why Marina Abramovic
and Jeff Koons Are Not the Answer. Retrieved
from https://www.
artspace.com/magazine/interviews_features/art-
tech/ is-there-hope-for-virtual-reality-in-art-why-
marina- abramovic-and-jeff-koons-are-not-the-
answer-55318
Louisiana Museum (2018, April). Laurie
Anderson om Virtual Reality. Louisiana
Magazine (48), pp. 56-59.
Madary, M., & Metzinger, T. K. (2016). Real
virtuality: a code of ethical conduct.
Recommendations for good scientific practice
and the consumers of VR-technology. Frontiers
in Robotics and AI, 3, 3.
Milk, C. (2015, March). How virtual reality can
create the ultimate empathy machine. Retrieved
from https://
www.ted.com/talks/chris_milk_how_virtual_realit
y_can_ create_the_ultimate_empathy_machine
Molleindustria. (2016) A Short History of the
Gaze. Retrieved 1 August 2018, from
http://molleindustria.org/ historyOfTheGaze/
Murray, J. H. (2017). Hamlet on the holodeck:
The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. MIT
press.
32 AI IA
Nino Carreras, B. (2018). VR Art After New
Media: Exploring a Participatory Medium that
Enables Playful, Narrative and Performative
Interactions. Unpublished master’s thesis, IT
University of Copenhagen (ITU), Copenhagen.
Paul, C. (2003). Digital art (Vol. 224). London:
Thames & Hudson.
Paul, C. (2016). A Companion to Digital Art.
John Wiley & Sons.
Paul, C. (2018). Becoming Digital Keynote:
Christiane Paul [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://vimeo. com/258340820
Pausch, R., Snoddy, J., Taylor, R., Watson, S.,
& Haseltine, E. (1996). Disney's Aladdin.
Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference on
Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques
- SIGGRAPH '96. doi:10.1145/237170.237257
Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations.
Simon and Schuster.
Sauerländer, T. (2017) Virtual Reality’s
Unframed World. (11-13), The Unframed World.
House of Electronic Arts Basel.
Slater, M. (2009). Place illusion and plausibility
Murray, J. H. (2016, October 06). Not a Film
and Not an Empathy Machine, by Janet H.
Murray. Retrieved from
https://immerse.news/not-a-film-and-not-an-
empathy- machine-48b63b0eda93
Murphy, D. (2017). Virtual Reality is ‘Finally
Here’: A Qualitative Exploration of Formal
Determinants of Player Experience in VR. In
Proceedings of the 2017 DiGRA International
Conference.
can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive
virtual environments. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,
364(1535), 3549–3557.
Sutherland, I. E. (1965). The ultimate display.
Multimedia: From Wagner to virtual reality, 506-
508.
Triantafyllidis, T. (2016). Retrieved from
https://theotrian. itch.io/self-portrait-interior
VRChat Inc. (2019). Retrieved from
https://www.vrchat. net/
Wirth, et. al. (2007). A Process Model for the
Formation of Spatial Presence Experiences.
Media Psychology, 9(3), 493–525.
33
AI IA