A STUDY OF PRACTICE AND APPLICATION IN DIGITAL PUBLIC ART IN THE CONTEXT OF METAVERSE
Keywords:
Public Art, Metaverse, Field Architecture, Hierarchical Analysis, Index System, Case StudyAbstract
Public art as a participatory art has become an important way of cultural shaping and urban marketing in cities, and the public is gradually becoming participants and shapers in urban public art practice, but the current public art field still faces problems such as temporary nature, high costs of exhibition venues or spaces, information blockage, slow circulation, and lack of consensus cognition of art values. With the booming development of emerging technologies such as big data, cloud computing, the Internet of Things, and artificial intelligence in recent years, the innovation of technology has also invariably catalyzed a change in the public's identity in the face of the constantly renewed concept of metaverse and the imminent shift of art demand and artistic expression to the digital expression of the future. As a new term, the definition and connotation of metaverse have not yet been officially unified and agreed upon. After a comprehensive analysis of the interviews, we believe that metaverse is a virtual space that can be interacted with by multiple people, parallel or intersected with the real world by using mixed reality technologies such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, AR and VR, in order to maximize users' creative ability and personalized expression. In this study, we propose for the first time the construction of a digital public art field architecture in the context of metaverse, which is built from three levels: technical application layer, technical support layer, and application practice layer, based on which we design an innovative art index system based on the relevant modules of the data layer, and participate in the future art construction. Taking digital public art as the research object, we discuss the influencing factors of public art through the method of expert evaluation, and try to realize the authenticity of virtual space through the construction of digital technology, further enhance the quality of public art, artistic productivity and strengthen the accuracy of artistic language, provide the new evaluation standard and practice path for digital public art, link the technical means with public demand, in order to It also provides a new evaluation standard and practice path for digital public art, linking technological means to public needs in order to enhance social participation, emotional links, and social cohesion between the public and their communities. At the academic research level, we focus on this aspect of new technological change in the art discipline, providing an independent and objective value system for public art research, as well as novel and optimized solutions.
References
Stephens P G. A Real Community Bridge: Informing Community-Based Learning through a Model of Participatory Public Art[J]. Art education (Reston). 2006, 59(2): 40-46.
Green A, Gray S. Unfurling the cultural value of street art experiences[J]. Arts and the Market. 2020, 10(2): 65-82.
Macdonald S, Wiens B I. Mobilizing the "Multimangle": Why New Materialist Research Methods in Public Participatory Art Matter[J]. Leisure sciences. 2019, 41(5): 366-384.
Gurney K. Zombie monument: Public art and performing the present[J]. Cities. 2018, 77: 33-38.
Joon-Ho Kim S J. Public art, sexuality, and critical pedagogy[J]. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. 2015.
Mccarthy J. Regeneration of Cultural Quarters: Public Art for Place Image or Place Identity?[J]. Journal of urban design. 2006, 11(2): 243-262.
Zebracki M. Public art, sexuality, and critical pedagogy[J]. Journal of Geography in Higher Education. 2019.
Zebracki M. Beyond public artopia: public art as perceived by its publics[J]. GeoJournal. 2013, 78(2): 303-317.
Zebracki M, Van Der Vaart R, Van Aalst I. Deconstructing public artopia: Situating public-art claims within practice[J]. Geoforum. 2010, 41(5): 786-795.
Phillips P C. Temporality and Public Art[J]. Art Journal. 2014.
Macdonald S, Wiens B I. Mobilizing the "Multimangle": Why New Materialist Research Methods in Public Participatory Art Matter[J]. Leisure sciences. 2019, 41(5): 366-384.
Zitcer A, Almanzar S M. Public art, cultural representation, and the just city[J]. Journal of urban affairs. 2020, 42(7): 998-1013.
Green G. New Genre Public Art Education[J]. Art Journal. 1999.
Campos R, Barbio L. Public Strategies for the Promotion of Urban Art: The Lisbon Metropolitan Area Case[J]. City & Community. 2021, 20(2): 121-140.
Roberson T H I. Public Art and Urban Regeneration: Advocacy, claims and critical debates[J]. Landscape Research. 2013.
Yui Motoyama K H. Does public art enrich landscapes? The effect of public art on visual properties and affective appraisals of landscapes[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2014.
Tanguy M, Kumar V. Measuring the extent to which Londoners are willing to pay for public art in their city[J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2019, 142: 301-311.
Darivemula S, Stella A, Fahs F, et al. The white coat public art project: using the white coat as a canvas for reflection for women in medicine[J]. Public Health. 2021, 194: 260-262.
Mitchell W J T. The Violence of Public Art: Do the Right Thi[J]. Critical Inquiry.
Matthews T, Gadaloff S. Public art for placemaking and urban renewal: Insights from three regional Australian cities[J]. Cities. 2022, 127: 103747.
Lynch G. A Metaverse Art Rresidency: ‘Garrett Lynch Yoshikaze “Up-in-the-air” Second Life Rresidency’[J]. Virtual Creativity. 2020.
Gong Y. Application of virtual reality teaching method and artificial intelligence technology in digital media art creation[J]. Ecological Informatics. 2021, 63: 101304.
Ogunseiju O R, Gonsalves N, Akanmu A A, et al. Mixed reality environment for learning sensing technology applications in Construction: A usability study[J]. Advanced Engineering Informatics. 2022, 53: 101637.
Kang B, Crilly N, Ning W, et al. Prototyping to elicit user requirements for product development: Using head-mounted augmented reality when designing interactive devices[J]. Design Studies. 2023, 84: 101147.
Alex M, Wünsche B C, Lottridge D. Virtual reality art-making for stroke rehabilitation: Field study and technology probe[J]. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 2021, 145: 102481.
Hwang Y. When makers meet the metaverse: Effects of creating NFT metaverse exhibition in maker education[J]. Computers & Education. 2023, 194: 104693.
Belk R, Humayun M, Brouard M. Money, possessions, and ownership in the Metaverse: NFTs, cryptocurrencies, Web3 and Wild Markets[J]. Journal of Business Research. 2022, 153: 198-205.
Ayiter E. Integrative art education in a metaverse: ground[J]. Technoetic Arts. 2008, 6: 41-53.
Vita-More N. Aesthetics of the Radically Enhanced Human[J]. Technoetic Arts. 2010, 8: 207-214.
Drucker J. Is There a "Digital" Art History?[J]. Visual resources. 2013, 29(1-2): 5-13.
Pimentel T, Branco V. Dynamic and interactive typography in digital art[J]. Computers & Graphics. 2005, 29(6): 882-889.
Tagliaferri L, Dinapoli L, Casà C, et al. Art and digital technologies to support resilience during the oncological journey: The Art4ART project[J]. Technical Innovations & Patient Support in Radiation Oncology. 2022, 24: 101-106.
Jeon M, Fiebrink R, Edmonds E A, et al. From rituals to magic: Interactive art and HCI of the past, present, and future[J]. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 2019, 131: 108-119.
Vasilakos A V, Wei L, Nguyen T H D, et al. Interactive theatre via mixed reality and Ambient Intelligence[J]. Information Sciences. 2008, 178(3): 679-693.
Osorto Carrasco M D, Chen P. Application of mixed reality for improving architectural design comprehension effectiveness[J]. Automation in Construction. 2021, 126: 103677.
Hong J Y, Lam B, Ong Z, et al. A mixed-reality approach to soundscape assessment of outdoor urban environments augmented with natural sounds[J]. Building and Environment. 2021, 194: 107688.
De Paolis L T, Faggiano F, Gatto C, et al. Immersive virtual reality for the fruition of ancient contexts: The case of the archaeological and Naturalistic Park of Santa Maria d’Agnano in Ostuni[J]. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage. 2022, 27: e243.
Osorto Carrasco M D, Chen P. Application of mixed reality for improving architectural design comprehension effectiveness[J]. Automation in Construction. 2021, 126: 103677.
Leopardi A, Ceccacci S, Mengoni M, et al. X-reality technologies for museums: a comparative evaluation based on presence and visitors experience through user studies[J]. Journal of Cultural Heritage. 2021, 47: 188-198.
Cannavò A, Pace F D, Salaroglio F, et al. A visual editing tool supporting the production of 3D interactive graphics assets for public exhibitions[J]. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 2020, 141: 102450.
Hu Z, Liu L. Research on the application of virtual reality technology in 3D animation creation[J]. Optik. 2023, 272: 170274.
De Paolis L T, Faggiano F, Gatto C, et al. Immersive virtual reality for the fruition of ancient contexts: The case of the archaeological and Naturalistic Park of Santa Maria d’Agnano in Ostuni[J]. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage. 2022, 27: e243.
Peng L, Yu L, Shen H, et al. 3D Garden landscape planning visualization system based on FPGA processor and virtual reality[J]. Microprocessors and Microsystems. 2021, 81: 103698.
Hu Z, Liu L. Research on the application of virtual reality technology in 3D animation creation[J]. Optik. 2023, 272: 170274.
Zhang Y. Model for art effect evaluation of fashion photography with triangular intuitionistic fuzzy information[J]. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems. 2019, 37: 1621-1627.
Talašová J S T T. AHP and weak consistency in the evaluation of works of art – a case study of a large problem[J]. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research. 2016.
Yeap J A L, Ignatius J, Ramayah T. Determining consumers’ most preferred eWOM platform for movie reviews: A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach[J]. Computers in Human Behavior. 2014, 31: 250-258.
Lai V S, Trueblood R P, Wong B K. Software selection: a case study of the application of the analytical hierarchical process to the selection of a multimedia authoring system[J]. Information & Management. 1999, 36(4): 221-232.
Lin C H, Twu C H. Combination of a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) with the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) for fashion design scheme evaluation[J]. Textile Research Journal. 2011, 82(10): 1065-1074.
Ashour M, Mahdiyar A, Haron S H, et al. Barriers to the practice of sustainable interior architecture and design for interior renovations: A Parsimonious-Cybernetic Fuzzy AHP approach[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2022, 366: 132958.
Zhang L, Wang Y, Zhang J, et al. Rockfall hazard assessment of the slope of Mogao Grottoes, China based on AHP, F-AHP and AHP-TOPSIS[J]. Environmental Earth Sciences. 2022, 81(14): 377.
Assaf A, Kristoufek L, Demir E, et al. Market efficiency in the art markets using a combination of long memory, fractal dimension, and approximate entropy measures[J]. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money. 2021, 71: 101312.
Shang Y, Wong H. Automatic portrait image pixelization[J]. Computers & Graphics. 2021, 95: 47-59.
Santos I, Castro L, Rodriguez-Fernandez N, et al. Artificial Neural Networks and Deep Learning in the Visual Arts: a review[J]. Neural Computing and Applications. 2021, 33(1): 121-157.
Saha S, Rakshit P, Konar A. Ballet E-learning using fuzzy set induced posture recognition by piece-wise linear approximation of connected components[J]. Applied Soft Computing. 2018, 65: 554-576.
Digital and Mobile Governance Laboratory, Fudan University. China Local Government Data Openness Report (Indicator System and Provincial Benchmarking)-Fudan Think Tank-202107-ReportHub (vicsdf.com)[J]. 2021.
Dan Da Xue Shu Fu. 2021.
Wang H, Zhou P, Wang Q. Constructing slacks-based composite indicator of sustainable energy development for China: A meta-frontier nonparametric approach[J]. Energy. 2016, 101: 218-228.
Singh R K, Murty H R, Gupta S K, et al. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies[J]. Ecological Indicators. 2009, 9(2): 189-212.
Cornelissen A M G, van den Berg J, Koops W J, et al. Assessment of the contribution of sustainability indicators to sustainable development: a novel approach using fuzzy set theory[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2001, 86(2): 173-185.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 XIAOSHUO DENG (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
