The Role of Immersive Arts in Interpreting Traditional Cultural Phenomena

Immersive art is a new form of media art that relies on the theory of stream of consciousness, on the stimulation of various human senses, often using light to achieve a deep psychological and physiological immersion of the audience in a trance-like empathy with the art. From the point of view of technical means it can be divided into virtual reality, augmented reality, mixed reality and expanded reality. The article analyses the problems of using technical means of immersive art, considers the advantages and disadvantages of its application in various cultural expositions. The questions arising when applying the means of immersive art to traditional culture (in this case to shamanic culture) are considered. The study finds that works of immersive art demonstrate contemporary culture much more often than traditional culture. Using the example of four technical tools in analysing works of immersive art, the author describes the problems that exist at this stage of its application. The aim of the work is to identify and consider the advantages and disadvantages of incorporating traditional meanings into virtual reality. The tasks of the work include: analysing technical means of immersive art, peculiarities of embodiment of traditional meanings in immersive art (on the example of shamanism). The author argues that virtual spaces created by immersive art are currently gravitating towards purely sensory experience and are not able to carry information about the connotation of meanings. In the process of creating works of immersive art, artists have their own understanding of shamanic culture and cannot reproduce shamanic rituals, so there is a problem of inability to interpret the cultural connotation and show the depth of the rich traditional shamanic culture.

1. Staruseva-Persheeva A.D. The Role of Spectator in the Screen Arts, Observatoriya kul’tury [Observatory of Culture], 2017, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 302—309. DOI: 10.25281/2072-3156-2017-14-3-302-309 (in Russ.).

2. Bishop C. Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship. London, Verso Publ., 2012, 382 p.

3. Osminkin R.S. Participatory Art: from the “Relational Aesthetics” to the Post-Participatory Art, Observatoriya kul’tury [Observatory of Culture], 2016, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 132—139. DOI: 10.25281/2072-3156-2016-1-2-132-139 (in Russ.).

4. Burdea G.C., Coiffet P. Virtual Reality Technology. 2nd Edition. Wiley-IEEE Press Publ., 2003, 464 p.

5. Zhao Qinping. Virtual Reality Overview, Chinese Science (Series F: Information Science), 2009, no. 39, pp. 2—46 (in Chin.).

6. Milgram P., Kishino F. A Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays, IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems. 1994, vol. E77-D, no. 12, pp. 1321— 1329.

7. Milovidov S.V. Participatory Capability of Transmedia Storytelling, Observatoriya kul’tury [Observatory of Culture], 2015, no. 4, pp. 40—45. DOI: 10.25281/2072-3156-2015-0-4-40-45 (in Russ.).

8. Azuma R., Baillot Y., Behringer R., Feiner S., Julier S., MacIntyre B. Recent Advances in Augmented Reality, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications. 2001, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 34—47. DOI: 10.1109/38.963459.

9. Yan Qingshan. From Virtual to Extended Reality: Philosophical Foundations and Ethical Challenges, People’s Forum. Academic Frontier, 2016, no. 24, pp. 38—52 (in Chin.).

10. Yaroslavtseva E.I. Technologies of Culture: the Synergy of Natural and Artificial in the Creative Activity of a Person, Observatoriya kul’tury [Observatory of Culture], 2016, vol. 13. no. 5, pp. 526—533. DOI: 10.25281/2072-3156-2016-13-5-526-533 (in Russ.).

11. Savitskaya T.E. Discovering the New Cultural Reality: Benefits and Drawbacks of the Augmented Reality Technology, Observatoriya kul’tury [Observatory of Culture], 2014, no. 4, pp. 34—41. DOI: 10.25281/2072-3156-2014-0-4-34-41 (in Russ.).

12. Cao Xuan. Technical Bottleneck in Virtual Reality, Technology Herald, 2016, no. 34, pp. 94—103 (in Chin.).

13. Voronina V.Yu. Healing in the Tradition of Core Shamanism, Meditsinskaya antropologiya i bioehtika [Medical Anthropology and Bioethics], 2012, no. (4). Available at: https://journals.iea.ras.ru/medanthro/article/download/315/407?inline=1 (accessed 12.08.2023) (in Russ.).

14. Eliade M. Shamanizm: arkhaicheskie tekhniki ehkstaza [Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy] Kiev, Sofiya Publ., 2000, 480 p. Available at: https://biblio.imli.ru/images/abook/folklor/Eliade_M._SHamanizm._Arhaicheskie_tehniki_ekstaza._2000.pdf (accessed 18.08.2023).

15. Zheng De. Theory of Shamanic Art Features, Huaxia Culture Forum, 2022, no. 1, pp. 291—298. (in Chin.).

16. Kirillova N.B. “Virtual Reality” and “Virtualization of Culture” as Concepts of Modern Cultural Studies, Observatoriya kul’tury [Observatory of Culture], 2017, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 524—531. DOI: 10.25281/2072-3156-2017-14-5-524-531 (in Russ.).

17. Judova M. Kykeon. Available at: https://www.mariajudova. net/project/kykeon/ (accessed 12.08.2023).

18. Wei Shufa, Wei Weiwei. Research on Religious and Cultural Elements in Shamanic Ritual Dance, Art Education, 2019, no. 5, pp. 90—91 (in Chin.).

19. Belyakova I.G., Mileshko A.L. Art and Environmental Sustainability. Forming Environmental Identity by Means of Choreography, Observatoriya kul’tury [Observatory of Culture], 2020, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 187—200. DOI: 10.25281/2072-3156-2020-17-2-187-200 (in Russ.).

20. Yuan Jie. Search for The Roots of National Culture and Resistance to Assimilation — the Revival of North American Indian Shamanic Culture, Journal of the Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 2013, no. 2, pp. 99—103 (in Chin.)

21. Ma Yuzhen. The Primitive Religious Rituals and the Inner Way of Creating Ancient Myths, In Search, 2016, no. 4, pp. 188—192 (in Chin.).