In ‘Held in Human’, visitors to a gallery space in Tallinn interacted with online audiences through projections, sound installations, and Augmented Reality. Artists Liis Vares and Taavet Jansen reflect on their learning from the installation.
How can technology bring remote audiences into physical spaces to create meaningful, shared experiences? This question lies at the heart of the ‘Held in Human’ performative installation.
While part of “ACuTe – Culture Testbeds for Performing Arts and New Technology”, ‘Held in Human’, created by artists Liis Vares and Taavet Jansen, with the Estonian Academy of Arts as producer, was not a traditional theatrical performance. Instead, it was a performative installation which explored the intersection of physical and digital presence, challenging conventional boundaries of participation in contemporary art.
At its core, the artists asked: ‘How can viewers from afar engage with a gallery space they cannot physically visit? How can remote audiences leave their trace, interact with others, and participate in the creation of something collective?’ These questions guided the development of the installation and its unique hybrid structure.
To answer these questions, the artists designed a digital layer to surround the physical gallery space. While the gallery served as the heart of the project, the digital environment extended its reach, creating a seamless bridge between physical and remote audiences. This interplay of spaces was rooted in the metaphor of a foetus developing in the womb—a nurturing, immersive environment where new ideas could develop and evolve.
The gallery itself was designed as a safe, contemplative space where sound, light, video projections, and objects fostered an atmosphere of collaboration and exploration. Participation, whether from in-person or remote viewers, was central to the concept. By blending physical and digital elements, “Held in Human” created a shared experience where ideas could thrive beyond the boundaries of geography.
Artistic Concept and Design
The artists aimed to create a space for unhurried reflection and collective engagement with others’ thoughts, offering a meditative environment free from external noise. Inspired by the metaphor of a womb—where external signals are faint and seamlessly integrated—the gallery featured calming lighting and sound, fostering an atmosphere that absorbed and reflected ideas.
Large video projections showcased text and imagery, complemented by interactive elements like a whispering microphone and a black mattress shaped like Estonia, symbolizing a broader perspective. Jigsaw-like floor designs and minimalist digital components reinforced themes of connection and collective creation, with a central computer integrating audience contributions. Together, these elements offered a space for stillness and meaningful interaction, blending physical and digital realms.
Telematic Presence Using Text
Telematic presence is the technology-enabled sensation of being present in a place other than one’s actual location. This idea has usually been used explicitly with video transmission, but in ‘Held in Human’ the authors were looking for ways to bring the ideas of online viewers into the gallery, so that the viewer’s trace would remain in the space even if the viewer never arrived, and the meeting of these traces and the physical actors gave birth to the evolutionary content of this work.
The main focus in this project was on the text in space – creating text, writing text, appearing text, pronouncing text and reading text. The authors explored ways of translating viewers’ contributions into physical space in an artistically rich and poetic form. The main gateway for contributions was a chat window on the elektron.art platform. Both online viewers and gallery visitors could use this website to enter text, which was then projected onto various screens in the gallery or stored in an augmented reality (AR) layer within the space. By prefixing their input with the keywords /imagine, /whisper or /remember, viewers could determine how their input would interact with the installation the gallery.
/imagine
Large video projections covered the gallery walls. When participants used the keyword ”/imagine” in the chat, their input was automatically displayed on the walls. The creators did not guide or restrict the submissions, allowing the gallery to become a collective thinking space. By encouraging viewers to contribute freely, the installation fostered a sense of shared ownership.
The choice of ”/imagine” was intentional, inviting participants to envision a seemingly empty gallery space. This detachment from the physical objects in the space aimed to harmonize the experiences of physical and online viewers, encouraging both to imagine equally. However, this goal was only partially achieved—the remote interface lacked the immersive quality of the physical gallery, limiting online viewers’ ability to fully engage.
Interestingly, the keyword “/imagine” has gained new significance with the rise of generative AI tools like Midjourney, where it is used to prompt image generation. This raised a philosophical question: Who is imagining in this gallery space? Is it a human, an AI, or something else entirely? While the concept of shared imagination was central to the installation, the origins of each sentence remained ambiguous, blurring the boundaries between human and machine creativity.
/whisper
When participants used the keyword ”/whisper,” their text appeared on a small screen beside a microphone. Anything whispered into this microphone was saved in a database and replayed randomly in the gallery throughout the installation period. This interaction allowed remote viewers to communicate directly with gallery visitors. For instance, an online participant might type ”/ whisper what you miss,” prompting a physical visitor to respond by whispering their answer.
These exchanges created intimate, spontaneous connections between physical and online audiences. The recorded whispers also interacted with the projected text and AR layer, further contributing to the collective thought space. On several occasions, extended interactions emerged, with some participants spending significant time engaging with one another and seemingly enjoying the experience.
/remember
If ”/imagine” led to projections on the walls and ”/whisper” activated the microphone, then ”/ remember” invited participants to contribute deeper, more reflective thoughts. These ideas only appeared in the AR layer, signalled by a flash of light and a sound cue. This created a subtle sense of FOMO (fear of missing out) for gallery visitors. As they wandered the space and noticed the cues, they became aware that invisible participants were contributing messages to the “hidden” AR layer. To view these messages, physical visitors had to scan a QR code, open the AR interface on their phones, and explore the text.
The AR layer rose from the centre of the gallery like a spiral-shaped text tower, ascending into the heights. This structure symbolised the cumulative history of the interactions that had taken place, inviting visitors to explore the evolving dialogue between physical and remote audiences. By layering past and present contributions, the AR tower served as both a record and an extension of the collective imagination fostered by the installation.
Bridging Physical and Online Audiences Using Text
The ability to send messages directly from a chat window to the gallery wall created a rich opportunity for interaction between online and physical viewers. In one memorable instance, someone wrote: “/imagine, you could make someone very happy by changing her point of view.” As the text appeared on the wall, the gallery visitors recognized that it was meant for them. Interpreting it as an invitation to move the camera, they responded. When the voice on the wall thanked them, the visitors began communicating with one another, using only the limited tools at their disposal. This peculiar form of interaction amplified the artists’ ambition to foster a micro community within the art space—one where people could connect without their physical or social identities influencing the exchange.
Remarkably, time and synchronization were not strict requirements for these connections. When no one was online, the system’s control computer displayed previously entered messages on the wall, allowing ideas to connect across time. Likewise, visitors in the gallery could access the project’s website and write directly onto the wall themselves. At times, this transformed the gallery into a public discussion space, where its role as a public art venue added further layers of meaning and depth to the interactions.
In this way, messages were often left behind for others, turning the gallery into a playful and unpredictable environment. Some visitors contributed deeper reflections, which met and mingled with moments of randomness, forming a collective, generative thought space. Upon entering, no one could predict what they might encounter—or whether anything would happen at all. Yet this sense of uncertainty was part of the magic, encouraging curiosity and inviting visitors to leave their own mark on the space.
In addition, the artists created a temporary community through the WhatsApp application, allowing participants to join and receive regular updates on events at the gallery. A QR code on the gallery wall allowed visitors to join the community. The authors also used the ChatGPT text bot to generate daily summaries of chat activity in the form of haikus. These haikus, accompanied by snapshots from the video stream, were posted on the gallery wall each morning, providing a record of the gallery’s development over time.
Challenges and Lessons Learned
In this artistically ambitious and technologically intricate project, the creators faced a constantly evolving set of challenges, requiring them to reassess their plans on the go as new difficulties emerged. With so many variables at play, they stayed in residence with the artwork for three weeks, closely monitoring and analysing visitor behaviour to refine their approach. Each day brought new adjustments to the installation as they sought to enhance audience engagement and create the most immersive experience possible. These iterative efforts revealed three critical challenges and lessons learned throughout the process.
- Conceptually, augmented reality (AR) offers a compelling way to overlay digital elements onto physical spaces, creating layers of meaning invisible to the naked eye. However, in practice, this approach can disrupt the viewer’s experience by requiring the use of digital devices to access these layers. Reliance on personal smartphones poses several challenges: visitors must shift their attention from the physical space to their screens, breaking immersion. Additionally, not all visitors feel comfortable using their personal devices in public art settings. For some, the act of using a smartphone may feel intrusive or at odds with the contemplative nature of a gallery experience.
- Another challenge is digital literacy. Visitors unfamiliar with AR or lacking confidence in using their devices may require assistance to fully engage with the installation. In the project ‘Held in Human,’ the artists did not provide direct guidance but carefully observed audience behaviour in the gallery space. A clear divide emerged: while some visitors navigated QR codes intuitively, others showed resistance or discomfort with using smartphones. Future projects should carefully consider the audience’s journey, ensuring a more accessible and inclusive experience.
- In creating hybrid experiences, the challenge of engaging remote viewers remains a significant bottleneck. In this project, remote participation was minimal, and audience engagement remained weak. Hybrid artistic experiences demand further research to better understand how and why remote viewers should be engaged and how to offer them meaningful, high-quality interactions. Bridging the gap between physical and digital audiences will require innovative approaches to ensure that both experiences are equally compelling and accessible
The Final Improvisation
During the last two days, audience interaction was deactivated, allowing the collected materials to “improvise.” Whispers and texts began to appear randomly, starting dialogues with one another, as though the installation had taken on a life of its own. Ideas from countless participants merged and recombined in endless constellations, forming connections that no single person could have orchestrated.
Viewers, who had interacted with the installation over the past weeks, remained unaware of the profound impact of their contributions. The platform allowed their thoughts and dreams to intertwine without their physical presence, creating a tapestry of anonymous connection. Observers could follow this generative content for hours, their attention wandering through a labyrinth of meanings. Random associations alternated with moments of striking beauty: one person’s whisper resonated with another’s search for a friend, while the words “/imagine you don’t need forgiveness” flickered across the wall like a quiet reassurance.
It is possible that some contributors had never even visited the gallery. Yet their whispers and words lived on, woven into a shared experience that blurred the boundaries between presence and absence, creation and chance. In these final moments, the installation became more than an artwork—it was a living medium for the collective imagination, a place where strangers’ thoughts and desires could meet, overlap, and transform.
Conclusion
‘Held in Human’ represents an ambitious exploration of telematic presence within hybrid performance art. By layering physical and digital spaces, the project illustrated how technology can unite remote and in-person audiences, fostering collective creativity in a shared virtual/physical environment. Through the use of text as a primary medium, participants actively shaped the artwork, dissolving the traditional boundaries between audience and creator. This reimagining of participation challenged conventional notions of authorship and engagement, offering a model for performative installations.
In a post-pandemic world, where hybrid experiences are increasingly relevant, ‘Held in Human’ underscores the artistic potential of telematic presence while addressing pressing issues such as accessibility, digital literacy, and the ethical concerns regarding uncensored audience contribution. These challenges remind us of the importance of thoughtfully integrating technology into the performing arts, ensuring that inclusivity and immersion remain at the core of artistic innovation.
The insights gained from this project open the door to exciting opportunities for future exploration. Advances in augmented reality (AR) and artificial intelligence (AI) could deepen hybrid installations, enabling richer, more seamless interactions between physical and digital elements. Tackling technological barriers—like device compatibility and digital literacy—will be essential for broader participation. Future projects might also experiment with new modes of audience contribution, incorporating voice, movement, or biometric data to enhance interactivity. By exploring these possibilities, the performing arts can continue to push the boundaries of hybrid experiences, creating ever more dynamic, inclusive, and meaningful connections between audiences and art.
Acknowledgments
The “Held in Human” project was brought to life through the contributions of a dedicated team of collaborators. In addition to creators Liis Vares and Taavet Jansen, the project featured Jari Matsi as the lighting designer, Kristjan Jansen as the web developer and creator of the AR solution. It was co-produced by elektron.art.
The project premiered as part of the SAAL Biennaal performing arts festival in Tallinn, Estonia, running from August 21 to September 13, 2023, at EKA Gallery and on the elektron.art platform.
Photos: © Alana Proosa