Through the years we have worked with  the idea of gestalt through artefact creation (including virtual objects and 3D-worlds) as one surface to explore, exploit, test and communicate our ideas and concepts, that are generative rather than produced, where we try  to grasp systematic insights through complex generated realities, in which an audience later is invited to interact.  In our Ideal spaces exhibition for the 2016 Biennale in Venice, we tried to explore this via a combination of presenting ideal city spaces, active participation of the visitors molding their own spaces, and symbolic representation. Ideal Spaces is also a high-tech project that uses diverse technologies in new ways, also new techniques and programming developed by us. In this paper, we show the theoretical and cultural background, and some lessons learned, regarding on what level of abstraction a visitor could interact with our exhibition to better understand how visitors created their own ideal spaces.

In our recent work on the topic ‘resilient communities’ for a workshop at the Venice Biennale 2021, Ideal Spaces Working Group investigates different aspects of spatial creation: the history of ideas, formats of representing space and tools of construction in historical, contemporary and built environments of the future. We address how abstract conceptions underlying assumptions, imagination and concrete views shape spatial construction and its representations, and how spatial creation tries to organize meaning and influence perception and understanding, shaping both the city and its inhabitants. With regard to the built environment, resilience depends on how a space is perceived by its inhabitants and how spaces designed for communities reflect this, especially their symbolic properties as ideal spaces for communal living. These properties are connected to the ways in which space is expressed via its overall shape as gestalt. In this respect, it is about how imagination operates via abstracting and symbolizing perception. In our work, we address why it is reasonable to depict representations of ideal places as symbolic spaces in a degree of abstraction that is far from photorealism, and to instead find other forms of representation. Furthermore, we explore how to avoid the uncanny valley that inevitably arises in virtual aesthetics when something is not quite right, and finally, how a readable yet intuitive formal language can be implemented. 

Artists often try to open up new experiences for people, challenging them to extend horizons and perception. This becomes particularly relevant when thinking about experiencing built environments: Here, technologies like Cave Automatic Virtual Environments (CAVE) or Head-Mounted Displays (HMD) can be used as a tool to offer richer experiences to the audience in both art installations and exhibitions. We have been developing several exhibitions tackling the challenges that come with exhibiting in (semi -) public spaces: how do we engage visitors in our exhibitions, what role do bystanders play and how can this be considered in the development and design process? The exhibitions were built in a chronological order (2015–2018) and increasing degree of immersion and interaction. For exhibition one (“step-in/Ideal Spaces”), we built a CAVE-like “tryptic” projection showing linear pre-rendered videos of seven different built environments. In exhibition two (“fly-over/Super Nubibus”) we build a replica of a hot-air-balloon and let people experience architecture from birds eye view using a HMD. Exhibition three (“cruise/Biketopia”) is also an immersive VR using a HMD, but from a very different angle. Here we use a bike to let people actively explore a space by regulating speed and direction of the bike. By using the discreet method of observation, we ensured that the visitors were not disturbed in their experience, which in turn would falsify our findings. So we are able to compare and discuss these three approaches in regards to the above mentioned criteria within this paper.

The paper is authored by Michael Johansson, Thore Soneson, Kerstin Ahlqvist, Barbro Bruce, and Camilla Siotis Ekberg and titled VR Situated Simulations. Here, the authors discusses experiences from developing mediated learning situations in a VR-filmedcontext. They argue for how such productions require approaches based on co-designand innovative team constellations including knowledge and skills from different areasto join forces for adequate VR solutions. In the chapter, the authors describe the processof developing VR learning situations by being inspired by related studies in the fieldof collaborative design, where various stakeholders were engaged in different parts ofthe production; from scriptwriting for interactive media, to creating and editing specificcase studies in an interactive VR format, and, also, gathering students’ experiences ofthe scripts and case studies. Based on this, the authors argue that 3D environments forreflection and discussion can be combined to form a common knowledge base in differentfields of application, e.g. in the areas of education and Human Resources. Further, it isemphasised that simulations of authentic and real situations have an immersive potentialto create pedagogical innovations

Learning assessment constitutes an essential pedagogical ability in a teacher’s toolbox in order to further student learning and development and to adapt teaching to the needs of the students. To enable this, learning outcomes and grading criteria are used in the formative assessment of students’ performance to support the learning process, as well as in the summative assessment of the actual outcome for grading. Learning outcomes may be represented in various forms, typically scoring rubrics. Current research literature discusses the positive and negative merits of criterion-based scoring rubrics versus holistic assessment. There is also the matter of grading reliability among teachers and a shared understanding of student performance among teachers and students. Digitalization has become an essential part of higher education and distance learning, especially so in our field of digital design. A relevant issue in this context is how digital solutions may enhance formative learning assessment in particular. As is common practice within our field, within the study we designed, developed, and experimented with a digital tool in the form of a visual radar chart representation. The radar chart was based both on work done by teachers and a student thesis work and was used in several courses for teacher assessment as well as self- and peer assessment by students. This work provided the opportunity for reflection as well as analytical assessment, which in turn had the potential in guiding teachers to critically question and discuss the intended learning outcomes and grading criteria. The study has resulted in a variety of identified problems, reflections, and insights that teachers are continuously confronted with, but not necessarily always conscious about when using intended learning outcomes as a basis for communicating formative assessments to students. By visually and holistically communicating students’ strengths and areas for development over time, we found the potential to increase students’ shared awareness of their learning progress and also further the development of curricula. The study has implications for teacher and student awareness of student performance and learning, curriculum development, and digital assessment tools.