Proxemics

Proxemic behaviour is influenced by three general components: the closeness of the object of interaction, the physical features of a space and the interpretation of these two. According to Hall (1966), four interpersonal zones regulate our bodily orientation. The first, public zone (> 3m) is the distance at which one decides to take either evasive or defensive action when physically threatened. In the second social zone (1,5m and 3m) others are still at a social distance, this zone is considered non-involving and non-threatening by most individuals. The third personal zone (0.5m and 1,5m) is the comfortable distance for interacting with other individuals. In the last, intimate zone (0 and 40 cm) all senses are activated. This zone consists of a far phase (10-40cm) in which family members and close friends interact and a close phase (0 and 10cm), reserved for love-making, comforting and protecting.

 Lyman and Scott (1967) emphasized such assertion in their article titled Territoriality: A Neglected Sociological Dimension. The ability to control access to or exclusion from a territory during a territorial encroachment is required to maintain the individual distinct identities. For example, a public territory is a space where there is significant freedom of access, but arguably limited freedom of action. On the other hand, a home territory is signified by one’s relative freedom of action and control over space.  One of the types of territorial encroachment they lay out in their paper is the invasion of an individual’s territory. When an entity makes an unwarranted crossing and changes the social meaning of the territory, it is said that an invasion has occurred. This form of territorial encroachment is demonstrated in the interactive installation, where the artificial creature is seemingly attempting to control the spatial territory as a response to unwarranted invaders. 

The pairing of the creature and proxemic behavior is done to showcase an experiment about the relationship between humans and artificial territories. Will an individual respond the same way as they would with their fellow humans? To what extent does such an individual understand the artificial territorial boundaries set by the creatures? Is doing such a fundamental human activity with an artificial creature evoke a “suspension of disbelief” in the minds of the individual? These are the questions we would like to pose while observing the interaction between the audience and the creature.