Affordances

David Dowhaniuk

Founder of ecological psychology James Gibson introduced the concept of affordances in 1979, to address the need for an empiricist approach to perception and action (Chong and Proctor). This can be explained through how animals use items around them as tools. For example, crows have been shown to understand water displacement problem solving exercises (PLOS Media). By placing rocks into water crows understand that the floating food will become within reach. Similarly, humans often do this when looking for a place to sit. Is it relatively flat? Waist height? Sturdy? Then, we might use it as a chair, as affordances can have context dependent ‘quicksilvery’ qualities (Chong and Proctor; Shaw et al.). We may also stand on the chair or use it as a weapon or wedge it under a doorknob for safety.

In the 1980’s, human factors engineer and industrial designer Donald Normand expanded the concept of affordances into the realm of product design. “Normand stressed the importance of considering human cognition and perception during the design process” (Chong and Proctor 121). A knob affords turning, buttons afford pushing, handles afford lifting etc. (Kaptelinin). A human should be able to know how to use a product by simply looking at and handling it—anything else is poor design (Kaptelinin) .

Consider a newspaper and a laptop. Both afford humans reading, viewing images, learning of news, forming new ideas, and hidden affordances like the ability to smash a bug. Although you may want to consider the unintended consequences of swinging around a laptop. In theatre, a chair may not be an actual chair. A prop chair meant to break on sitting or smashing contains intentionally hidden affordances (Paavolainen). Similarly, a prop knife does not need to actually afford cutting—only that it appears to have the affordance of cutting, or stabbing (Paavolainen).

Without any tools other than their imagination and skill, mimes use affordance of their body to tell stories. Cognitively when we see a mime performing our brains infer their actions to understand the story being told. This is how they amplify the audiences’ suspension of disbelief and access a very basic part of our neuroprocessing (Johns Hopkins University). This is why humans have been shown to use more gestures with speech when describing an action, when miming affords us more information than words alone (Masson-Carro et al.). To further the importance of miming and gesture in human cognition, interaction design educators are now researching the potential for better gesture-based computer interfaces by incorporating miming exercises into the education of the ideation process (Ünlüer et al.).

When we compare traditional theatrical performance to what is possible in digital performance there are many affordances to consider. In traditional theatre there is a captive audience with etiquette to sit still and pay attention. Digital performance may not actually take place at the same time or in the same location. A digital performance may be recorded, or it may require performance by the audience using a digital medium in-between the performers and the audience. The key to remember is that digital objects like cellphones, tablets, and laptops offer a lot of new affordances for performance but you’re also dealing with an audience viewing you through a distraction device. These devices afford us the answer to many questions we have, or at least access to the most contemporary research. They have been designed to grab and hold our attention and convince us they can solve all problems. These affordances of digital technology can distract your audiences’ attention from your intended goal—use wisely.

However, there are beneficial affordances to using digital technology for performance. A camera can capture detail and get much closer to an actor’s face to really understand the emotion of a scene. Combining the close-up of actors with live chromakey technology (greenscreen) the 2019 interpretation of Heart of Darkness by imitating the dog theatre company, successfully used the technology to enhance their performance rather than dictate it (imitating the dog). Speaking with balloon artist Sean Rooney, he said virtual performances during the pandemic offered new opportunities for close-up tricks that live in-person performance lacked. This ability to focus the audiences’ attention to small details isn’t possible on a larger stage or without at least a camera (Rooney).

Digital performance also affords the potential for free or near-free access to performing arts. By feeling the need to create during the pandemic, Theatre in Quarantine by Joshua William Gelb used the only space they had to perform—an empty closet and YouTube. During digital performances like 2020’s adaptation of Heather Christian’s I Am Sending You the Sacred Face Gelb was able to realize new affordances of an empty closet. The closet is shaped like a phone in portrait mode and not like the theatre stage, gaining affordances away from traditional landscape media. The performers furthered their storytelling by using the affordances of digital production to create multiple screens and graphics in ways that are common in music videos. By following their need to create and share that creation, Gelb looked at their constraints not as roadblocks but as starting points for new and innovative affordances in digital performance and theatre (Theater in Quarantine and Christian).

Works Cited

Chong, Isis, and Robert W. Proctor. “On the Evolution of a Radical Concept: Affordances According to Gibson and Their Subsequent Use and Development.” Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 15, no. 1, Jan. 2020, pp. 117–32, https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619868207.

imitating the dog. “Heart of Darkness.” Vimeo, 19 Apr. 2019, https://www.imitatingthedog.co.uk/watch-at-home/heart-of-darkness/.

Johns Hopkins University. “What Happens in the Brain When We Watch Mimes.” YouTube, 1 Apr. 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA7Bu7Nbb6U.

Kaptelinin, Victor. “Affordances.” The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed., https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed/affordances. Accessed 16 Apr. 2023.

Masson-Carro, Ingrid, et al. “Can You Handle This? The Impact of Object Affordances on How Co-Speech Gestures Are Produced.” Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, vol. 31, no. 3, Mar. 2016, pp. 430–40, https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1108448.

Paavolainen, Teemu. “From Props to Affordances: An Ecological Approach to Theatrical Objects.” Theatre Symposium, vol. 18, no. 1, 2010, pp. 116–34, https://doi.org/10.1353/tsy.2010.0006.

PLOS Media. “Causal Understanding of Water Displacement by a Crow .” YouTube, 26 Mar. 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZerUbHmuY04.

Rooney, Sean. “Conversation Following My Presentation on Presence and Embodiment.” THST*6250 Course at University of Guelph, 20 Mar. 2023.

Shaw, Robert E., et al. “Affordance Types and Affordance Tokens: Are Gibson’s Affordances Trustworthy?” Ecological Psychology, vol. 31, no. 1, Routledge, 2 Jan. 2019, pp. 49–75, https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2018.1508353.

Theater in Quarantine, and Heather Christian. “I Am Sending You the Sacred Face.” YouTube, 19 Dec. 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9jGmhHFO6o.

Ünlüer, Adviye Ayça, et al. “The Effectiveness of Mime-Based Creative Drama Education for Exploring Gesture-Based User Interfaces.” International Journal of Art and Design Education, vol. 37, no. 3, Aug. 2018, pp. 353–66, https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12136.