I found these readings to be incredibly interesting. They were great ways to stretch my mind to the possibilities of interactive art as we are approaching our midterm proposals. In the Introduction, I was struck particularly by this quote:
“How might the body- as process and event- and its potential disruption or resistance be attendant, provoked, or contextualized in interactive art?”
I think this really sums up what we are trying to grasp in this course and in interactive installations in general. The idea of the body both in process and event, to begin, is intriguing. It acknowledges that you must create work with the body in mind throughout the entire duration of the process. You cannot work individually from it and then expect an interactive piece to come together in the end. Similarly, the three categories- attendant, provoked, or contextualized- are also very interesting to me. I like that he choses these words because it gave me a lot to think about in terms of how interactivity can use interactors. Whether they are present with the art work, reacting to it, or helping to form its or their own context, the interactivity is still unique to each user. That as a concept is really cool to me, and I’ve never seen it broken up into these three distinct categories. While I think many of us strive for provocation (make the user do something), it’s important to note that contextualizing is just as important.
Another section of this reading that really stuck with me was the distinction between philosophy and art. He defines philosophy as “thought” and art as “felt”. The interesting part was how he then split it into “actually” and “virtually” expressed. He says that art is “actually expressed”, meaning it is present with the audience, with the user and it sits in context and action. Philosophy, on the other hand, is “virtually expressed”. By this, he means, that is contains the potential for action, but unless that potential is seen through, nothing will ever actually come of it. This is where the relationship between art and philosophy gets interesting. He says:
“Philosophy tells us the stakes. Art brings those stakes to the table”
I looovveee this quote because I can see it so clearly in the work that I make and the work that I see. It makes me think about the unspoken and unwritten philosophy that I follow and how that may influence my work. And what philosophy isn’t being acted upon because work isn’t being made?
In the next reading, I had similar moments of reflection. One moment that stood out to me was when the author clarified that the artist cannot guarantee that spectators will follow exactly what is expected of them. I completely agree with this. In my experience in both theater and interactive media, the audience will sometimes do what you ask them to do and, quite often, they will do the exact opposite. It’s a very fine balance between making sure your instructions are clear/the function is intuitive while also adapting to new audience interactions and really seeing how humans play with your art.
He also mentioned the fact that the elevation of the audience took place with the degradation of the artist. And this makes a lot of sense. As the work becomes more and more dependent on the audience, people are going to recognize the artist less and give the audience more recognition. And I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, like yeah for sure recognize the audience! It’s really hard to interact with something when you don’t know what will happen, so it’s good to applaud their bravery and exploration. But also, these artists have a career in this field. We need to make sure that they are sustained financially, critically, etc. so that they can continue to support themselves as their work becomes more interactive. If we don’t, then artists are going to shy away from interactive work for fear of the degradation and diminishing role of the artist.