Interaction is given many definitions. Because of the expansive nature of the English language, the word has broadened to mean a multitude of things. For example, one definition by Chris Crawford is “a cyclic process in which two actors alternately listen, think, and speak” while another by the Oxford English dictionary is “reciprocal action or influence”. While these definitions are good, I feel as though a more fitting definition of interaction is as follows: the act of exchange between two or more distinctive actors. Compared with Crawford’s definition, my definition enables actors who cannot do things like “listen, think, and speak” to also be included in interaction. Compared with the Oxford definition, my definition specifies the two actors involved.
When using my definition, we can now apply the word “interaction” to many new things. For example, the art collective Human Since 1982’s project titled Clock Clock. Clock Clock is a group of 24 individual analog clocks, that move their hands to display the time in numerical form.
Photo from helloCircuits!
In this example, the actors are the clocks and the circuits/sensors that make them function. Each clock obtains information from a computer that gives it directions so it can orient itself. Each clock then receives the information and acts accordingly, arranging itself in line with the other clocks to display a number. The actors are distinct – the clocks are separate and so is the computer that guides them, and the exchange occurs when the clock receives the information on how to orient itself.
This project fed into my definition because it made me realize that interaction should be expanded to include non-human actors. In this case, the clocks are not human, yet they are interacting, as the art installation is indeed an interactive one. Therefore, the definition should be expanded to involve them.
However, there are some “interactive art projects” that I believe are not truly interactive. Take Brock Davis’ Miniatures for example. This project is a series of mini-sculptures where food is used to create a small version of normally-large objects. Examples include a broccoli tree house, a rice krispy Stonehenge, and a gummy bear-skin rug.
Photos from helloCircuits!
While this project is labeled as “interactive” it does not fit my definition. The main problem with this project is the fact that there is no exchange taking place. While at some point, unconventional materials were used to create interesting miniatures, the piece itself involves no active interaction, as nothing is exchanged. The pieces are just static.
This project made me push the limit of my definition. While it is labeled as an interactive exhibit, the pieces are static. This made me realize that I believe that the most important part of an interaction is the exchange itself. Without exchange, the definition no longer applies.