After interacting with the readings and the authors that penned them, as well as learning about a few of the interactive artworks out there, I would come to define interaction similarly to Chris Crawford’s definition, which is a cyclic, mutual process that involves an exchange of information and action through listening (input), thinking (process) and speaking (output). I would add onto this definition, with inspiration from Zach Lieberman, and define interaction as fluid–unable to be defined fully by the artist, who can set the context of their piece, but not dictate how an audience will interact with it, and unable to be predicted by the audience, for a unique response should be produced based on each unique individual. To me, ideal interactivity is achieved when a work not only meets but exceeds the basic foundations of Crawford’s “conversation.” and functions not as a static or predictable work that responds uniformly, but as a dynamic piece that is willing to and does work with the user to produce unique results. 

I previously failed to really consider interaction being much beyond my basic understanding of the word, which is just any kind of action or communication effected on, or attempted, another object or individual. However, I think a distinction interaction has is that it has to feature intention. 

Reading “What Exactly Is Interactivity” by Chris Crawford made me challenge this initial thought and further build on this basic understanding, and realize why it is important to do so. Crawford states his belief of interactivity being akin to a conversation, and a conversation by design needs to meet certain conditions: there must be something said, and a response to what was said. Take for example, a mother that was speaking to a child, but the child was neither actively listening nor making eye contact with her. If you asked me if that mother interacted with her child, I would’ve said yes. I would see interaction, or an attempt on it at least, completed on her part. It is not the fault of one of the actors if the other is not cooperative.  However, using Crawford’s definition of degrees of interactivity, I would still assign this exchange a low degree.

Thinking from a design point of view makes me reconsider this. If a participant were to push a button on an installation that doesn’t work as it should, I wouldn’t consider this an interaction at all. 

 

 

It Is Interactive

Artist Rikrit Tiravanija, sees all the value, which I understand to be as the “context” of your art as laid out by Tom Igoe’s “Making Interactive Art: Set The Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen”, in space. He provides participants with the means to interact with his art, describing it as “mediators between the audience and the artist” (Lee). He uses “material objects as an interface for social connection” (Lee). Reading this is allowed me to see the interactive side and artistic side of the Fallen Fruit initiative and its Endless Orchard Project. Fallen Fruit plants fruit trees in public spaces for everyone to enjoy; these trees are then mapped and able to be searched. Other regular activities include–and are all communal– picking fruit under moonlight, canning and making jam, fruit tours and meditations, fruit tree adoptions, and making and enjoying multimedia together. I normally wouldn’t ‘t conceive all of this as art, and would have trouble seeing past what seem just like actions of picking fruit, and other activities. But reading about this, I am aware of how new and beautiful something like this to me. It is an interaction between the aesthetic of fruit, an awareness of boundaries and difficulties of living, and parallels between artists crossing boundaries and Fallen Fruit’s fruit trees sometimes on the edge of private property. 

 

 

Another project I want to introduce is a project I think of from time to time: The Signature Project. The Signature Project is an ongoing work by Patrick Dunning, who presented at my middle school years ago. Its achievement of interactivity may be thanks to the sheer scope of it–apart from the digital mural made of (300,000 and counting) signatures that is its foundation, The Signature Project is a multimedia effort combining digital design, live theater, music, science, humanities, and technology. Apart from signing your name, you are open to share your life story or any moment from your life. The many bodies and minds of Dunning’s dancers, storytellers, musicians, artists, and other crew are also active participants. Like Rirkrit Tiravanija’s approach, this project depends on the participation of people, who completely make and change the fabric of the mural and subsequent performances and content. Dunning himself commented that the mural is something he’s “creating by collaborating with over one million people (Calhoon).” What’s remarkable about this, is that while some artists only make tweaks to essentially finished works to keep them running, or they may even be programmed in doing so without the artist’s reinvolvement, Dunning will always be conversing with his participants and his art. “THE SIGNATURE PROJECT offers me countless ways to create images and elements that find their way into either the performance or the painting itself. There’s no end to the possibilities for me,” Dunning states to Visible Soul writer Zack Calhoon.  Additionally, while he opens the experience stating his vision for the project: that it will allow participants to visualize unity with those living different lives than them, he doesn’t tell participants what to take away or what to give him.

 

 

It Is Not Interactive

 

A work I would not consider to be interactive is. Untitled (drone), 2021 by Sam Durant, which is a replica of the General Atomics MQ-1 Predator drone that carried out devastating and targeted  killings in the Middle East.  Hovering over the NYC High Line, its interactive experience is described by the artist to lie in the base at the bottom of the sculpture that people can sit on and have a conversation on. I would consider this work to likely be very striking and solemn when seen in person, but wouldn’t say it qualifies as interactive. It may drive conversation between people about it, but there is no such reciprocal interaction with the sculpture. 

 

 

Is it Interactive?

 

Something I am unsure about is Encounter (2018) by Piet Schmidt, which is a robotic arm with a mirror that observes (input), identifies (process), and reacts (output) to its surroundings, ending up playing with visitors by angling the mirrors towards them. The robot checks the box of producing varied responses, as it is mentioned to have head tracking. I like where it goes with seemingly being imparted with the animal instinct of curiosity, as it is said that “when an unknown person approaches it fearfully retracts but if the person moves away again, it follows curiously” (Visnjic)  and that it needs time to get used to a visitor. It is not mentioned however, if there is facial recognition, so I’m not sure if the results can be described as shaped to each person or not. This work ultimately raises more questions: is predictability a killer of interactivity? It may be a fault of the relative simplicity here: as this is only one robotic arm with a mirror. Would people get bored of this as they would with pushing a button on a breadboard to light up an LED over and over again? Also, is the artist sometimes too idealistic? That’s what I thought when I read Schmidt’s use of the words “fearfully” and “curiously” to describe how the machine moves, but this seemed to have been his intention. He writes how its an examination of the dichotomy between our mind and intuitive perception: our mind “realizes that we are dealing with an inevitably lifeless machine” (Schmidt). However, our intuition “perceives a lifelike creature that’s close to us and a social relationship forms” (Schmidt).  The robotic arm lunging back might be read as “fearfully” to us as we attempt to make sense of what we are interacting with. Schmidt questions, Do we want increasingly anthropomorphic devices? I think this is an interesting area to explore.

 

 

 

Resources

Crawford, Chris. “What Exactly is Interactivity?” Chris Crawford on Interactive Storytelling, 2nd edition, New Riders, 2012, pp. 1, 5-6.

Igoe, Tom. Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen. (2012, Aug 21). Retrieved September 26, 2022, from https://www.tigoe.com/blog/category/physicalcomputing/405/.

Lee, Patina. How Does Interactive Art Create Meaning?  Widewalls. (2016, Aug 16). Retrieved September 26, 2022, from https://www.widewalls.ch/magazine/interactive-art-meaning.

Buckley, Annie. Fallen Fruit. Art in America by Art News. (2009, Oct 22). Retrieved September 26, 2022, from https://www.artnews.com/art-in-america/aia-reviews/fallen-fruit-60371/.

Fallen Fruit. Retrieved September 26, 2022, from https://austinyoung.com/fallenfruit

Fallen Fruit. Curry Stone Foundation. (2018, May 22). Retrieved September 26, 2022, from https://currystonefoundation.org/practice/fallen-fruit/

Teplitzky, Alex. Fallen Fruit Celebrate Their Endless Orchard in Los Angeles. (2021, Nov 9). Creative Capital. Retrieved September 26, 2022, from https://creative-capital.org/2021/11/09/fallen-fruit-celebrate-their-endless-orchard-in-los-angeles/

Calhoon, Zack. The Musings and Diatribes of a New York Actor and Playwright. Visible Soul. (2018, Mar 5). Retrieved September 26, 2022, from https://www.signatureproject.com/off-broadway-reviews.html. 

Sam Durant drone set to Grace New York’s high line. The online edition of Artforum International Magazine. (2021, April 15). Retrieved September 26, 2022, from https://www.artforum.com/news/sam-durant-drone-set-to-grace-new-york-s-high-line-85467

Visnjic, Filip. Encounter – suspiciously curious robotics. CreativeApplications.Net. (2020, Sep 29). Retrieved September 26, 2022, from https://www.creativeapplications.net/openframeworks/encounter-suspiciously-curious-robotics/

Encounter. Piet Schmidt. Retrieved Sptember 26, 2022 from https://pietschmidt.de/encounter.html