How do I define interaction?

Interaction is an iterable process in which two subjects alternatively sense, process, and respond to each other’s action; and is a continuous variable that can be graded by how subjective it is.

Sources that enlightened me

• According to Crawford, he personally defines interaction as “a cyclic process in which two actors alternately listen, think, and speak,” while in more academic terms, he puts “[we] should replace listen, think, and speak with input, process, and output” (Crawford, 3). This reminded me of the idea iteration in which the same process will be carried out based on the former result, which generates rather different result even when there’s only subtle nuance in the first input.
• “We might speak of interactivity as high, moderate, low, or even zero, thus solving our problem with the subjective nature of interactivity’ (Crawford, 4). This pointed out my long misunderstanding of interactivity as a boolean property that can only be on or off. The idea of interactivity as a spectrum is fairly enlighting.
• “Changes in media technologies are correlated with social change. If the logic of old media corresponded to the logic of industrial mass society, the logic of new media fits the logic of the postindustrial society, which values individuality over conformity” (Manovich, 41). Manovich articulates the features of new media. From what I understand, I priortize the idea of individuality as the critical feature of interaction as a form of new media that determines its level of interactivity, for the reason that the interaction should be subjective, rather than giving the same outcome every time. Otherwise, the interactivity should be described as quite “closed” (Manovich, 41).

The project that aligns with my definition

Rainroom -by rAndom international

A brief introduction

The installation allows visitors to walk through the rain (imitated by the water downpour from the ceilings) without getting drenched. A motion sensor caputres the movements of visitors as they wander along in the rain. The installation automatically stop the water from dropping in the areas where visitors stand.

Why does Rainroom support my definition?

We can identify all the essential elements listed in my definition in this piece of art. The movement of visitors is sensed by sensors, which later is sent to the computer to procees, and later output is generated upon, that decides where is going to rain and where is not going to. On the other side of the story, visitors sense the raindrops falling down around them. They may have the guts (a result of the process going on in our brains) to take a leap of faith into the rain. They may well then stay where they are. And iteratively sensors and computers and waterpipes work.

Something more intriguing is that the installation exhibits a rather high level of interaction. Since it takes time for the raindrop released to get to the ground, if the installation stops rainning at the exact moment visitors enter a certain area, they are going to get wet undoubtedly. So, there should be some predictions going on in its underlying mechanics. The installation predicts where people would occur based on their former movements, which shows a great sense of subjectivity.

Men controll rain. In terms of its aesthetic value, the installation on one hand, let us to like a god; and on the other hand, allows us to revisit our relationship with nature. The dark ambient in the installation creates a sense of intimacy in which visitors could contemplate. From a performing and interactive point of view, the art challanges how much we trust in the installation, while at the same time, serves as a mega stage for performance from which spectators can see the whole installation as an ongoing show.

The project that doesn’t align with my definition

Clock Clock -by Human Since 1982

A brief introduction

The seemingly digital clock displays time in digits. However, it’s made up of 24 individual analog clocks. A group of six clocks in a 2×3 arrangement forms an individual number. So, essentially, it’s a digital display made out of analog components. 

Why doesn’t Clock Clock support my definition?

In this project, the clock displays time in its own way regardless of the viewers around. Obviously, the installation doesn’t sense human actions, no to mention process and respond to them. But, though it doesn’t fit in my defintion of interaction, I actually quite like its design language. The clock imitates digital function through analogous equipment, forging something blended and very much new. Also, we are able to see how people’s perception about time has changed though the course of history. As the artists themselves remark that “[the art] re-contextualizes time in a mix of old and new, analogue and digital.”