What is Interaction?

As Crawford illustrated in “The Art of Interactive Design,” interaction has lost its meaning throughout the ages – especially in recent years. He states, “The term interactivity is overused and under understood” (Crawford, 1). He continues his article by proposing his definition of interaction. Borrowing some elements from his own, I would like to propose my definition of interaction. To me, interaction entails the reciprocal action between two parties and the influence they have over each other. This action and influence must result from a conversation, as Crawford illustrated, that does not necessarily have to be two-sided. 

Andrea Bravo’s “No Territorio” perfectly demonstrates how I interpret what interaction is. Her installation consists of a map of Central America engraved on mobile matrices, allowing the viewer to reconfigure the image of the territory to their liking. At first, one might think this is a task or a little game even. However, Bravo aims to imagine and reflect the power relations that have affected and still affect the region. She states, “Our territories and maps work that way too: they trace and traverse the limits of a space that little by little records its history through the decisions and movements of a few.”

Only when we understand the purpose of the installation, will one understand the purpose of their interactions with the installation, that is, to give the art piece in of-itself a meaning. The artist’s burning question then shines through, “And, if these edges can be mobilized and change each other, how much of our history can be changed or modified as well?”

After considering this, one’s actions seem to take meaning, weight, and purpose. Speaking from personal experience, as I have visited this installation before, you develop an intimate relationship with the piece as you begin to reflect, give, and shape the purpose of the installation. 

You might realize that the map of the aforementioned region is barely visible (you would have to be there to see it clearly) and the installation is quite tattered and scratched. This is only another part of the artist’s intentions, “the map is rather an almost invisible mark . . . a visual trace that something is there, even if it is not completely visible . . .” she states, only deepening the symbolism and purpose of the piece. 

I wouldn’t call the “conversation” one has with this installation a two-sided one. I believe one is talking to themselves as one influences the piece. By shaping and giving meaning to it as you go, you are reflecting upon the purpose of the installation, not the interaction in of-itself. The actions taken by the user are what truly give meaning to the “conversation” and the installation is only there to allow for the “conversation” to occur, not to directly speak with the user. In this installation, you are essentially both parties involved in the interaction. This is why I believe that interaction consists of the reciprocal action between two parties and the influence they have over each other through a conversation that can be one-sided.

In contrast to Andrea Bravo’s installation, I believe that Alberto Harres and HFK Bremen’s Arche-Scriptures do not demonstrate my definition of interaction. Their project consists of exploring the possibility of using ceramics as a possible medium to store digital information. Currently, they are storing data from the Pandemic Archive of Voices in the ceramics. Users that visit this project can then listen to the software trying to read back the engraved information.

Don’t get me wrong, the idea of being able to engrave digital information in ceramics opens up a world of possibilities regarding the future of digital traces, preservation, and archiving. However, no conversations are occurring, not even one-sided ones. The user can listen, view, or access the information stored within the ceramics, but there is no influence or actions between any of the parties involved. You can react, something like “cool” or “interesting” might be an appropriate one. However, you are not influenced by the project or influencing the project in this interaction. This is why I would not consider this project as one that would demonstrate my concept of interaction. 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *