The article written by Tigoe was very short, but consisted of very crucial points. When I saw the title, I got a little scared because I get easily irritated by meaningless debates about what is art and what is not, yet this one offered a good insight into the world of Interactive Art.
I loved the analogy to theatre and the working process between an actor and a director – though I had some directing experience, it never occurred to me that the nature of such interaction can be so easily projected to designing an interaction and made me think of the process a little differently. You can suggest through various hints, but you cannot tell them what exactly are they supposed to feel, do and experience (in both theatre and interactive art).
What I also agree with is Tigoe’s argument of giving hints, and proving basic context for the user to get them started. This should eventually made the user actively listen, start and successfully continue the conversation without a designer’s intervention . Yet this is communicated very simplistically, as if it was implying that the process of making interactive art is simple and black and white: either done right or done wrong. Yet the lines between what is a sufficient of a hint enough are very blurry and thin. This applies also to providing “basic context” which differs significantly from person to person, consequently making it very difficult to establish such hints and context that would work perfectly for every single user. User testing, adjustment and compromises are needed along the way. This, however, is not a critique- it’s more of an implication that I missed in the article, which does not contradict the argument whatsoever, but rather extends it.