The concept of interactivity, as defined by Chris Crawford, resonates with me. In my view, interactivity involves an ongoing dialogue between the user and the medium, where both parties actively communicate, process information, and respond to each other. It’s a collaborative effort that draws inspiration from each other’s actions and words to create a compelling experience.
While caring for a plant can be considered an interactive experience in terms of attentively responding to its needs and enjoying the rewards of a thriving home, there is a counter-example to consider. Some argue that a plant only reacts to whatever substances are provided to it and does not necessarily interact with the caregiver beyond those basic responses. In this perspective, the plant is seen as a passive recipient rather than an active participant in the interaction.
This point highlights the challenges designers face when incorporating interactivity into their work. If the only meaningful interactions can be achieved with other intelligent life forms, it raises questions about whether designers should focus on interactivity or on creating deep connections and eliciting emotional reactions to their works. From this perspective, if a designer’s work is able to emotionally resonate with the audience and foster a deep connection, it may be more satisfactory than merely aiming for a certain level of interactivity that might ultimately detract from the intended purpose.
In summary, interactivity involves active dialogue and reciprocal engagement between the user and the medium. While caring for a plant may have limited interactivity, experiences such as having a pet exemplify the dynamic, engaging nature of true interactivity. However, when it comes to computer art, it raises intriguing questions about what it would truly mean to make such art interactive.
Should interactivity in computer art be limited to basic responses, or should it aim for a deeper connection that elicits emotional reactions from the audience? Can computer art truly engage users in a meaningful dialogue, or does it fall short in replicating the richness of interactions found in human-to-human or human-to-animal relationships? These questions challenge us to reconsider the essence of interactivity in the context of computer art and explore new possibilities for creating genuine interactive experiences through artistic mediums.
Ultimately, the definition and achievement of interactivity in computer art require thoughtful exploration and experimentation. It prompts us to question our assumptions about interactivity and consider how computer art can transcend its limitations to establish meaningful connections and engage users in profound dialogues that go beyond mere surface-level interactions.