I really enjoyed Chris Crawford’s interpretation of interactivity, especially because he challenges conventional notions of interactivity. I specifically wanted to comment on his definition, in which he likens interactivity to having a conversation:
“interaction: a cyclic process in which two actors alternately listen, think, and speak.”
I think framing interactivity as a conversation is both interesting and perhaps controversial because it brings the interactivity of many pieces into question. In class, we have had discussions on “types of interactivity”, where some pieces were defined as being once interactive, as in the user clicks and the interaction happen, or perpetually interactive, pieces whose motions and responses went on infinitely. The latter form of interaction, under Crawford’s definition, is barely considered interactive then. It is just a little above a movie in terms of interactivity, where a user can engage once but then is compelled to watch the result. It is not a conversation, it is just a one-word response.
Another form of interactivity brought into question are the interactive pieces that have one response to user activity. Two contrasting pieces that I can think of are the “Deep Walls” piece and Chris Milk’s “The Treachery of Sanctuary”. Both these works are considered iconic pieces in the space of interactivity. Deep Walls, under Crawford’s definition is a truly interactive piece – it is a conversation between the art piece and it’s viewers at any specific time. It captures the true essence of dialogue because it will always appear different depending on who is engaging with it and how they’re engaging with it. The Treachery of Sanctuary, on the other hand, in my opinion, falls short of Crawford’s definition. It is not accurate to describe it as a conversation – but moreso as a script. Actors in their performances choose how to enunciate their words and the level of emotion they convey with their lines, but, at the end of the day, the dialogue will always be the same. The same is with Milk’s piece – users have wiggle room to play around a bit, but at the end of the day, the ultimate result will always be the same.
I think it is for this reason Crawford begins to speak about degrees of interactivity. Certainly, every piece alluded to in this response is interactive, but exactly how much? These trains of thought are especially important for us as creators in the Interactive Media space, as it forces us to mindfully think about how open-ended the conversations are that we are creating through our art.