What exactly is interactivity? This is a question that I asked myself when I first decided to pursue Interactive media as a minor. At one point, I thought that interactivity is anything that is dynamic, then I learned that interactivity doesn’t necessarily mean dynamic. It took me some time to realize that interactivity is a complex definition that is commonly misunderstood.
Taking the Mona Lisa as an example, I have always thought that the Mona Lisa is an interactive painting, inviting people to go around trying to see her eyes moving, but now that I think of it, it shouldn’t be considered an interactive painting, in fact the example of the tree branch the author gave is very similar to the example of the Mona Lisa, it constitutes a reaction not an interaction. I now realize that I have confused the concept of reactivity and interactivity most of my life.
The author invites readers to consider the following question: Is interactivity subjective? I believe that to some extent you can argue that interactivity is indeed subjective, depending on the quality of both the processing power that generates the action, and the response action itself. However, I believe that there is a limit to what we can call interactive. If there is no processing power and action whatsoever, like the example of the rock then this cannot be labeled as an interactive object. After thinking this through for quite some time, I realized that I agree with the author that interactivity can and should be scaled to levels to be able to compare different types of interactivity.
I was intrigued by the argument the author raised of whether a book is considered interactive or just reactive. I asked myself what I consider a book is. I guess you can say that I have never actually thought that books are interactive. I have always thought that a book is subjective, no two people can or will interpret it the same way. No matter how detailed a book is, it leaves some room for each person’s imagination to fill, but that does not mean that it is interactive, I would say that it is just a matter of different reactions and not different answers as the author puts it.
Lastly, the example of the movie given in the reading reminds me of a movie I watched, or putting it in a more accurate way, I experienced, a while back. The movie is Black Mirror: Bandersnatch on Netflix. Throughout the movie, Netflix pauses and asks you which decision you want the main character to make and depending on what you choose, you go through a different track of the movie. The decisions range from “should the main character take this job” to “should the main character kill this person”. It is reported that there are 5 main endings to the movie but there are trillions of different tracks you can follow in the movie making each experience unique. I believe that this “movie” makes the argument that movies are not interactive stronger. I would rank this movie high on the interactivity scale because it offers endless answers and invites users to keep trying over and over to see how many different endings they could reach.