I totally disagree with the definition of interactivity that is provided. If I did agree with it, then the IM major should have a different name since most of what we do, according to the definition provided in the readings, is not interactive. According to the reading, all these 2D (or other stuff) “interactive” art that we do is just participation of us in something. This does make sense, because the art or whatever we created is not talking back, forming a thought, or having a meaningful interaction. And someone can argue and say that some interactive art does have a reaction to us after we do something, therefore if we both react back and forth it’s an interaction. But would this be an interaction or just a lifeless programmed reaction that the program will do no matter what? Same as in the movie, no matter what, the actor is going to do something in his script.
If we look at the modern world, social media should be also a form of participation as the definition provided. But when I think about it, we do interact with each other while just using social media as a medium or a tool to do so. Same with music; the writer said we don’t interact with music but we interact with each other using music. The only form of interactivity with something that is not human, as per the definition again, would be just AI. Because AI is the only thing currently that doesn’t involve a real human in real-time in front of me to have an interaction. But other than that, should we even keep calling everything else interactive?