The main focus of Tom Igoe’s perceptive essay is the change from the artist serving as the exclusive storyteller to acting as a facilitator. Artists have historically used their creations to directly communicate a message or an emotion. On the other hand, interactive art plays a transforming function, whereby the artwork acts as a catalyst for the audience’s discovery. I like this transition as this aligns with the tenets of user experience design, which emphasize empowering users to choose their paths rather than trying to control them.
In traditional art, viewers often interpret a piece based on the artist’s description and the experience they want to show their viewers. Interactive art, however, offers a different dynamic. Each interactive piece is a canvas for numerous personal narratives, evolving with every user interaction. Here, the artwork doesn’t present a fixed story; instead, it allows for a multitude of stories to emerge, each shaped by individual interactions. The artist sets the framework, but it’s the participants who create their unique narratives through their engagement with the piece.
This is evident in modern interactive installations like “Rain Room,” where the experience of walking through a rainstorm without getting wet engages visitors in a unique conversation with the elements. I feel that the development of virtual reality environments adheres to these same principles that Igoe is proving in his argument. VR creators set the stage for experiences, but it is ultimately the users, through their actions and decisions, who navigate and mold these virtual worlds.
The text even highlighted that the user must be given hints or basic information about the interactive art piece. However, this made me ponder how the balance between guiding the audience and allowing freedom shapes the outcome of interactive art. Can there be too much or too little of either?