the author differentiates “tools” for utillity, such as the hypothetical Nintendo fridge, from something “fun” and “interactive”. thus, he raises a question, “is interactivity utterly subjective?”, only to discuss the process of interactivity as a subjective flow. in particular, he argues that the thinking that spurs creativity–and a certain level of randomness as we discussed last week–is a crucial element of interactivity.
I agree that the thinking for creative responses is the most important part. in the past, even now, some low- and mid-level interactive creations, as the author would categorize, are solely dependent on a set of rules that only attempt to be generative. their output doesn’t serve a meaning itself, only reflecting part of a bigger scene defined by the rule setter. ideally, however, every output should prompt some further thinking in the receiver of the response, or the originator of the conversation. it is indeed fairly difficult to achieve so, particularly in the past.
the advent of Generative AI could bring some change, especially when it’s seemingly untouched in the interactive visual art sphere. what if, I say what if, some code is written in real-time, following a certain broader set of rules? what if, in addition to a set of rules, some new impromptu visual rules are created in real time?