I found this reading really interesting because the author’s writing style is amusing and engaging. It almost made me feel like I was interacting with the ideas while I was reading. The reading also gave me a new, clearer definition of what “interactive art” means. The examples helped me realize that I didn’t fully understand interactive art before. In the author’s view, an interactive event needs three parts: speaking, listening, and responding. All three have to be present. And the response has to be meaningful; if the response is too weak or shallow, then the event does not really count as interactive in a strong sense.
Before, I assumed that if an artist designed something “interactive,” it would still be interactive even if there was no audience, or even if people were not paying attention. After reading, I understand the author’s point that the audience is not just watching the art—the audience becomes part of the artwork. In interactive art, the artist and the audience “make” the experience together. This is the first time I have really noticed how important the audience is to the final meaning of an art piece.
I also like the idea of “degrees of interactivity.” Some artworks create strong interaction because the audience thinks carefully and responds in a thoughtful way. Other situations feel less interactive because the audience may not notice what the work is asking, or they may respond without thinking much. This raises questions for me: how can we tell whether an interaction is “high” or “low” in interactivity? Who gets to decide that? Also, does the level of interactivity change how an artwork is interpreted, or can the meaning stay the same even when audience responses are shallow?