The Subjectivity of Linguistics and Definitions
It is a point that I most strongly resonate with, and one that I may struggle to articulate so fully as that which was present in Crawford’s reading, that I begin by producing a quote from said reading:
“… I take a more easygoing view of definitions. Any idea worthy of my attention is probably too big and too complicated to be reduced to some schoolmarmish formula.” (Crawford, 5)
As is to Crawford, to me linguistics is about a message. And it is so that the delivery of a message is as much an artform as is an artform about the delivery of a message. Oftentimes, I find definitions an easy way to brush over more nuanced topics.
As for interactive systems, I strive not to pen down a concrete definition, but to explore them based on their attributes and depth of interaction. Let us take a simple interactive system: a classic slot machine in the Ol’ Flamingo. Its got a lever for players to pull, makes cool sounds when you win, its got flashy lights and a degree of manual work in pulling the lever. It builds anticipation in the spinning of the slots. On the plus side (a win for the casino), the casino serves you drinks as you gamble away.
In essence, all five of your senses are deeply entrenched in this interactive system. And the drinks you’ve been served are likely to keep your brain engaged elsewhere from the fact that your credit rating isn’t looking awfully good at the moment. If I were to rate it on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the strongest interactive system, it would most certainly be a good 8, for its pretty holistic in its nature, however cruel and money-depleting that nature may so be.
As did Crawford elaborate on interactive systems: “interaction: a cydic process in which two actors alternately listen, think, and speak”
In essence, the formerly described slot machine engages all of ones senses, it will never be a ten for one simple reason, that it lacks to spur intelligence. It does not really heighten one’s intellectual curiosity or thoughts. Its a repetitive action with the only randomness being how much your bank account depletes after every pull.
This is that which distinguishes between a good interactive system and a strong(er/est) interactive system. Id est a system that strives to not only address our superficial senses and thoughts, though in addition delves deep into a more nuanced realm of human thought and complex emotions.
It is that which is also present within Crawford’s formerly quoted definition.
I believe a p5 sketch could be honed but only so to an extent, for while we may invoke a multitude of senses, id est ones sight, perhaps emotion and intellectual curiosity, maybe even sound, it lacks touch, smell and taste. As someone who loves food oneself, many of my activities (in game design) and the real world do then to revolve around food, but the problem I run into is the same, we can not capture the actuality of every human sense in p5 sketches. Maybe that is the imperfect beauty of this medium, and so to me I will focus on honing the sights and sounds of my p5 sketches, with keeping in light a degree of naturality or randomness that helps to convey a deeper meaning, or perhaps is just there to perplex the observer!