Interaction

Throughout my university life I have become fascinated with the idea of interactivity and how the communication between human and machine can evolve. This has been a core idea with the work that I have produced since starting the course. I have always tried to find other methods of computer control than simple using a standard mouse and keyboard, instead using another part of the anatomy. This is an ideology that remains apparent within this work, and in fact acts as a core feature within the installation. Throughout the research stages of this project it has been interesting to see similar works, some of which also aim to illustrate light in a different way. During this process however I have not seen any interactive pieces, that allow the user to directly affect the light through an automated process, i.e. triggering a response from a machine, without somebody else having to control the machine. This is something that I feel I have addressed, and tried to fulfill with ‘Illuminate’.

One consideration that I have contemplated during the production process of the project (recorded in the supporting blog) is an interesting query that interactivity often raises; whether the user can becomes a co-author to the art. This thought was considered whilst deliberating over the role that the user will have throughout the installation and what level of control that they be granted. The user will have the freedom to move freely around the structure effecting how the light behaves with their movements, but does this really make them a co-author. Following some further thought I realised that the users role is not one of a co-author, but more of a performer. The user can control how the light behaves during the installation, but these behavior patterns have already been defined. The user simple has the control to dictate which route to take through the patterns. These ideas are supporting by the views of Lev Manovich, who comments,

“I always wonder how people (viewers) are exited about this new way of manipulation on them. It seems that manipulation is the only form of communication they know and can appreciate. They are happily following very few options given to them by artists: press left or right button, jump or sit. ”

Although I do not necessarily solely agree, as I myself enjoy using new methods of interaction within the media, I can understand why it could be perceived as manipulation.

For this reason I have tried to allow the user as much freedom as possible within the installation, but again this is controlled by my rules, and prerequisites. This is something that I am not sure could have been avoided considering the nature of this work, but is something I would like to consider further in the future.

The Myth of Interactivity- Lev Manovich “The Language of New Media”

Since starting the course I have become fascinated with the idea of interactivity and how the ideas can be developed to add complexity to my work. I have, however, noticed that the term is often used extremely loosely and can imply several different meanings. In order to correctly apply the term to my work I decided to research it further, starting with Len Manovich’s exploration of the term in “The Language of New Media”.

Used in relation to computer-based media, the concept of interactivity is a tautology.

In order to consider interactivity as a concept in itself Manovich also considers a number of other concepts including menu-based interactivity, salability, simulation, image- interface, and image-instrument, all of which allow him to consider different kinds of interactive structures and operations.

As Manovich highlights all classical art already possessed interactive aspects, manipulating the viewer’s attention to focus on different parts of the art, whether it was theater, cinema or even painting. Modern art and other media took this technique, and pushed it further, increasing the cognitive and physics demands. Early modern media, such as film montage from the 1920’s, forced audiences to construct mental gaps between unrelated images.

New representational style of semi- abstraction which, along with photography, became the “international style” of modern visual culture, required the viewer to reconstruct the represented objects from the bare minimum -- a contour, few patches of color, shadows cast by the objects not represented directly.

New forms of art such as happenings, performance and installation meant that art became participational, meaning that the viewer participated in the art. It was this movement in the 1960’s that some new media theorists believe paved the way for interactive computer installations that first appeared in the 1980s.

The concept “interactive media” often brings forth a literal interpretation of physical interaction between a user and a media object (pressing a button, choosing a link, moving the body). Although in many cases this may be what appears to happen it negates the idea of psychological interaction. The psychological processes of filling-in, hypothesis forming, recall and identification, which are required for us to comprehend any text or image at all, are mistakenly identified with an objectively existing structure of interactive links. This mistake is not new; on the contrary, it is a structural feature of history of modern media.