Elisa Berry - Seven Misconceptions
I resonate with the criticisms that interactive art can be gimmicky. As a not-new phenomenon, interactive art can be beyond gimmicks. The interactivity itself should not be the subject of a work, but should be used in service to the conceptual and formal aims of the artist. Interactive art can help us reflect in ever new ways on the meaning of our experience.
I also resonate with the critique that interactive art replaces real human-to-human interactivity with individual-to-machine. While interactive technology such as facebook or youtube have in some ways subverted and damaged real human material interactions, there are other ways in which those tools have facilitated human interaction - by connecting people, for one thing, as well as by helping people interact by sharing information with one another. Works of art in museums are often meant to be contemplated and experienced by individual viewers. Thinking and experiencing done individually is a necessary part of human existence. Interactive art can remind us that personal experiences of art cab be moments of reciprocal communication between the viewer and the art. Artwork should also remind the viewer that she is not experiencing art outside of the particularity of an historical context. The work is situated within a network of texts and events. In what way can interactive art continue to remind the individual or collective viewer(s) that neither it nor they exist autonomously, outside of history?