What I found most interesting in Hutamo's essay was point number five, in which he argues against the idea that interactive art can be more than just pointing and clicking into a series of pre-programmed alternatives. I really enjoy how he states, "I don't think the amount of interactivity should (always) be the main criterium when judging interactive art." I would have to agree with this statement, not just when it is applied to interactive art, but any medium. I feel that this statement goes with any skill or trade versus a work of art. For example, printmaking used as part of a gallery installation should not be printmaker's sole premise for evaluating whether the amount is a good use of the medium. He goes on to mention how some artists even terrorize the medium to deceive the user, which seems like an effective way to get across certain ideas that could otherwise not be communicated. Even by appropriating older works into new experiences and more complex situations, the artist takes away predictability and limitation. However, despite the opinion that interactivity doesn't always need to be the most important factor of the piece, Hutamo doesn't forget to mention that interactivity IS crucial when judging an industrial application, which makes sense for something with a more utilitarian purpose.