hi gr cyper and all -
i agree with your general(!) understanding of the term interactivity.
/well at least it is a learning process (enhancement of "understanding")
by/thru an act of communication.
the word interactivity is used in arts the last years also in another way -
descriping works in which the user can manipulate the piece or the way the
piece works --- at least (in a modernistic/hype) use of the word - a flash
piece with heavy onmouseover, etc........... events is called interactive
..... or an installation with some sensors etc ...........
in contrast to the general term - it is reduced to a "mechanical" action
(ie. switches) whith a "recognizable" result/effect.
in my sight
even a pre.programmed environment does not match the human process of
interactivity (where by itself are differences, too - tennis-playing has
another quality then a conversation between persons - and ........ "who has
never spoken to others - without interacting?" - [is the other
pre.programmed or am I? ;)]).
nevertheless the term interactivity (even not to be fullfillable in ie.
media-arts) is a "usefull" one, because it is one step away/further (is it?)
from a one-way communication where the user has only the role of a passive
recipient (in this sight ie. a painting has more "interactive" potential
than a movie - but that is another story).
even a "mechanical" participation could involve the user more in the work
but to reduce "what U get" to an effect is ................ ( a bit poor) -
in my sight it is (more) part of a "language".
maybe compaired with your example - conversation -
it is possible to say - the art piece has (got) a character with which you
communicate - it reacts in a way (visually, acoustically ....) to your
action - and (hui) wants to influence you (while you have the feeling to
"manipulate" it) - it is a process of meeting an unknown ....
> hi reiner and list
>> the "mechanical" interactivity (where an action shows an "effect")
> action and effect to me is a form of reaction but not necessarily
> to me interactivity is a complex process where two actors alternately listen
> think and speak(in general terms you could also say input proces output) .
> Those two perform some kind of power over eachother in terms of
> action-reaction but also influence each other.
> but that instantly raises the question how to influence a computer that is
> is interactivity in daily life (a conversation, playing tennis) different
> from interactivity in art ? if so what's the difference
> I also understand what you mean by the 'mental' interactivity but if the
> work only influences me and there is no way for me to influence the work is
> that 'inter'activity? isn't interactivy a reciprocal activity, both parties
> get something out of it?
>> in contrast to Benjamin it is not the aura of the object/art piece which is
>> important but "the aura/spirit" generated in the mind of the
> could you elaborate on this?
maybe later ;)
> gr cyper