Hello Josephine, list

>Aren't these strategies for preserving work rather then strategies
>towards security around an interactive art work? I can imagine that in
>order to keep a work or parts of a work from being stolen or damaged
>musea would choose to have only a documentation of work available, next
>to the work itself (think of Systems Maintenance by Perry Hoberman,
>which should be in the (f.ex.) Guggenheims permanent collection in my
>point of view) behind glass. It is also imaginable that (to follow your
>lead) musea would create 'replica's' of a work (next to preserving the
>work in the most ideal manner thinkable) to offer the audience an
>impression of the interactive experience that is in this work.

Yes, I agree there should be a consideration made at developing a
language of 'installation' and 'use/used' for interactive art. One of
the concerns I have comes primarily from the side of the artist in
the production of the work (which is usually under heightened duress,
and core elements are put together in a rather reckless manner).
After beginning to work on projects that involve the building of
circuits, and in talking with Eddo Stern about several of his
integrated web/mechanical interfaces, there is a real potential for
things on the 'inside' to go wrong. It's not like these projects are
built in a sterile computer assembly factory, but rather they are
functional hacks. With the separation of title between
artist/engineer artist/inventor rapidly moving towards just 'new
media artist' or just plainly 'artist', more and more of this work
will be on the shelves, on the floors and on the walls of our finest
showing establishments.

>The term 'interactivity' is so unclear and questionable of course.
>Having a discussion about something being 'too interactive' is
>interesting though. I am not a curator but 'too interactive' seems to
>mean two things to me: first the work is in danger of being changed,
>stolen or damaged by the audience; second the work has an interactivity
>level that is 'intimate' or highly involving for a small group of people
>only, creating an unpredictable outcome. In case of the latter I think
>we can speak of interactivity in the purest sense of the word. The
>interactivity Hoberman mockingly spoke of in the quote Cyper sent has
>been called a very funny and appropriate name by Austrian artist
>Margarete Jahrmann : interpassive.

Over the past day and a half, thinking about your definitions of
'interactivity', I found it interesting to think about the notion of
the interactive artwork and the interactive video game. Interactive
artworks, which have a tradition in the development of alternative
interfaces, occupying bridges inside and outside of the box, as well
as have allowed for the participation and generative input from
users, has been an attempt turn something static into something
active. Or, to make it more clear, take existing objects of passive
appreciation and shifting their locus of psychic tension (pure
emotional effect trust upon the viewer either through transcendence
or disavowal) into the realm of choice, decision and ultimately
production. Thinking of video games then, video games become almost
antithetical when they are placed in an art context. Miltos Manetas
for example has had numerous exhibitions of static game play (such as
mario sleeping under a tree) or has just produced game stills. As
well an artist in the graduate program i am in has been doing a
series of game mods on tribes, where he is calling them
'performances', that is the work is shown either in the form of a
video or through the artist himself playing the game for the
audience. Video games, which are some of the most solidly constructed
genres/elements/languages in new media/contemporary culture, and
truly are demanding of seemingly limitless 'interaction' (without
breaking down, or being stolen cos you would have that shit locked up
either behind glass or in your room), then work in the opposite
direction towards a complete 'interpassive' presentation. I don't
think this is an end game, and can be used as a general model, but it
is interesting to think about this on a spectrum of what defines and
demands interaction.

best,
mk