Monday 10 September 2007

Interactive Ideology

[These are simply some notes prompted by David Rokeby's piece.]

It has become a commonplace assumption that when something is interactive, it is not only more democratic, but is also "open" as part of a general "questioning of authorship." Both these interpretations of interactivity may be not only inaccurate, bu specifically misleading, providing a mask for the reassertion of traditional modes of working while creating an illusion of the opposite.
Rokeby writes "The question of domination raises an important issue. For many people, interaction has come to mean 'control'. People look to interactive technology for 'empowerment', and such technologies can certainly give the interactor a strong sense of power. This is clearly the attraction of video games. In these games, the mirror transforms the interactor's gestures largely by amplification, but what is actually offered is the amplification of a gesture within a void, a domination of nothingness, the illusion of power. In particular, this is a fantasy of power bereft of responsibility. In the recent Gulf War, the video-game fantasy of power was reconnected to the power of actual armaments. In the process, the sense of responsibility was lost; the personal acountability of the pilots was cleverly amputated, dissolved by the interface.

"Interaction is about encounter rather than control. The interactive artist must counter the video-game-induced expectations that the interactor often brings to interaction. Obliqueness and irony within the transformations and the coexistence of many different variables of control within the interactive media provide for a richer, though perhaps less ego-gratifying experience." [1] It is unclear how the set of concerns with ironically divesting his audience of the sense of "control" that typically accompanies interactivity can be seen as other than an assertion of control by forces extrinsic to the audience--in this case, the author via an automated system. Expecting his audience to accept this passively is a basically authoritarian stance.

At the same time, we are expected to believe that interaction offers a breach to the apparent control and dominance of authorship. There is a paradox here that becomes evident at the level of praxis.

The big question we should be asking of all these "interactive" systems is in what way do they teach us to accommodate the status quo? Interactive systems are inherently domineering--they allow certain actions, disallow others and teach their users into positions of accommodation and adaptation to the parameters of a human-designed system that does not allow variances or enable most alternative uses. The image of artist within such a system is demiurgic (demagoguery) assertign its dominance while denying its presence.

3 comments:

Unknown said...

I agree about the misleading way in which interactivity has been presented to the public for so many years now. It has been an entirely demagogic promise of a democratization of the artistic work, and an illusory disappearance of the author. At best, it has been an unreflexive impulse to offer "new, shiny toys with exciting modes of operation" to the bored art audience.

Interactivity, presented in this way, is related to the false, capitalist assumption that freedom lies in the "freedom of choice".

Here is a quote from Sloterdijk [Regulations for the Human Park], whcih might be useful:

"...more and more, people end up in the subjective part of selection by by mere coincidence, even without having struggled intentionally to reach the role of selectors ... there is uneasiness in freedom of choice, and it may soon be conceivable that people will explicitly refuse to exercise this freedom, even after fighting for it"

Why would I, a member of the public, want to dance like a fool in front of your reactive screen??

(my translation from the Spanish edition)

elray said...

I would like to present another way of looking at "interactivity" or audience participation. My partner and I perform what is becoming most often referred to as "live cinema" in which we improvise sound and image on laptops and other electronics, much like a DJ & VJ, but meant for a sit-down audience. We are called Potter-Belmar Labs.

Since our recent relocation to Texas from Ann Arbor, MI (with its deep history of experimental cinema via the Ann Arbor Film Festival especially) we have developed a way to help our audience understand better what we do.

We request that they write "intertitles" to help guide the performance along. Cards are passed out as they come into the venue, written on, and collected. A video is played for their entertainment as we take the suggestions in the back, arrange them into some narrative arc, and quickly digitize and load them into the computer for projection along with the other visuals during the set.

We have a skeletal system to improvise from, provided by members of the audience. Their engagement becomes something other than passive, as they watch for their intertitle, and engage with our interpretation of it.

athena said...

quite correct! incredibly misleading...and how convenient for some the disappearing author!!
just think how lovely it will be to pocket all those royalties!!

as for democracy a short muse about the realitys of choice and voting.: one can only vote for whom will hopefully make YOUR choice. one cannot vote for the basic agendas of any
so called democratic society.in particular the economic agendas.

interactivity: to act upon
participatory: to have a SHARE in

yes why should i dance like a fool i front of your screen? well put cubo..

lets take a historical metaphor:

why should i dance in front of YOUR enemies
cannons ??