09.01.2022 Interactive Art I. IC Master, Kunstuniversität Linz.Katherine Romero Martinez.

Notes about Trouble at the Interface, or the Identity Crisis of Interactive Art.
Erkki Huhtamo, University of California Los Angeles.

In the beginning, the author presents a brief interactive art genealogy, through the
recall of several early artworks, where he points out how the required physical effort
from the user to make the work appear or to become active. The shift from a passive
spectator to an active user through touch was the cornerstone of the Classic
interactive art. Many of these works have been awarded by the Ars Electronica
festival.

In 2004 the artwork Listening Post won a Golden Nica in the category of Interactive
Art. In the author's words: “For compared with the ‘interactive classics’, there is
nothing interactive in Listening Post: the audience stands, sits or lies in front of a
large curved grid supporting 231 little electronic text displays.”That the Ars
Electronica Festival Jury, one of the most prestigious and the oldest media art
festival has decided to recognize and award as interactive art the Listening Post, a
work that is not related to the classic definition of the field, it is evident that the
identity of the field is in dispute.

The conflict presented above opens the question: which are the outlines that draw
the contemporary interactive art field? Regarding that, the author interrogates the
Listening Post: “where is the interactivity? In which sense can this work be classified
as interactive art?”. According to the jury´s expanded definition of interactive art,
there are three criteria: “(1) mediation by computer is not a requirement, (2)
constraints of “real-time” and directness of interaction should be relaxed, and (3)
passive interaction will be allowed.

The author lists classic and nonclassic artworks that are examples of works that
didn't fulfill at least one of the jury´s criteria. This list shows that there are
precedents in the interactive art field that do not achieve this requirement and they
are still considered as interactive Art. As these criterias could help to categories
interactive art, maybe they are not useful to define what is or not an interactive
artwork. I rather prefer to quote the following assertions of the text; “The“user
interface” was where the encounter between the work and the user took place.” In
this simple sentence the author does not situate the interface in a technological
object, not a software or hardware, is not even a fixed place, it is an event in which
user and work come together. This opens what can be presented as interactive art
but also is clear that the interface is there to make possible an encounter or a
relation between two parts that will not be possible in another way. Following this
idea, where is the interface for Listening Post artwork? Who or what are the parts
that are going to encounter? How and where did this interaction happen?