Published in Fab06 - Turning Point
Graphic design by Matthew High - get the pdf
in-ter-ac-tion n: Reciprocal influence or action and reaction of people, things, phenomenon or substances.
in-ter-ac-tive adj: Capable of acting reciprocally or mutually with one or more others.
+
art n: Any form of human activity that is a confirmation or exaltation of inventive talent and expressive capabilities. The quality that critical judgment finds essential to define the nature and origin of a person’s work.
=
Interactive Art
Reflecting a little on Interactive art, with the help of some texts, the following interesting evaluations emerge:
“Traditional” Art |
vs |
Interactive Art |
The artist is the center |
|
The audience is the center |
The piece is finished |
|
The piece is in the making |
Speaks to a small bourgeois elite |
|
Speaks to everyone |
Has a defined and controlled result |
|
The result is unpredictable |
The meaning is built through the interaction between the audience and the piece |
|
The piece is built through the interaction of the audience |
Something doesn’t seem right. Despite these differences, Interactive Art is a form of art or at least, when you look around, it seems to be becoming one. Since we are rather ¨ignorant¨ on the subject we have asked some well-informed people to give us their opinions or explanations to help us understand. This is how Angela Vettese, Chiara Somajni and Andy Cameron see Interactive Art.
The voice of criticism
Angela Vettese – Professor at Iuav in Venezia
I don’t know if Interactive Art can be defined as a group or movement of artists. It is best to tread carefully when you are creating labels. Art has always been interactive: if I go into San Giovanni in Parma, a Coreggio cupola awaits me down the isle and tells a story which it reveals slowly, then I turn around and there is Ezekiel emitting light. Mantega´s Room of the Bride and Groom was created for private use, almost for a family, but it was certianly strongly interactive since it simulated cracks and portraits and stories for those who lived inside.
Interactive art is the continuation of something that began with environment, performance and of course relational art recently theorized by Bourriaud and exhibited in 1997 by Catherine David at Documenta X. But as far as philosophical contributions go it is best not to forget that the problem of interaction in art has been confronted for some time, for example in The Open Work by Eco and even in the 1963 Olivetti brochure…
There are some people who stand out within the panorama of interactive art such as those who took part in Utopia Station at the 2003 Venice Biennial as well as Yoko Ono, Michelangelo Pistoletto and young people like Tiravanija and Obrist as critic-organizer.
In my opinion a thorny point relating to Interactive Art in is its mass audience. I don’t think that art can have a mass audience. We must accept the paradox that the more art wants to be democratic, the more it becomes for few. The only mass art is the reality show. Twentieth-century artists never knew how to mobilize or interest the masses, which is the same thing with scientists. And the opposite would be very problematic. Just imagine a scientist who wanted to please an audience: what a disaster, what meager results as far as research went! The language of research is for a few select and it reaches the masses over time, it’s the same old story as Van Gogh the loner.
The voice of the press
Chiara Somajni – Journalist
Interactive Art is an expression that I try not to use. While I think it is useful to categorize single pieces as interactive, I don’t see such a different unifying factor of artistic and creative expression in interactivity.
More than an “artistic genre”, a “hybrid” or a “confused panorama” I would say that it is a cunning: that is a contrivance of communication used to illusively underline the worth of technologically supported innovations. In many cases the devices used are conceptually very basic, they are nothing but expressions of “switch poetry” – so maybe research into optical art from over 30 years ago was more “interactive”.
I think that there are relatively few pieces in which an interactive component is one of the main characteristics. Maybe it would be useful to use expressions that are maybe not narrower but more neutral, less focused on a particular property of the piece, referring to the instrument used: like “new media art”.
I don’t think that there are many interactive installations, which have artistic value (but this probably also goes for many pieces hanging in galleries). Regardless of the slippery slope of definitions of what is art and what isn’t, in many cases on any conceptual or emotional component, technological satisfaction prevails. Which is understandable, why shouldn’t we be enthusiastic about new objects onto which we can project our imaginations? And it also explains why this type of work is mainly appreciated in contexts enthusiastic about science and technology.
They are interested because of the instruments used, they are curious to explore new possible uses (even commercial) of technology as well as the need to promote it to a larger audience in a captivating way.
It seems to me that in any case the world of art is slowly opening up to this expressive form. It is also a question of time: how long did it take for photography, cinema and even video to be acknowledged as having potential artistic value?
But there is a basic problem. We had learnt to identify art as something that hangs in museums, to be looked at with reverence. A limit that has already been put to the test (just think of the performance practices of many artists). But – aside from the organizing difficulties and costs, which are often high – crossing over between artistic genres which are different to figurative art on which the system of art is essentially based, as well as towards areas that are not strictly artistic (play, design) is much more frequent in this genre of work: I think that the type of education and profession practiced by many authors-designers-artists is relevant.
Despite all of this it is my believe that as weak and ambiguous as the borders between art, design and play are the quality, completeness and depth of some pieces is destined to impose itself as artistic over time. The questions is whether there will still be a system of art as we know it today able to appreciate it. I think that museums and galleries as well as what we call art are all under pressure to change.
There is a risk that interactive installations tend to be works that point essentially to technological self-satisfaction, and I think that a great number of works that we find represented in “interactive art exhibitions” or similar fall into that category. But it is also true that this limit becomes evident very quickly thanks to the rapid diffusion of technology that today seems innovative and to their rhythms of obsolescence.
On the other hand technological fascination is an important element: it is a spring that induces us to make new languages our own, even if it is in a limited way. I think it is a useful fertile ground both for artists and for the public. But at some point new media will stop being new and we can hope that in the creative melting pot the question of deeper senses and emotions is destined to impose itself with more conviction on technological virtuosity.
The voice of the artist
Andy Cameron, Creative Director – Interactive Department, Fabrica
There have always been two big parallel traditions in art: that of the frame and that of play. The first, that later developed into cinema and television, developed a one-way channel of communication. While the second has until now been an activity rather than an object and it has developed bi-directional communication. Today, thanks to new technology, we find ourselves in front of something completely new: we can play with images. This is clearly very interesting for the world of art: artists have always been interested in technological developments because it is normal for them to search for new ways of representation, which is what happened with photography or cinema.
In any case something that has never happened before is occurring: mainstream art is putting up a resistance to Interactive Art. There are three possible explanations for such a reaction. First of all the world of art, like all fields of course, feels in some way oppressed by continuous technological developments. Secondly, perhaps today the art world is more conservative than it has ever been the past despite the fact that those at the forefront forged almost complete liberty as far as content goes.
Lastly, and this is perhaps the deeper reason, Interactive Art attacks one of the fundamental assumptions of art and that is that there is an artist who transfers their own knowledge or ideas to the public, using a structure similar to affirmation. That is how literature, cinema, painting and all the “traditional” arts work. The role of the audience is to look, listen and try to understand but not to speak.
The problem, or perhaps the advantage of Interactive Art is that the artists find themselves accepting that part of the control lies in the public’s hands and that the work can have unexpected results. This is very stimulating for an artist: they no longer give life to an affirmation but to a situation. Another aspect that is also important to look at is the seriousness of art.
The union between “art-frame” and the tradition of play give life to a completely new reality: the playful aspects have in some way always been swept aside and not considered a part of real art, but now they are becoming a part of it, with results that change both the artistic panorama and the theory surrounding it. Play has never been considered something worthy of critical attention and yet interactive art proves that people take it seriously. Essentially the great potential of this type of work lies in the questions that it raises on communication and human values: these highlight some important elements like spontaneity, happiness and, most of all, charme.
For further information:
www.digicult.it
www.neural.it
www.rhizome.org
www.aec.at
www.transmediale.de