Readings 2

"Interaction as an Aesthetic Event"
by Lev Manovich

I will start by saying I like Lev Monovich's writings. Mind you I do not always agree but I find the rather informative. Most people do not think about how interfaces changed when the "Digital Revolution" happened in the 1990s. I do agree that we experience interfaces. I remember fighting with DOS and a Commodore Superpet. There was no interface and little experience. I disagree that Mac OSX changed the PC. Apples design did and still does push competitors to design product. I think that Mac OSX did start a new trend in GUIs but you cannot deny the power of the previous Mac OS's and Windows. With the discussion of cellphones one has to be aware of how "behind the times" (for a lack of a better expression) the United States is. While our phones have these bells and whistles that create an experience it pales in comparison to the phones of Europe which in turn pale in comparison to the phones of Asia. I often wonder if the everyday person is aware of such interactions. Maybe when the first get the phone but I wonder how long it lasts. I wonder want his comments to the iPhone would be but the article predates it. It definitely reinforces this ideal.

"A History of the Interface in Interactive Art"
by Söke Dinkla

The opening statement bothers me. I have not heard the word "interactive" and television together since the attempt of WebTV. Though I guess one can call the "voting" shows a form of interactivity. I have read Digital Art by Christiane Paul and New Media by Lev Manovich it is interesting to see all the different takes on the history of interactive art. I wonder if the author is reading too much into the artists intent by viewing the technology used. I would have liked seen some of the artists statement reflecting the artists views. I think it is interesting that video games were not mentioned. Since they play an important role but this article primarily focused on art installation.

"Art and Interaction"
by Noël Carrol

This is another article on aesthetics and interactions. It tries to prove that interaction aesthetics are not as related as most people have written. People seek to define what is art this author seeks to set prove the older definitions wrong. While this is important thing to do you risk proving your own theory wrong since art cannot be defined in the first place (in my opinion). I also disagree with most post -modern ideals about art. I do not consider much of it art. When people ask how can I define one thing as art as another I say because I am the audience.