I believe that interactivity makes everything more interesting. When looking at traditional art, I prefer sculptures to paintings simply because I have the small degree of choice over which angle I want to view the subject from. And I find movies great, but games are far more engaging, and fascinating. So when I think of how to make art more interesting, the first thing I think of is how to make it interactive. I’ve thought of some ways to do this, but when I saw the work that Brian Knep had done, I knew this was exactly the kind of thing I was searching for.
Looking at works like Healing 2, it may at first seem difficult to understand what the subject of the piece is. This is because the subject here, as with most interactive art, is in terms far more abstract than most people are used to thinking. It is not so much of a single subject as it is an idea or experience. The artist wants people to discover, to interact, and to play. The idea being explored here cannot be quantified in words, but rather in a silent understanding, and intrigue at a system of interactions. It is the same concept of children playing a game, just wrapped up in a new package. The concept of play is something so innate in humans, that we often forget it exists. Everyone plays in some form, whether it is a sport, traditional game or even just you toying with an interesting concept. Your brain understands all of these things as play, regardless of the context.
Most forms of art, and even entertainment, are completely, or almost completely devoid of interactivity. Many people believe that interactivity alone sabotages artistic qualifications, and turns something from art, to just an activity. I think that this belief a complete write off of a huge branch of art, simply because of aesthetic preference. I consider interactive mediums art because I believe that the artistic essence of something is not in the thing itself, but in the mind of the viewer. This is similar to the idea that art is in the “eye” of the beholder, but I disagree even with this long standing idea. By saying that something is in the “eye”, means that the thought provoked by art is in itself, not art. This may be true, but it is certain that this thought is a byproduct of the art which caused it. So now we reach a give and take between what part of it is art.
Of the four traditions, this I feel that this piece is more emotional than anything. Interactive art is all about discovery and play, which create the emotions and feeling associated with interest. So while we are busy studying the form of the piece as it slithers back to its shape, primarily, it is the emotion we feel that makes the piece worth spending time at.
Interactive art probably started out with roots in theater. An interactive play is a very enjoyable experience if done correctly, and unless there are painters who let the masses come in and add to their works, this seems to be the root of all interactive art.
Beyond this tie to the ancient world, Marcel Duchamp’s works such as Bicycle wheel and rotary glass were considered some of the first pieces of interactive art. These works simply required a viewer to physically spin them in order to view them properly. This is humble beginnings for what I believe is destined to become a prominent form of art.
Works Cited
"Brian Knep : About." Brian Knep : New Media Artist. Web. 23 Oct. 2009.
"YouTube - Act/React: Interactive Art, installation video 2." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Web. 23 Oct. 2009..
"YouTube - Act/React: Interactive Art, installation video 2." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Web. 23 Oct. 2009.
"YouTube - Act/React: Interactive Art, installation video." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Web. 23 Oct. 2009. .
Related Videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJkNs9YjQU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHXw1niqvPs
I believe interactive art, especially video/computer games are really the future of both art and technology. They actively involve the user in what the artists wants to portray and represent.
ReplyDelete