After reading 'Delusions of Dialogue: Control and Choice in Interactive Art' by Jim Campbell I identified 3 main arguments. The first being that a truly interactive experience with a piece of interactive art is impossible with the current level of technology. Next is the idea that it is near impossible to change an emotion into a mathematical equation that computers use in programming. Lastly the idea that something is lost in the transformation data and much art today has come out with the "Photoshop Effect". The piece I chose to analyze is Bondage by Atau Tanaka. With the above frame work it is easy to say that this is not an interactive piece. Atau Tanaka admits as much. The viewers presence activates a loop and silhouettes of the viewer uncover bits of the image but in Tanaka's own words;
"The result is a total environment, a concentrated space where sound meets image, but where interaction is not pushed to the fore. Instead, I attempt to create a magical space, drawing upon the voyeuristic fantasies of the viewer as he tries to access the untouchable woman on the other side of the screen."
Trying to apply the first argument to this piece seems inappropriate. It was never meant to have real viewer participation. I feel that changing an emotion into a mathematical equation shouldn't be an issue for this or any other piece. As an artist you may be trying to evoke a certain emotion through your art but there are no guarantee that the viewer will get that same emotion out of it. The best you can do is use the tools you have and make something you are proud of. I feel Tanaka got his point across with Bondage without have to try to turn feelings into math.
Lastly is the "Photoshop Effect" and loss in transformation. Tanaka is using a third party tool in this piece. Campbell states "... it is usually the third-party software that become the soul of the work -- the "Photoshop Effect" in which the software that is used was written to create the same effect or responses over and over again. Such software becomes not a tool but a palette of cliche symbols". Again I don't feel that this is ever the case. I see no loss and no cliched symbols in this:
All software, like the computers themselves, are tools. It is up to the user to know how do use it and use it well.In my personal opinion I feel that Campbell is mainly upset that using computers for interactive art is not at the standard he would like. Knowledge of the tools you are working with can take years but once mastered you can do almost anything at any level. It should be obvious that I disagreed with a large portion of the Campbell article. I also find it interesting that this article he wrote is not listed on his site in any way. It would be interesting to find out if his thoughts have changed with the advancement in technology over the past 11 years.
