Response 2

Within the argument about Listening Post and if it is truly interactive art, there is almost a tone of “If a tree falls”… Listening Post ran if the observer is there or not. Huhtamo argues against Listening Post on the basis that that interaction with the work is mental and has nothing to do with the body of the observer and physical interaction. Huhtamo also dislikes the idea of “system interaction” because it could possibly redefine previously made art that was not considered interactive before Listening Post won the Golden Nica and the jury making the decision and expanding the framework. “If the word interactive is to retain anything about its former distinctiveness, it should, perhaps, be after all reserved to cases where active and repeated user-intervention plays a significant role in the functioning of the system.” When bringing up Ken Rinaldo’s Augmented Fish Reality, Huhtamo seems to want to insist that in the realm of Interactive Art, only humans can be users and participants. Towards the end of the article there is also a suggestion of what category  Listening Post should have one and accused the jury for that category of not having the “correct” agenda. Huhtamo also suggests making a whole new category just for art pieces like this.

I side more with the Interactive Art jury and its framework. I believe there is an interactive aspect in all art that may be more passive at times.  Looking at the 2006 winner Paul DeMarinis and his piece The Messenger, I see a work much like that of the Listening Post. It can be running with or without a human observer and that can be argued against being interactive art or even art in general. I still feel there is an aspect of art in it even if it is running unobserved. Ashok Sukumaran’s Park View Hotel has a more interactive aspect like what Huhtamo seems to require in a Golden Nica Interactive Art winner. Sure people make the lights move by pushing buttons but is it less than art to the passive observers? They are seeing this unfold before them and reacting to it even though they are not “touching” the work itself. To me, interactive art is still art. Art is called that by the observers, even if it can or cannot be touched. The validity of the piece can also be argued by the observer. Debate is good but definitions and frameworks, just like beliefs, are highly subjects and should be given a lot of freedom and wiggle room.