Interaction as Art, 2007

The idea of consequence in our decision making process as a reflective process is relative in terms of using technology as a medium by which we may communicate with ourselves. What are these consequences? It seems that embedded into communication, issues of latency and immediacy of information exchange come up. Consequence then may not always be available and would preclude that there is an intermediary state and not just direct cause and effect. The development of interactive engagements based on consequence would at the other end of communication, require a level of expectancy and desire for efficient, or non-efficient, results. What is the basis for motivation in interactivity?

For the artist, programming is a static text. It is dependant on input from user, as book or paintings require subjective reading/gaze. Built within a program is a set of symbols, objects, and procedures, which supports a subjective user's interaction. For this to take place, the system must use polling procedure within its runtime in order to anticipate, measure, and respond to input. For the user, programming appears responsive and perhaps malleable. 

Interaction places some of the subjection into the work itself. The program environment has a basis on which interaction is built on, while the user takes information from the environment and responds it is not fully in the user's responsibility for how the engagement develops due to feedback. Feedback is a system of information flow where data is derived from two sources and continually displaced upon one another as a responsive architecture to create adaptive behaviors. This type of information flow is conducive to evolutionary processes as it is a "stackable" process method. Adaptive behaviors develop from taking feedback and creating internal changes and not just responses due to programming nuances. 

Rokeby presented several modes or models of interactions. The first being the Navigable Structure that presents an audience or user with potentials and relays the consequences (there is that word again). One problem with this type of data flow, like a map, is the lack of an end reward. When presented with multiple outcomes and wide branching rules for engaging material without a particular inclusive methodology for how to arrange themselves in the environment, it may be difficult for a user to create a sense of satisfaction of closure. When in a conversation, there are rules for how two people will communicate and when the communication is finished it can be mutually agreed upon. There are expectations from the user for what their choices will be. 

Within a given interaction, there are limitations of exchange (i.e. Degrees of freedom), which are relative as two different states of engagement; that of the real, or perceived simulation of the real, against the transparent or permeable quantification of the interface. This relationship is a definable structure of navigation that the user creates an identity from by working either with or against the confines of interactive space. It is the artist's privilege to create the rules with which the user will interact with and consume as an experience of relationships between action and responsiveness. 

The audience wants proof of interaction, we seek constant approval and disapproval of our actions by countering them against the response of the system and is at a very basic level a matter of which, either the user or the system, creates the definitive pattern on which communication is taking place. Finally, to gauge a reflexive response the perceptual processes are dependant upon filtration. By replacing the transparent control system with "higher-level" perceptual properties an interactive system is more able to parse a reason or intention of what a user is expecting from the experience. This is more an implication of movement and gesture than that of true motive or willfulness of a user trying to get a predicable response.

Interactions are containment environments but can be enabled through agency to become self-motivated and autonomous. Emergent properties such as flocking patterns can allow for non-specified results to occur and to "transcend closed determination" by arranging parts, objects, and procedures into adaptive responses as a self-organized phenomena. 

What can amount from interactivity is that interaction is implied as a set of relationships and not as concrete data structures. The representations of relationships are given meanings as they are functionally fit for a given situational engagement. Where the interaction is transparent, there is uncertainty of what will come of them, which can be described as a manipulative or deceptive cognitive strategy in developing what essentially is a belief system accepted by a user prior to interaction. In this sense, the user surrenders their subjective view for objective views implying that control and not just information or data is being passed from the user and into the machine or system.