Response to 7 Misonceptions

Several times, I have dragged my family through the doors of an art gallery or museum and wondered the halls excitedly while they get board after the first 30 minutes. Looking for a respite from the seemingly endless halls of sculptures and paintings my family members seek out the interactive art pieces. To my family they offer a different type of experience. I think these works are viewed as a combination of game, experience, art, and activity. These pieces require to be experienced, not just to be viewed. And for those who grow tired of viewing and thinking, these pieces are gladly accepted. Like my family I also enjoy the uniqueness and differences of interactive art, these pieces bring something new to the art world. As I read through his 7 misunderstandings I realized that interactive art cannot be put into a box and meet certain criteria. Interactive art is a fluid medium. It is ever changing and very difficult to define. Many of the misunderstandings brought up are ones that I have thought myself. As valid as some of these misunderstandings seem, I agree with Huhtamo’s answers and found many of them illuminating. In this paper I am going to point out and expand upon two of Huhtamo’s points that I personally agree with.
One of Huhtamo’s greatest points comes in the 2nd misunderstanding. The idea that these art pieces belong in the “computer fair, the science center, and the corporate headquarters” is a commonly accepted and completely inaccurate misconception. Since the Renaissance artists have been on the forefront of scientific development. Science and art often times work hand in hand in exploring new creations and new ideas. This fact has only been magnified in the last century. When Huhtamo states that “in the mass media, interactive art is often featured in the context of science and technology, rather than art and culture” he is acknowledging a true ignorance. But if the “mass media” opened its eyes and looked in contemporary art galleries they would find many pieces of art that are a successful combination of science and culture. There are many contemporary artists who are combining the worlds of science and art. Some of the contemporary artists I have seen are using digital media; some are using botany, and others are using animals. Huhtamo also echoes this by staying, “Beside meta-interactive works, there is also need for artworks which concentrate on building new systems, pushing the limits of interactivity by applying the latest scientific ideas, for example artificial life, intelligent agents or knowbots.” I think the world of arts and science are more like a Venn diagram rather than two separate entities.
The 3rd misunderstanding is also a belief that I had before reading this paper. But after thinking it through more, I agree with the idea that interactive art is different and separate from the world of video games and engineering. Artist and video game designers approach their project with different goals in mind. I love the statement “an artwork requires something else, a kind of surplus of inspiration and signification which will transcend the rational assembly of the “machine parts”, melt them together and give them a raison d’être on a higher level of abstraction.” Art is more than a video game or an engineered object. It demands more.
Huhtamo’s paper was very illuminating. Even though interactive art is a vague and ambiguous form of art, it does follow certain rules and there are certain themes that are present in almost all pieces of interactive art. Even though at first look it can appear to be just a break from the other “fine” arts, interactive art pieces deserve their space in the gallery. Not just so my family can have a better time, but so we all can experience art a little differently.