This reading was incredibly interesting. I found it interesting because it discussed the evolution of the definition of “interactive art.” The fact that physical and/or visual communication between a spectator and the art is no longer very much considered ‘interactive art’ is astonishing to me. The communication between user and piece is a key part of the interactivity of the artwork. Passive interaction is contradicting. The fact that the interaction isn’t “aggressive” doesn’t really make it interactive. It just makes the piece another  I also liked that the author connected interactive art to the Industrial Revolution. Having previously learned about the Industrial Revolution in high school, this connection added a twist to what I was taught.
Personally, I would prefer it if interactive art were actually interactive. I like the idea of ‘Deep Contact’ because it was incredibly hands on, asking participants to select different parts of the body.

https://o.quizlet.com/i/2mw35s1KGEptlEnPqlo1GQ_m.jpg

I think when it comes to judging for the awards, there should be a basic definition of interactive art, and stick with it every year. The pieces of art should be judged based on whether or not they match that definition.

Samantha McNelis