The most interesting aspect of the art highlighted in the article is the bridged gap between the artist and the viewer. The term ‘interactive art’ makes that point clear, but just like everything else, what falls into that category is up for debate. Everything hinges on what one considers to be interactivity. The author touches on the criteria to what is to be considered interactive art, which consists of a lack of mediation by computer, being in real- time, and passive interaction. These boundaries or parameters have excluded internet art from being considered at Ars Electronica. I think it is unfair that a jury or rotating judges can deem art into a certain category. It should be up to the artist where they feel they would like to be. While everyone is entitled to their opinions and perceptions it is not their place to project them onto someone else’s art. The article made the points that the judges choose winners based off of trends, which really rubs me the wrong way because if everyone follows the same trends, everyone loses. The lines of any definition pertaining to art are very blurry, and that makes room for everyone. Interactive art can be passive or slip out of the tightly wound box, that doesn’t make it any less than others.