This article by Erkki Huhtamo changed the way I think about interactive art. Before, like many others, I thought interactive art required active participation by a guest, and they needed to affect the artwork or installation. Reading about how Listening Post by Ben Ruben and Mark Hansen won the Golden Nica award and how the judges came to that decision made me reconsider what should be labeled as “interactive art.” At first I disagreed that it should be considered interactive art because the viewers simply stood or sat in front of a screen and watched/listened. This is like walking into a museum and simply staring at paintings. But when I read how some of the viewers felt like the piece was “meditative, sublime, and elevating” I realized, just like the author, that although they weren’t interacting with the piece physically, they were interacting with the piece mentally since it was having a mental effect on them (3). The cool thing is that the definitions of the categories in new media arts are always changing, and that’s necessary since technology is always changing as well. Having changing definitions allows for more pieces to be considered and appreciated, and that always something good.