While reading Erkki Huhtamo’s paper “ Trouble at the Interface 2.0 “, I felt like I could not follow his paper properly. The author was going off about reasons why interactive art should have a specific definition rather than a broad one. However, he was making too many points at once and including many different type of art works that I felt that his paper wasn’t organized.

Although it was hard to follow, the paper did make a point. The listening work he was talking about is not really interactive. The listeners aren’t able to manipulate the work. Therefore, it shouldn’t be considered interactive by the standards of this time. However, on the other hand, I also believe that you shouldn’t give interactive art one specific definition because art keeps evolving throughout time.