Over the past quarter decade, interactive art has emerged and mutated drastically. It is understandable for such a fresh art form to change so quickly, but can also be disappointing for some of its earliest pioneers. What began around 1989 as an actually interactive medium quickly changed into a less interactive medium. By 2004 and 2005 the Golden Nica for interactive art was awarded to pieces which did not fulfill the common meaning of “interactive”. However, as art progresses, so do words. The jury for Ars Electronica in 2004 presented an “expanded definition of interactivity” which changed forever how the form will be perceived. This redefinition of the word allowed for “passive interaction” and works such as David Rokeby’s Very Nervous System to be considered classics of interactive art while not quite fulfilling the requisites of the common meaning of “interactive”. The author of this article also mentions Ken Rinaldo’s Augmented Fish Reality as deviating from the “old school” meaning of interactive art. On this account I disagree. While not interactive with humans, the fish are obviously in control of and being controlled by the art work, which in my mind makes it interactive.

In some ways I agree with the author of this article that it is disappointing there has been such a divergence from the original meaning of “interactive art”. At the same time, I understand the diverging artists stances and the necessity to continue pushing the boundaries to continue satisfying what interactive art was originally created for; to push how humans see and respond to art.