Question 1.2
Compare the differing views of Manovich and Crawford on the definition of "interactivity", with reference to your own experience of interactive media systems.
To summarise Manovich: interactivity is just another keyterm used to describe "the modern desire to externalise the mind" when it has always been done in old media such as film, painting, sculpture. New media in computer form is already interactive according to his five principles. Furthermore interactivity is a mythical concept: although there is the option of variability in removing discrete elements according to our liking (deleting film scenes without affecting the rest of movie) and changing the hair colour of my hero in Baulder's Gate, there still exists restricted boundaries, limited choices which we can work with in play. -->Paradoxical nature of interactive media.
My Problem: to him comic books are not interactive because the first principle already doesn't apply (numerical rep.) Also Lone wolf stories (did I get the name right?) and Famous Five interactive mysteries, which are not old forms of media, surely, and involve some form of narrative where the plot line, a mixture of new and old media, both programmed by writer and the customized choices made by the reader.
To summarise Crawford: Interactivity is where you have listening, thinking and speaking between two actors or purposeful creatures who have the ability to do all three. Remove one component and it doesn’t count as an interactive process
My problem: films and books are not interactive because there is no exchange of ideas between the director and viewer, writer and reader. I can use the same example of the stories where you "choose your adventure". Furthermore, I feel movies are interactive especially for contemporary ones where the ending is left hanging and unanswered, and it is up to you for personal interpretation as to what really happened next. Good movies do provoke thinking too. Some challenge conventional story-telling chronological structure as in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", an excellent mish-mash of the past interspaced with the present as reflecting the erasure of memories from the most recent to the least. The speaking comes AFTER, when you converse with your friends about how great the movie was, complimenting its greatness on forums, discussing what made it so great, writing to the director to tell him to make more great movies etc. I do understand why it is only semi-interactive, cos as the audience you’re just passive onlookers, intruders into the privacy of characters’ lives. People are questioned to think, but whether they do is another matter. Same with plays and interpretive dance. (personal note: irritating books like Melmoth the Wanderer and The little friend have disatisfactory, mysterious endings despite sucking you dry into narrative after 600 pages)
I like neither explanation of the term interactivity! If I were to choose the least worst one, I'd have to go with Crawford because I agree with the definition but in a looser term where the 3 pronged process is not necessarily restricted between you and the media.
Compare the differing views of Manovich and Crawford on the definition of "interactivity", with reference to your own experience of interactive media systems.
To summarise Manovich: interactivity is just another keyterm used to describe "the modern desire to externalise the mind" when it has always been done in old media such as film, painting, sculpture. New media in computer form is already interactive according to his five principles. Furthermore interactivity is a mythical concept: although there is the option of variability in removing discrete elements according to our liking (deleting film scenes without affecting the rest of movie) and changing the hair colour of my hero in Baulder's Gate, there still exists restricted boundaries, limited choices which we can work with in play. -->Paradoxical nature of interactive media.
My Problem: to him comic books are not interactive because the first principle already doesn't apply (numerical rep.) Also Lone wolf stories (did I get the name right?) and Famous Five interactive mysteries, which are not old forms of media, surely, and involve some form of narrative where the plot line, a mixture of new and old media, both programmed by writer and the customized choices made by the reader.
To summarise Crawford: Interactivity is where you have listening, thinking and speaking between two actors or purposeful creatures who have the ability to do all three. Remove one component and it doesn’t count as an interactive process
My problem: films and books are not interactive because there is no exchange of ideas between the director and viewer, writer and reader. I can use the same example of the stories where you "choose your adventure". Furthermore, I feel movies are interactive especially for contemporary ones where the ending is left hanging and unanswered, and it is up to you for personal interpretation as to what really happened next. Good movies do provoke thinking too. Some challenge conventional story-telling chronological structure as in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", an excellent mish-mash of the past interspaced with the present as reflecting the erasure of memories from the most recent to the least. The speaking comes AFTER, when you converse with your friends about how great the movie was, complimenting its greatness on forums, discussing what made it so great, writing to the director to tell him to make more great movies etc. I do understand why it is only semi-interactive, cos as the audience you’re just passive onlookers, intruders into the privacy of characters’ lives. People are questioned to think, but whether they do is another matter. Same with plays and interpretive dance. (personal note: irritating books like Melmoth the Wanderer and The little friend have disatisfactory, mysterious endings despite sucking you dry into narrative after 600 pages)
I like neither explanation of the term interactivity! If I were to choose the least worst one, I'd have to go with Crawford because I agree with the definition but in a looser term where the 3 pronged process is not necessarily restricted between you and the media.
posted by aileen @ 9:19 PM
1 Comments:
At 11:40 AM,
alex said…
Yeah, I also don't entirely agree with either definition, although Crawford's seems to be the most useful, as it helps to pick apart what aspects of a supposedly "interactive" situation works, and which part is perhaps failing... maybe we can come up with a better definition in class? :)
Post a Comment
<< Home