>Hiho,
>sincerely,
>Marije
>PS, yeah, I subscribed to the list now too :)
welcome!
>On Thursday 21 September 2006 17:41, Julian Rohrhuber wrote:
>> At 16:50 Uhr +0200 21.09.2006, Kassen wrote:
>> >Absolutely. "interactive" is a terrible word, I fully agree there
>> >and Eno seems to agree with both of us. "unfinished" doesn't quite
>> >seem to cover what is generally meant either. More often "adaptable"
>> >might be meant? For digital instruments the best you can hope for is
>> >perhaps "expressive". The aim as I see it often isn't "interaction"
>> >at all and instead it's "expression". The instrument isn't supposed
>> >to stand opposite to or beside the musician but ideally extend him.
>>
>> just for curiosity (I think understand the weird feeling you have with it):
>> why do you think interactivity is a terrible word? Because of its
>> meaning or its (mis-?)use? Would you say that interactive is the
>> opposite of expressive, even?
>
>Interactive is unfortunately most often used in the meaning of reactive: I
>push a button and the machine does this. A fixed mapping, which can be
>effective and useful, but is not interactive.
>Interactive would be that the machine may have a different response depending
>on the situation, past and so on.
So we might consider it a misuse: inter- in the sense of several
flowers in the same pot (old french: enterrer: buried into the
earth). This would make the internet something like a family grave
for posthumans.
But yes: looking up the word "interact": act reciprocally, mutually.
In the sense of borrowing of each other, creating something common to
the participants.
>Expressive is yet another dimension. Expressivity can be reached both by
>reactive and interactive systems.
I was being a bit ironic about a kind of instrument that is only
interactive for the sake of making you express yourself to someone
else. But well, no problem with this..
--
.
Received on Sat Sep 23 2006 - 17:57:29 BST