Hiho,
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.
Expressive is yet another dimension. Expressivity can be reached both by
reactive and interactive systems.
sincerely,
Marije
PS, yeah, I subscribed to the list now too :)
Received on Thu Sep 21 2006 - 19:36:11 BST