nettime on Mon, 6 Apr 1998 04:31:19 +0200 (MET DST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> Interactivity: Hopkins, Stalder |
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 16:32:42 +0200 From: John Hopkins <hopkins@iex.net> Subject: Re: <nettime> Interactivity: a praise of clocks >your argument about clocks is compelling, but only goes so far, i >think. if the only definition of _interactive_ is that we do something >to it to make it work, then a pair of scissors is interactive. a >shoelace is interactive. a toilet is interactive. > >in order to be a useful term at all, we need a much more refined >definition of the word. here's my proposal: the measure of ..snip... I might propose a more extended definition, or principle, that states that generally the material and intellectual world is interactive. We use our physical powers to remap given material systems and our psychic energies to remap intellectual systems -- a mineral, then, with a rich concentration of silver sulphide, is interactive when we reconstitute its given system of molecular concentration into a new system; a given language is remapped from a discrete shared system of interactive communication learned individually and collectively into poetics. Other levels of interactivity relate to different mappings of input (given) system and output ("created" system, although this term is misleading as the new systems are reconstitutions NOT creations in the sense of springing from the VOID). Is it possible to construct a simple system of understanding of interactivity that would include principles of how we interact with the entire material world around us? And can these principles be *mapped upwards* to include the more abstract systems of language (which includes most computing systems, right?)? As this question implies there seems to be some fundamental difference between material interactivity and interactivity within *logical* or *linguistic* types of abstract systems... A computer, of course, involves both physical and logical systems, but the physically interactive segment is minor (I think most of us would agree that the technological development of physical interface design has lagged behind the development of the language and abstract systems that drive the machine...)... A second question might be what are the limits of interactivity of a language-based system? Spoken languages represent a complex, multifaceted, and illogical system of communications mediation in opposition to the rather rigid *linguistics* of a typical computer language... Conditional arguments which are fed environmental(ly variable) information appear to be the most highly interactive elements of a computing system, but these rely totally on the analogue randomness of the surroundings (including the human element...), or NOT the computing system itself except as logically mapped within the computer... >the difference between these and, say, digital technology is that in >creating languages, operating systems, websites links, etc. one is >continually altering the system itself, not just what the system says. Interactivity might lie not in what is the outcome of our play with a system (whether material or otherwise), but more with how (the means by which) we proceed in the apparently creative act. Cheers John ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ John Hopkins, Tech-no-mad artist and educator back on the road in Kiel, Germany at the Muthesius Hochschule FORUM the travelog at http://members.iex.net/~hopkins/travel/recent.html email: <hopkins@iex.net> web address: http://members.iex.net/~hopkins/ CONTACT INFO: (messages only through 9 April 98) c/o Hubertus von Amelunxen Muthesius Hochschule FORUM -- Kiel, Germany Tel: 49 (0) 431 519.84.03 Fx: 49 (0) 431 519.84.08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 13:25:38 -0400 From: Felix Stalder <stalder@fis.utoronto.ca> Subject: Re: <nettime> Interactivity: a praise of clocks Alan Myouka Sondheim wrote: >The type of interaction you are discussion is more a WYSIWYG or GIGO, >garbage-in/garbage-out phenmenon. We are used to machines, but we are not >used to thinking of the worlding that occurs within and without them - >with their re/constitution of the subject (Kittler, Ronell, etc.). Think of an elevator. The most banal and reduced model of interactivity. Nevertheless the re/constitution of the subject and its surrounding object world is there. The elevator constituted the elevator boy, it introduced the fear of being trapped or falling down and creates every day the embarrassment of not knowing what to look at because you want to avoid eye contact with your fellow travelers. Without elevator, no high rise, without high rise no Manhattan skyline etc. You can go even further. There is no need for interactivity to reconstitute the subject. As it has been argued (by British historians like Eric Hobsbawn and E.P. Thompson), the clock was the single most important machine of the industrial revolution, because it was necessary to constitute the working class, wages by the hour, punctuality in the work place, in general the transition to an abstract time (as opposed to the concrete, seasonal time of the pesant). New technologies, because they are new, make the reconstitution visible. However, the fact that they do so is nothing special. There is some truth in 'the medium is the message', not just for television but for all media. A. Cinque Hicks wrote: >in order to be a useful term at all, we need a much more refined >definition of the word. here's my proposal: the measure of >interactivity is not merely the ability to influence the performance of >something, but to actually *alter the system of operation itself*. when >you step into an elevator, it has a single function that you cannot >control. you can give it very limited instructions on how to perform >its function, but you cannot tell it what function to perform. the >dialog here is extremely limited. the same is true of a radio or a car. >the difference between these and, say, digital technology is that in >creating languages, operating systems, websites links, etc. one is >continually altering the system itself, not just what the system says. > As a user, how do you alter the system of operation of a cd-rom, or a web page? There is a fundamental difference between interacting with technology (car, cd-rom, computer-game, TV) and interacting through technology (telephone, e-mail). In the first type of interaction, you choose from a more or less refined set of options, which are predetermined. In the more refined versions, there are predetermined ways to change the options you have. The latter technologies 'simply' extend normal human interaction across time and space. Here the interactive aspect is among human beings, rather than between humans and technology. >finally, i don't think that we have to think of interactivity as a _yes >or no_ proposition. There can be gradations of interactivity with some >things being more or less interactive than other things, or some >artifacts being interactive in some contexts but not in others (a >telephone for example). There are definitely more or less interactive devices. In some cases, say the elevator, the interaction is extremely limited -- up or down -- in other cases it is more sophisticated. The point, however, is that ALL machinery has SOME degree of interactivity, with the single exception of clocks. Felix -----|||||---||||----|||||--------||||---- Les faits sont faits. http://www.fis.utoronto.ca/~stalder --- # distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@desk.nl and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner@desk.nl