David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Aesthetic Education 43 (4):pp. 53-73 (2009)
I argue that the term "interactive" should be considered a general-purpose term that indicates something about whatever it is applied to, whether that is art, artifact, or nature. I base my definition in the notion of "interacting with" something. First, I look for essential features of this relation, and then using these features, I develop a notion of interactivity that can help distinguish the interactive from non-interactive arts. Although I am skeptical of the benefits interactivity affords, interactive artworks are significant in that they are the first instances of mass art to be truly "concreative." Prior to building a definition of interactivity, I provide a novel reading of Collingwood in order to revive his notion of "concreativity" for contemporary application. In order to develop my theory of interactivity as mutual responsiveness, I analyze four problematic definitions of interactivity: (1) the control theory, (2) the making use theory, (3) the input/output theory, (4) Dominic McIver Lopes' modifiable structure theory, and (5) Janet Murray's procedural/participatory theory. In each case, I reveal a problem that my final notion solves. After presenting a definition of interactivity, I defend the viability of my theory against skeptical remarks that interactivity is a useless concept. To highlight the significance of my analysis, I analyze an argument against the value of concreative art—that interactivity is incompatible with narrative immersion.
|Keywords||interactivity video games videogames concreative|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Robert Francis John Seddon (2013). Getting 'Virtual' Wrongs Right. Ethics and Information Technology 15 (1):1-11.
Dominic Preston (2014). Some Ontology of Interactive Art. Philosophy and Technology 27 (2):267-278.
Grant Tavinor (2010). Videogames and Aesthetics. Philosophy Compass 5 (8):624-634.
Similar books and articles
Aaron Smuts (2005). Are Video Games Art? Contemporary Aesthetics 2.
Edwin Alexander (1980). Metabolic Interactivity. Philosophy and Social Criticism 7 (1):72-97.
Gulnara Z. Karimova (2011). Can Level of Interactivity Be Measured? Empedocles: European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication 2 (2):291-304.
David Z. Saltz (1997). The Art of Interaction: Interactivity, Performativity, and Computers. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 55 (2):117-127.
Martin Kuhn (2007). Interactivity and Prioritizing the Human: A Code of Blogging Ethics. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 22 (1):18 – 36.
Aaron Smuts (2003). Film Theory Meets Video Games: An Analysis of the Issues and Methodologies in 'ScreenPlay'. [REVIEW] Film-Philosophy 7 (54).
Grant Tavinor (2009). The Art of Videogames. Wiley-Blackwell.
P. -L. Curien (2003). Symmetry and Interactivity in Programming. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 9 (2):169-180.
Aaron Smuts & Jonathan Frome (2004). Helpless Spectators: Suspense in Videogames and Film. Text Technology 1 (1):13-34.
Aaron Smuts (2005). Video Games and the Philosophy of Art. American Society for Aesthetics Newsletter.
Added to index2009-07-20
Total downloads142 ( #29,536 of 1,940,983 )
Recent downloads (6 months)25 ( #20,907 of 1,940,983 )
How can I increase my downloads?