Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Manovich's Truth in Interactivity

In Len Manovich's book "The Myth of Interactivity", he states that in interactive media, "the user can choose which elements to display or which paths to follow, thus generating a unique work" (55). Examples of such interactivity are displayed through websites like Subservient Chicken and Moodstream. The former is a website with a man dressed as a chicken on a video screen. Under the video, there is room for the website viewer to type in a command, that the chicken will follow. For example, if you type jump, he will jump, and if you type sit, he will sit. This is a very interactive site, as the chicken follows personal demands, making it a unique experience for the viewer, one in which she/he can see only what he/she wants to see. Moodstream is very similar in that it creates a unique experience through sound and image. You control dials and buttons to tell the site what your mood is like, and it plays music and shows images that follow the tone you described.
Manovich also states that "once an object is represented in a computer, it automatically becomes interactive" (55). As I have been calling various websites and links online interactive, this quote really made me think. Is this really true? Do things automatically become interactive once represented in a computer? At first I thought sure, there are less interactive websites that others, but does that mean there are none that are't interactive at all? I need some help in this because my instincts tell me there must be non-interactive websites, but I can't even think of one. Any thoughts?
Lastly, the first thing I thought of after reading Manovich's article is the popular iphone/ipad application the Talking TomCat. This is because the Talking Tomcat application is the most interactive thing I can think of. It allows users to do whatever they want with the cat, and get it to say whatever they want. It's quite fun too! If you don't know what it is, here's a good explanation...

2 comments:

  1. Sophie,
    After reading your post, I too wondered: is something automatically interactive if it's in a computer? I spent a few minutes trying to think of something I do on the computer that doesn't require interactivity but I simply could not. When I turn on my computer, the first thing that it asks me to do is type in my password, this is interactive. Next, it brings me to my homepage, where I have the option to open up a web browser, go on ichat or maybe do school work on Microsoft Word. This too requires me to be interactive, because I am the one who holds the power, it's my choice which program to open, and once I open that program, I have the option to do whatever I want within it. I think the difference between a program like Microsoft Word and the Subservient Chicken is that when you're telling the chicken what you want it to do you know you are being interactive, however, when you're typing and formatting a document on Word, you are also telling the program what to do, just not in as obvious of a way. The reason computers are so interactive, is that there are an uncountable amount of choices the user can make. It's simply impossible for the user to run out of options, which I think makes a computer a fully interactive device.

    ReplyDelete
  2. After looking at interactive examples, what came to mind when I saw Subservient chicken was it reminded me of the website where you can click a word and the computer will read it back to you in any form you want. I do not remember the exact sight but it was definitely a chance for a person to choose exactly what they want from a website. Also after look at Waking up Hannah it was showing how the audience can make hannah do something by the click of a button. This reminded me of some online games as well. Whether it is iscketch where you physically take the pencil and draw an image or whether it's the sims where you create a lifestyle for a family, these internet provided games let the viewer tell the computer what to do. I think reading an online article or reading comments on Facebook and commenting, I still would have feelings of interaction. So I agree with Tyler that these other forms of interaction let us choose what we want in a less obvious way. As to your question about a website that is not interactive, I too cannot think of anything off the top of my head. Since this seems to be the case, Manovich might be right when saying, "once an object is represented in a computer, it automatically becomes interactive."

    ReplyDelete