At Goldsmiths I became interested in what makes "good" interactive art. Partly because I was so disappointed by the art works I saw in galleries.
(Later I was to exhibit equally bad and disappointing failures of interactive art. It's hard to get right.)
Catharsis (Rhythm) - The work should have a temporal dimension, come to a climax. (See also BrendaLaurel, ComputersAsTheatre
Inner life (Already moving) - The work should have its own internal dynamic, rather than wait for the viewer / user to push it around in order to see anything working. The user is thrown into interaction with it. (See also Gbloink!)
- Promise of movement should correspond to actual movement. Don't show lots of things that look as though they can be interacted with but can't be.
- Input effort should correspond to complexity of output. - Or, at least, the work should exhibit a multiplier effect. Works that do little but seem thrown together as an effortless sketch can be beautiful. Works which seem like they were a "faff" to produce but don't do much feel like great failures.(I wonder is there's an HonestMaterials aspect to this?)
Historic forward motion - it should feel as though it's making progress somehow. Advancing the direction of development or revisiting to rethink existing moments in art history. Shouldn't just be A.N.Other use of a current technology. (See also RootsAndFuture)
Contextual appropriateness - fits with the other works in the gallery.
WabiSabi - shows imperfections and the passing of time.
See also :
- I wonder how the interactive of the NewAesthetic fares compared to this?