Both Crawford and Victor brought up the importance of human’s input, process and output in any interactivity. I agree with their argument and will define interaction myself as two individuals (or one individual and an object) responding to each other.
Reading Crawford’s categorization on what non-interactive activities are such as dancing to music and watching a movie allowed me to re-think what art work I have considered as interactive.
I saw Hito Steyerl’s video installation Factory of the Sun at the Whitney Biennale last year where she utilized darkness, blue perspective grid light and large video projection on a tilted screen to create an immersive cinema.
Audience would sit on the chairs placed in front of the screen to view the video. The act of the audience entering the room and then sit down is “participation” while the audience’s feelings generated by the visuals are their “reaction”. I would’ve still describe Factory of the Sun “interactive” if I did not I come across Crawford’s idea! Steyerl’s work is without a doubt immersive; however, interactive can be immersive while immersive is participative instead of interactive.
Art that is interactive will be Random International’s Rain Room. Audience are able to walk through the installation of falling rain without getting wet because the rain was instructed not to contact human’s body. It is an interaction between human and technology.