Thursday, February 14, 2008


First off, I would like to speak about Pold's article "Interface Realisms: The Interface as Aesthetic Form" and why I believe Pold's concept of interactivity is is not what it should be. The example used was of the game Max Payne. Because the plot was so linear and did not allow for diversions, Pold believes that this does not constitute interactivity. This is not the case. I think that the game should be viewed more as a puzzle. With any video game, one must make a large number of decisions in order to reach the end goal. By making a choices in the game, the player will either fail or succeed, and sometimes diversions from what one should actually do can still result in a success. This is also true with a puzzle. If the puzzle is not solved correctly, one will fail. So, could one make the assumption that, if a game like Max Payne is not interactive, than a puzzle is not interactive as well? I do not believe this is true. Video games can often stimulate the player's mind whether the goals follow a linear path or allow the player to do whatever he or she wishes. Am I wrong to believe that this is what interactivity is?

Second, I am very curious to understand the "transparent" interface. Pold explained in the article that users want to skip the interface and move directly to the action. My question is how one would do so. Are there any examples of this already?

Last of all, I would like to express my opinion on the concept of code and whether or not the programmer is the artist rather than the user of the program. By saying that someone using a program such as PhotoShop or Logic is actually not the true creator of the work would be similar to saying that someone composing a piece of music on a violin is not the creator. The craftsman of the violin intends the object to be used to create music, and the credit is given to the user. The same is true for artists that work with scrap metal or even paint. The manufacturers should not take credit for the means by which the artist works. Therefore, I believe by building a program to be used by the public, one is offering a medium to be used by everyone for their own works, and therefore should not be entirely credited for the piece. Granted, I do believe it is the artist's responsibility to note how their piece was created. Hopefully by saying this, I am not contradicting myself.

Though the other articles were very interesting and important, I felt most strongly about these issues.

No comments: