Wind of Change in the Interactive Art Category of Prix Ars Electronica

Definitions and classifications are troublesome. When they are needed for an institution that takes hundreds, if not thousands, of applications from all around the world to participate in one of the most respected competitions in the field, the pressure becomes inevitable. If the field itself is relatively new and developing fast, the need to redefine and remake the classifications may be needed every once in a while. In the article “Trouble at the Interface”, Erkki Huhtamo criticises the Ars Electronica Festival Committee for giving the Golden Nica in Interactive Art category to Ben Rubin and Mark Hansen’s artwork Listening Post in relation to this wind of change in the classification of Interactive Art.

Huhtamo doesn’t criticise the artwork itself but the classification that was made by the jury. This can be seen clearly in the text: “It is certainly a work that deserved a prize, but did it deserve it in the Interactive Art category?”. The interactivity of the artwork is questioned, especially compared to earlier artworks in the field. In many parts of the text, the writer’s negative opinion on the subject can be found with the words like: “This being the situation, it is quite legitimate to ask: where is the interactivity? In which sense can this work be classified as interactive art?”. When they are concluded, Huhtamo finds his definition of interactive art “Old School” and points out the change in the definition of “Interactive Art” category in Prix Ars Electronica competition.

This redefinition of the term “Interactive Art” can be seen clearly in the jury statement. What Huhtamo describes as “Old School” is explained further in the statement as “If maturation is the right metaphor, the first nine years from the initiation of the category could be considered a period of early growth and development.“ \cite{Stocker2004-zf} .In the new approach, the jury states the “broader definition of interactivity”. in three criteria; “(1) Mediation by computer is not a requirement. (2) Constraints of ‘real-time’ and directness of interaction should be relaxed; and (3) We were prepared to allow passive interaction.” \cite{Stocker2004-zf} Huhtamo evaluates the artwork considering these three criteria but the conclusion fails to convince oneself. Putting all these together and adding the retrospective festival theme “TIME-SHIFT”, it is obvious that the Festival wanted to put the concept of “change” in the heart of the festival in 2004. From this point of view, Huhtamo’s article can be criticised as having a bit of a conservative tone. But it can not be seen as inaccurate. While change is inevitable, in this situation it can be said that it was a bit pushed.

This artificial pressure can be seen in other artworks that won the Golden Nica in the Interactive Art category in the beginning of 2000’s. Also one year later, again in the jury statement, the jury clearly states this process as “Every year the jury for Interactive Art articulates a definition of ‘interactivity’… “ \cite{Leopoldseder2003-ho} with a reference to the previous one that was mentioned in Huhtamo’s text: “see Interactive Art Jury Statement 2004 for a description of this process”\cite{Leopoldseder2003-ho} . Then the jury mentions “… the main trend of this year’s submissions falls into the category of locative media… ”\cite{Leopoldseder2003-ho} as a justification to the Golden Nica winner of the year MILKProject by RIXC which could easily be the centre of Huhtamo’s criticism as much as Listening Post.

Whether following a conservative approach or creating an artificial pressure on a group of people to broaden the definition of Interactive Art, one thing is clear that giving the responsibility to an institution or a jury will never yield a result that will satisfy everyone. From that perspective, increasing the number of organisations and events that will help all sorts of Interactive Art works to have an exposure plays a crucial role in the development of the field. This way it will be prevented for people to shape their artworks considering the criteria of a few institutions and give way to more creative freedom.