Field Report #2

Where’s Waldo? is not considered high art. It is a guy, with questionable fashion sense, hiding in absurd locations swarmed with mobs of people with equally if not even worse fashion sense. As ridiculous as it is, I can’t think of a more interactive 2-D work of art. First, it’s very name is asking something of the viewer. A basic task invites you into the work. Once there however, you immediately realize it will not be easy, as every square inch is covered in activity. So you get closer, lean into the drawing, nose almost touching. He has to be here somewhere You think to yourself. Then a flash of red and white stripes catches your eyes. “Ha! There’s Wal--oh?!?!” You squint closer. It is a girl wearing Waldo’s outfit. “NO! You tricked me, GAR!” You bellow. You’ll pay for that, Waldo, you think to yourself, now even more determined to find him. You think it’s your choice, but really it is only pulling you deeper. You are touching the paper now, tracing out the people, the shapes, the colors. You begin to formulate strategies. I’ll look for the color red But wait Maybe I should search in small sections? As you continue to look you begin to notice the visual jokes hidden inside. You realize that there is much more to find than just Waldo. Before you know it you’ve spent an hour, only inches away, completely engrossed in one work of art. Whether you do or do not find Waldo is entirely dependent on the actions you, as the viewer, take. These actions, this activity over passivity, is what George Fifield uses to define interactivity, “With non-interactive art we are, with interactive art we do.” It was with this quote in mind that visited the Milwaukee Art Museum’s Act/React show.
I found Camille Utterback’s pieces the most immediately striking. First, they were the most aesthetically pleasing to me. They have an organic feel to them. External Measures 2003 in particular felt alive, like vines growing across an old brick wall. The way they moved and crept along produced a sense of it’s own time and lulled me into a near meditative state. But it stood out more than just being one of my favorites. In the other pieces the pleasure came with directly interacting with them and they were encouraging to explore the functions behind the art. But for External Measures 2003 I found that my presence felt like a disturbance. I want to be clear here. I am not trying to negate its interactivity or insinuate that this piece repels interactivity. My point is that with this piece I was content to watch it interact with itself. I didn’t find pleasure in disturbing it rather if found pleasure in watching it recover from my disturbance. This leads to a lot of questions though, the first being, why? For all the other pieces I felt compelled to push their limits. Actually, I felt most of them demanded it, like their interactivity is boundary dependent, prompting the viewer to approach the work with a ‘what if’ attitude. They are approached by the desire to find the boundaries of its causes and effects. So what was it that made External Measures 2003 feel like an exception? To be honest, I haven’t figured that out yet. It wasn’t because it provided negative feedback, my interaction was rewarded positively. Maybe it was because the reward was in the effect and had nothing to do with my ability to create it. The other pieces had a sense of ownership. This is my section of space, that is my cartwheel in that square, I blocked out more blobs than anyone else. These all have elements that can in some way be conquered. But External Measures 2003 erases my marks. I never felt like I owned it, it was more like it acknowledged my presence and then incorporated it into its own algorithmic destiny. I think it must be questioned then what effect this difference has on it’s interactivity. Does it make it less interactive? If so then is a feeling of ownership directly proportional to the interactivity? How, if at all, does more viewer ownership compromise the artist? Does this difference increase the interactivity? These are all questions that I am still working through, but I have a feeling these are questions that this young medium itself is still working through. At this point though, I feel like it is more interactive. I think the future of interactive art won’t rely on testing limits but will rely on a deeper incorporation of the viewers actions. Perhaps one day the viewer will be able to directly influence the algorithm itself, changing the entire dynamic of the work.