I've been lurking here for a while, but I've got to interject a few
comments here ... The idea of interactivity has been explored in other
areas as well - A growing theatrical trend is a form called
"environmental theater". In environmental theater, the production
attempts to include the audience in the stage action. Although this
isn't nearly as audience dependant as IF, I think some of the ideas
behind environmental theater run along the same lines.
The setup is like this: There is no seating area (performances
typically take place in large halls or outside (this is lots of fun).
Audience members are allowed to walk in and around the stage
environment (often picking up props, or talking to actors). This
means that scripts written for env. theater are often _very_ open
ended. But, it can be done to a limited degree with any script. I
was in an env. production of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" my soph. year
at Ball State, and it worked surprisingly well. Much of this was
probably due to the fact that we had a rather well behaved audience,
but I have to admit, it was a great experience.
Now...back to the point! The idea behind env. theater is that your
point is communicated more clearly when the communication is
_interactive_ rather then _didactive_ (sp?). This also echoes modern
education theories. People who take part in the learning process
learn more than people who are passive receptors (if you want, I can
quote you some sources).
I think this all relates to IF as a very valid means of communication.
Now, is it an art form? That depends on what your def. of art is.
I've always liked to look at art in the traditional greek sense of the
word...The word Art originally stood for _anything_ made by human
hands. A pot was art as much as a sculpture, as long as effort and
skill was put into the making of it.
Of course, my def. of art is still a little more narrow than that:
For me Art must communicate some kind of idea of import to its
creator. So my test of whether or not something could be art would be
a two-part one: (1) It must take skill to create, (2) It must
communicate some important idea.
I think IF fulfills both of these criteria. Note, however, that IF
doesn't have to pass both of these tests to be _entertaining_. That's
a whole different set of criteria altogether.
>>: Does the form of the piece make it
>>: interesting for some reason --- for example, did conceiving such a form
>>: alone require great thought? Does studying the work over a long perios of
>>: time still yield new insights into its form?
>>
>> These are questions which, when asked about much IF, will almost
>>ceratinly be answered 'no,' unless you consider 'studying the work over a
>>long period of time' the process of puzzle-solving, which I don't think
>>is study.
>
> I certainly agree, and I think that IF's puzzle heritage is for the most
> part an obstacle to further progress.
Good call, but does an "art experience" (for lack of a better term)
have to be long lasting to be truly art? I know some first class
chefs and improv musicians who would be flabbergasted at this. Many
consider improv performance to be a very deep art, and many also don't
agree that its quality is defined by the ability to repeat the
experience. (I know several great jazz players who refuse to listen
to recordings of their work).
> Dave Baggett
> __
> dmb@ai.mit.edu
> "Mr. Price: Please don't try to make things nice! The wrong notes are *right*."
> --- Charles Ives (note to copyist on the autograph score of The Fourth of July)
--Chris Malone (00ctmalone@bsu.edu) "Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?" "Dave?"