The piece “The Myth of Interactivity,” does its best at addressing some of the aspects of the misconceptions of Interactivity. Although it is fairly simple to specify the different interactive structures used in new media objects, it is significantly more difficult to address them theoretically with users’ experiences of these structures. One of the first misconceptions I found to be quite interesting was the falsification of the literal meaning of the term, Interactivity. I can admit that I use to equate the term “interactivity” as the physical interaction between a user and a media object in relation to computer-based media. However, due to modern media and art, techniques such as “ellipses,” which are missing details of objects in visual art according to literary narration, and other representational “shortcuts” which require the user to fill in missing information, a new cognitive and physical demand has been incorporated into the viewers response.
Essentially, to break it down into simpler terms, the basis of interactive media falls under the very principle of 'hyperlinking.' Hyperlinking ultimately objectifies the process of association, often taken to be central to human thinking where according to Len Manovich's Language of New Media,
"mental processes of reflection, problem solving, recall, and association are externalized, equated with following a link, moving to a new page, choosing a new image, or a new scene."Which means that this broadly used term enables people to generate their own unique methods of finding information. Similarly, with the use of hyperlinks, users have the ability to dig deeper within the original message provided, where they can find out more information on a certain subject by following numerous steps that will ultimately supply them with the material they were looking for.
Interactivity is a process that has contrived through new media process and techniques and enables the users to create a relationship between themselves and the information they are acquiring. In my opinion, I would have to agree and say that although the term is loosely thrown around, interactivity is 'meaningless' because in reality, it's just reiterating the most obvious and basic fact about computers
What do you think about Interactivity? Do you think we should refrain from using the term in order to be what Manovich considers as, "politically correct"?
Sydney-
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis on such a complex reading! Manovich brings up some interesting points, some of which are controversial. Let's start with the preconceived notions of interactivity. In theory, interactivity should enable people to generate their own unique methods of finding information. Do hyperlinks fall under this category? When used correctly, yes. But when we jump from site to site, are we really creating unique paths of internet navigation? Is it purely coincidence that we click on the link to "free ACT classes" next to our facebook pages? I think not. Perhaps this is a good example: websites like facebook rack up money through ad space by posting advertisements that cater to facebook users. Facebook can link to our profiles, our info, and our interests, then generate a list of advertisements on the right sides of our screens that pertain directly to our age groups and genders. I can't tell you how many times I have had ads for StudyAbroads and Planned Parenting (apparently Facebook isn't so sure if I beat teen pregnancy). But back to the main point: all of the clicks we make are predetermined by the sites that posted them. Oftentimes, "interactive sites" lead internet users to believe that they are reinventing the webpages, creating unique transgressions from site to site. In reality, the links are predetermined, and the position and placement of the hyperlinks are configured to be accessed by your mouse-clicks. Interactivity can be likened to the "Choose your own ending" books you read as a kid. "To find out what happens next, go to page 90, or go back to page 4." The books set up the illusion that the reader generates his/her own personal conclusion by following a "unique" succession of page jumps to get to the final ending. But somewhere out there, the nerdy kid that eats alone and studies during recess reads the entire book, and discovers that each set of narratives and alternative endings are, in fact, predetermined. Perhaps that nerdy kid was on to something after all. End of the story: Don't be fooled by internet interactivity.
Sydney,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sheena that this was a great, focused post on a reading that may have been a bit more confusing than usual. I think that Sheena brings up some really interesting points in her comment that I’d like to respond to. The Internet, particularly websites like Facebook, has become a business in the sense that websites make a lot of money targeting our interests in advertisements. What we think are hyperlinks and “random” advertisements are, in fact, purposely put there to draw our attention. And a lot of times, it works. I actually found my apartment last year because of a Facebook advertisement on the side of my Facebook page. Knowing this, however, makes me leery of “unique” Internet navigation. I agree with Sheena that Facebook advertisements are no coincidence. This so-called “interactivity” really doesn’t allow a person to “generate their own unique methods of finding information.” These hyperlinks and tools for navigation may allow us to find more information and to further delve into a certain topic on a website, but they are set up purposely to sort of limit the information that we can view. Although interactivity and hyperlinks are beneficial, I think it’s important to use a wide range of websites when looking up information about a certain topic to guarantee that the predetermined interactivity doesn’t lessen the amount of information we are actually given to read.