The same conjecture holds up if one examines the issue from a different framework of interactivity. While Bucy emphasizes the user in his conception of interactivity (and while Sufferosa’s interactivity is characterized by the viewser’s decisions and navigation), Timothy Barker proposes that objects themselves are capable of interaction as well. In “Objects and Interactivity,” Barker urges that objects have agentive influence and that interaction is determined equally by “human and nonhuman processes” (Barker, 68 and 76). The auratic quality of interactive art remains stable through Barker’s lens as well. For example Shu-Lea Chang’s “Milk” operates on the basis of object-oriented interactivity rather then generating a one of a kind ephemeral experience due to the audience’s interaction. |
“Milk's” aesthetic components originate from the “porn”-tag on the web. Certainly, a person, rather than an object, dictates which information gets produced, posted, and tagged on the web, but “Milk's” interactivity does not hinge on the human layer of interaction, only on the program’s interaction with the web to pull the images that comprise the piece.
The result, however, is no less one that contains the aura–each viewing of “Milk”will result in a new object. The computer program pulls images randomly, and as new videos and images fluctuate losing or gaining popularity on the web, no changes as well. This means that “Milk” possesses it’s on here and now – – the object in question can only be viewed once, ephemerally. The piece may be recorded, but the recording does not possess the interactivity of the program integrating feedback from the web and thus loses its aura. |