Going back to interactivity, it can be the experience of the dynamics/forces between the participant as represented generally in form of the mouse/cursor and the media elements on screen. The cursor, a representation of the mouse controlled by the participant/user in a 2D space, provides a visual feedback of the position in that particular 2D space, which is often called the Stage in most authoring software. Remember the book Computer as Theatre by Brenda Laurel.
Image from Barnes & Noble
Interaction is a form of theatrical enactment among the participating audience and the characters on stage. In this case, interactivity is more than a form of conversational dialog between the users and the system through the interface. And certainly it is not just a metaphor of any existing interaction models in real world. The interaction is a performative act. The interface is never transparent. Any forms of interactivity will never be intuitive. It takes practices to acquire the skills. This course of practice can either be playful or painful depending on the design and context. The indulgence with the interface can be an end in itself. It may not be a form of navigation that leads you to some areas of content. It is a game.
Remember the group Antirom in London in the 1990s. Its founding statement is still an inspiring reading in the post dot.com era.
Image from antirom.com
It may be a bit nostalgic to go back to the 1990s. The proliferation of many playful Flash/Processing sites highlight a number of those interaction as content approach experimentations.
Nature is another point we often go back to for generative art. Fractals, aLife and genetic algorithm are topics in the nature of code class. Participants in those works can either be a passive observer, a collaborative or competing agent in the ecology or the god who determines parameters of the rules. It is simulation. It is a what-if game.
How do I interact? It is one of the most frequently asked questions by audience in new media art. If I code, I am making a piece of software. Software has a cultural convention of the interaction it provides or affords. It is often functions or information driven. Interactive art, on the other hand, in itself, does not give any clues for interactivity, unless we put it in a context, like contemporary art display, gaming environment, etc. We may need to consider the context where the piece of work situates before we anticipate or design any interactions. And very often, the actual interactions we can observe turn out differ significantly from the design. It may not be a design issue as long as we are aware that participants can make active use/appropriation of the work according to the actual context. Social factors are important. It will more likely that the work will create a communicative situation/context where participants start off their interactions than directly engage the participants into the interaction it is programmed.
Rather than addressing digital interactive art, there are a number of books discussing interaction and particiaption in art in general.
Relational Aesthetics
Nicolas Bourriaud
Contemporary Art from Studio to Situation
edited by Claire Doherty
Image from Amazon.com
Let me stop here for a moment and continue in the near future.