How does response act as a medium?
Myron Krueger’s text is key in illustrating how response can act as a medium, particularly by focusing on what he calls responsive environments, which “perceive human behavior and respond with intelligent auditory and visual feedback” (423). By detailing the motivations, technicalities, and deliberate decisions behind installations/responsive environments such as METAPLAY, PSYCHIC SPACE, and other of his famous pieces, Krueger points out how response is the medium. In an environment where the interaction between humans and the environment is the most important component, visual and auditory aesthetics are of secondary importance. Instead, crafting an experience that successfully responds to users actions (or lack of it) and making the response evident to them is key, and is the main factor that establishes response as a medium.
Reading this in 2020, and being fully aware that Krueger’s text was published in the 70s makes me wonder how much this notion has changed, particularly when areas like interactive media arts, integrated digital media, and creative technology are more consolidated than before. Now, there is no question that response is the medium, but the aesthetics and quality of that same response (the visuals, audio, animations, etc.) have now arguably become almost as important as the interaction itself. Now that we have surpassed the age where people get instantly awed and amazed at the existence of technology like VR, projection mapping, etc. it feels like new, relevant yet modern forms of output need to continuously be developed.