In the Ship of Theseus paradox, Plutarch describes a ship preserved by the Athenians for hundreds of years by the continuous replacement of any decaying part with a newer, stronger timber. The end effect being a ship that was composed of none of it’s original parts – leaving the question as to whether it is still the same ship. This paradox has many variants including the “grandfather’s axe” that has been through three handles and two heads, and has been a critical philosophical debate for all things that grow and change.

In interactive media-based works we find the capacity for such growth, as well as the paradox that results from it. All components may be replaced, both physical and conceptual, in an iterative way, that still leaves the core concept of the experience unchanged (even as the experience itself, is never unchanged). The intersection of impermanence and interactivity has a lengthy history, including Roy Ascott’s Change Paintings (1959-61)[1], exploring the philosophies or impermanence presented by Henri Bergson through participant interchangeable, painted plexiglass tiles. Most works, however, do not concern themselves with this core of interactivity, but are merely built upon it. This paper will try to identify and categorize the variant components and isolate abstracted core aspects defining an interactive piece with support from a personal interview with the artist Paul Sermon. Here, I will focus primarily on technologically based, installation and non-performative artworks[2], but believe that these concepts extend to those outside of this scope as well.

1. Iterativity

The design of interactive works is one of an attempted choreography for unknown participants. Any time a new work is created, this public direction is assumed based on prior experience. As stated in The Aesthetics of Interaction in Digital Art[3], “Most interactive projects are developed in an iterative process in which the artist tests the possibilities for interaction he has envisaged in order to verify them and perhaps modify them.” But, beyond just this ability to iterate each new piece, interactive works may do this within a singular title. With each subsequent installation, the artist can learn from the prior public response, and incorporate new ideas into the design for a future showing. In addition, if a work continues to be shown as technology advances, the new technology can be incorporated to improve the quality of the experience which can subtly shift the interaction. Additionally, these new technologies can incorporate wholly new possibilities. Software, meanwhile can be rewritten, no matter the change of hardware, and for some such pieces the software is primary and simply paired with a standard set of hardware options (i.e. those with manipulation of live participant video). The typical artistic iterative approach uses the incorporation of the new into successive works. In other mediums, such as painting or sculpture, the incremental learning appears only as time-linear body of productions. The inclusion of interactivity means that there is no need to vary only into future works, but may fully redesign within the scope of the prior as well. If one views the work as it’s physical existence, then the concept of what comprises it falls apart in this way. If one instead views the work as a kind of script, then there is no issue. In our conversation, Paul Sermon states

“The work, it kind of exists in a sense, but it’s not like it’s a project that exists. (…) It’s not as if I have the hardware and send it off to the gallery and say, ‘here’s the hardware for this installation’. It’s really a kind of a script or I like it to kind of a musical score. When you play a classical piece of music, you can have the orchestra of course, but the important thing is you have to have the music to play, and the venue and the instruments changed and adapted (…) but the score is still the thing that is the concept (…) and it is the concept that I provide to an exhibitor.” (P. Sermon, personal communication, 29. June 2021)[4]

2. Component Isolation and Variances

What are the general components that make a typical installation? Already identified have been the hardware and the software. The participants themselves should also be included, as they are critical to any interaction. Not yet mentioned are the location based aspects which usually will be different with every showing. These shall be analyzed to demonstrate possible avenues for change, both through artistic intent and outside factors.

When considering an interactive installation, the ambient is generally critical. Physical dimensions, space and configuration can be critical but, every when not paramount, aspects of the built environment extend an influence. Further, considerations of lighting and acoustics matter for both interior and exterior situations. Sermon noted, “If I can set it up in a very dark gallery space with a bright projection on it, making sure the piece is separated from the rest of the kind of gallery experience, then it becomes far more of a heightened encounter.” - at other points stating how being closer or further to expectations of a gallery space change the experience. As such, each new installation will have psycho-spatial differentiations. In the case of outdoor works, such changes are ever-present within each run, or even a single day.

The audience for whom a piece is created is, as stated, an ongoing variable. Each participant brings a unique thought process on the interaction. Interestingly, though this might be the most constantly changing aspect, the scope of most interactive works is sufficiently narrow that the change here is not particularly great. As Sermon mentions regarding Telematic Dreaming, “From the many times I’ve produced it in different locations around the world, the audiences do have very similar responses and reactions. I can probably anticipate what people will do, how people will explore it, and people will learn certain kinds of gesture and interaction.” The parameters are generally a singular action ↔response model rather than anything multi-modal or using built layers for participant engagement[5].

When considering an interactive installation, the ambient is generally critical. Physical dimensions, space and configuration can be critical but, every when not paramount, aspects of the built environment extend an influence. Further, considerations of lighting and acoustics matter for both interior and exterior situations. Sermon noted, “If I can set it up in a very dark gallery space with a bright projection on it, making sure the piece is separated from the rest of the kind of gallery experience, then it becomes far more of a heightened encounter.” - at other points stating how being closer or further to expectations of a gallery space change the experience. As such, each new installation will have psycho-spatial differentiations. In the case of outdoor works, such changes are ever-present within each run, or even a single day.

On to the physical level, there’s a clear range of alteration that either one may choose, or may be required. Many of the most common interactive hardware components (such as projectors, lighting and sound) are determined by what is provided at each venue. As many works are software-based, even the computer running this software may be locally provided. Further, those hardware components that might stay otherwise consistent, may still decay from use or become obsolete. There is similarly no need to limit one’s work to the quality of technology available at conception. Another option is that new and updated technologies are frequently incorporated to improve the experience. This can certainly be seen in Ed Tannenbaum’s Recollections series which has improved over time from its original 256 x 240 pixel resolution in 16 colors to the currently available high resolution/color displays. During the interview, Paul Sermon posits, “I think it’s a really interesting question about how a work sustains itself over a period of time and how it’s affected by technological changes, I mean [Telematic Dreaming] is an installation that is very much a result of technology that I had available to me at the time, but it is not entirely reliant on the technology as a concept.”

The above leave only the software component as a potentially consistent aspect, but this is certainly malleable as well. In my own works I have made changes to software with each showing, as bugs are revealed by participants or just to improve the look or flow. Ed Tannenbaum briefly addresses this on his website, “Each installation is unique. New software is constantly being developed and incorporated in new works.”[6] As per the hardware, there are the considerations of obsolescence to contend with here. As operating systems are updated, their support for legacy software is stripped away forcing those using newer hardware to update their software.

---

Table 1. Categories of Variation

Ambient Variation Type Factor Space/venue Total space Space shape / architecture Acoustics Neighboring content Weather (if outdoors) Participant (individual) Mood Age Familiarity with the work Participants (group) Crowd size Cultural norms

Hardware Variation Type Factor Forced / necessary revision Hardware Obsolescence Software Obsolescence Physic Decay Venue provisioned components Artistic Revision Improved technologies Artwork expansion Software Variation Type Factor Forced / necessary revision Hardware required software Software Obsolescence Decay of software’s physical media Artistic Revision Improvement / tweaking Feature addition

---

3. Principle Component and Cross Variation

In Table 1 we can see the prior section’s components distilled into simplified (and incomplete) categories. As one can tell here, every piece (or all pieces) that makes what one might think of as the work may be subject to change. To re-iterate from the introduction, this doesn’t yield any particular issue if one views the work as a kind of script or score, but if we view this as the principal aspect of a work, we have to acknowledge that this too may change as desired within the parameters the artist believes still constitutes the same work. Here still the entirety of an interactive piece may, if desired, be ephemeral. This becomes curiouser if one considers the bi-directional nature where-in changes to any of the components can have a ripple effect. Even the intended script may be affected, while any changes to this script may result in a cascade of changes. An exception in this bidirectionality should be highlighted for the ambient aspects. Either those are perpetual, as in the case of the audience/participants, or beyond the full control of the artist, as (potentially) in the case of the venue.

---

Table 2. Component Iteration: Cause and Frequency

Component	Iteration Cause	Frequency
Hardware	Decay / Obsolescence Choice	As needed or desired between installations
Software	Obsolescence Decay (of media) Choice	As needed or desired between installations (also possible during show run)
Venue	Repeat installations	Per install locations
Participants	Knowledge Environment Memetics / other participants	Constant Variation
Script/Score (potential cause of all above)	Artistic re-envisioning	Between installations

---

An interesting outgrowth of this research is that we find there is, within the possibilities of interactive works variability, an internal cross-iterativity. This means that they are not only interactive with the audience, but may be self-interactive in their updates. This extends to the technological level as Sermon states, in talking generally about his telematic works, components may even float from one category to another – in this case from hardware to software, "The technology, how it’s changed, has allowed me to incorporate different bits of software into this. This used to be a very hardware kind of set-up.” As referenced earlier on venue variability, it is stated that such control exerts its influence over the human experiential components.

4. Expectation Value

Interestingly, in as much as all of this variation flourishes, we don’t tend to see any of it – there are no works in the interactive artwork cannon that one thinks of as having changed in any way that it should be called another piece. The built-in nature of randomization that can be defined in interaction blurs out into a constant form. The perpetual individual differences of the persons participating, the regular swapping of hardware, and the changes in space are all such vital aspects of interactivity as to render any question implying a paradox by them largely irrelevant.

“The basic concept of the technology has not changed in the slightest. This is really why the installation in a sense exists on one level and the technology exists on another. Whilst they are completely reliant on each other, the concept is something that is not supersceded by the technology. It’s not redundant because of the technology. The concept is something that sits on a technology that can move and jump and change.” (P. Sermon, 2021)

This should be considered a benefit of the interactive arena, since most artistic fields do not have the option to float within this constant stream of randomizers. Even other formats that involve a more score or script, such as musical composition or theater, tend to have that score as final – it may be interpreted by other directors or conductors, and even changed by them, but as per the artist’s direct influence, it is largely realized once published. The interactive ephemerality has allowed artists such as Paul Sermon to focus not on the creation of ever-new works, but on the possibilities inherent in a core body. As per our conversation:

“Whilst I could spend a lot of time trying to look for the next [way to produce] the sense of space, of intimacy, of coexistence that I certainly found with telematic dreaming early on and I found in different ways with telematic vision and other works (...) I could have kept going., ‘where is the next space, where is the next space,’ but in some ways I got more relaxed about that really and thought, actually, it’s not about what the next thing is, it’s about where I do this, what context can I put it in, what kinds of people I might confront with this. this was far more interesting to me than trying to battle away finding the next telematic installation.” (ibid.)

5. Conclusion

Here, we find only the interactions’ manifestations as a sufficiently similar repetition of intended choreography to be sufficient to describe the field. In this way, the paradox looses any contradiction it might have implied, as a work can grow in the way that any living being does. Sermon, again, provides an insight through his view of how these changes may manifest, with a limitation to maintain an awareness of history, stating, “I think if you have a concept of course, it can move, and of course you can do new works, you can change it, you can adapt it, you might want to retitle it, but I still think there’s a timeline, there’s a kind of archeology to these things that you have to retain.” Brian Eno[7] has quoted Roy Ascott as stating, “Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences.” Should the Ship of Theseus actually have existed, it might instead be more interesting to stop thinking of it as a subject of paradox, but as an unintended, early example of a functionally interactive work – not unlike of Ascott’s Change Paintings.