Communicative, Engaging, but Interactive?

Kester's introduction to 'Conversation Pieces: Community and Communication in Modern Art' was a pleasure to read: clear definition of dialogical art, detailed discussion of examples and compelling comparisons with other forms of art. I definitely agree that art's function can be seen as a form of communication, whether through visuals, acoustics (linguistic or simple sound-based) or the activation of any other senses. Dialogical art is especially about communication, as Kester writes, "in these projects... conversation becomes an integral part of the work itself."

However I disagree that these works, despite being made up of conversations, change the standard communicative relationship with the viewer. Yes, the process of dialogical art pieces are collaborative and interactive with those involved. However I would not describe the finished recordings themselves (how they are presented to the public) as interactive, as the audience experiences them with the same theoretical distance as experiencing an image on the wall. The viewer/listener cannot join in on the conversations, provide suggestions or have an impact in anyway. In this way, I feel that Freire's "banking" analogy of object art is just as relevant to dialogical art. Whilst the conversations are not manifested as an object, they still contain a certain physicality as pieces of audio. The processes of dialogue and collaboration occurs within the work, not externally with the viewer.

On a smaller note I would like to briefly mention Kester's quoting of Peter Dunn's words that dialogical artworks are ""context providers" rather than "content providers."" I find the word 'rather' is too severe in this point. Certainly they are 'context providers' but they are just as much about content. The topics of each discussion, contrasted with the identities of the individuals, are what I think makes these works so interesting!