I believe that even those people who want to "participate directly in the world of the movie"(page 5) sometimes enjoy watching a movie without doing anything; they might know that not many people can make movies like legendary directors.

The writer of Interactive Narrative said:

-a primary concern for a Storytelling System is how to manage interaction with the viewer without distracting them from or otherwise disrupting the narrative.(page 9)
-Ideally a storytelling system should be capable of providing a sliding scale of interaction, from giving viewers a high degree of conscious control to letting them simply "sit back" and watch the story unfold, as they would with a non-interactive narrative.(page 12)

This 'ideal' is impossible for the time being. Even if this becomes possible, some people would still want to just sit and watch movies because of the reason I mentioned before.

The writer reiterated:

To add interactivity then poses an interesting challenge as the role and value of the interaction must always be gauged against its absence.(page 13)

As far as there are big fans of great movie directors, traditional movies and interactive ones are totally different entertainment. For people, the former is something to watch, and the latter is something to make. They had better understand this difference and enjoy the new style of entertainment: making movies.

The author said:

Arbitary Logic is a rare example of the former, a video work which only exists at the time of its performance. It therefore demands a particular kind of attention that is distinct from our state of mind when we watch a video or listen to a CD in the knowledge that they can be replayed.(page 160)

Of course, videos and CDs can be replayed, but they look or sound different depending on the situation. For example, when I first watched a movie, "E.T." in my childhood, I was impressed by the friendship between a boy, Eliot and E.T., but when I saw it recently, I was more interested in the way how Eliot's mother felt about having E.T. in her house. Consumers do pay a particular kind of attention to videos and CDs each time they play them.

Also, many rock concerts can be interactive without conch shells containing water. The excitement of a large audience often influences the performance. Performers are apt to repeat audiences' favorite melodies and to play them loudly.

No work can be an art without an audience or a viewer who feels it. The art is just like conversation between artists and consumers; that can be called interactivity.

On the other hand, in the end, I found out the difference between the regular art and the interactive art because of these three sentences:

-Arvitary Logic has no fixed final form.(page 161)
-This situation dramatises Cage's desire to wrest the control of sound production from the musician.(page 163)
-Interaction becomes a voyage of creation and discovery.(page 165)

I came up with a new idea to define the interactive art. The interactive art is the art that has no fixed final form, and wrests the control of creation from artists.

Now, I have another question: Is there any difference between "the interactive art" and "the participately art"?