Interactivity analysis

In class we discussed whether some forms of interactive sculpture were works of art or just science projects. Where is the line drawn, does it depend on context, intent, or the creator? At times, I feel like there is not much of a difference between the two.
In trying to construct an interactive sculpture, I feel as if I have been undergoing the same processes as a scientist; it reminds me a lot of my science fair projects in high school. To do a piece, one must have a basic knowledge of the phenomena or action in question. If not, they must do research to gain an understanding of what goes on and what they would like to happen in the sculpture, and in an effort to know into what context they are placing their piece. The artist’s desired outcome of the project would be similar to the hypothesis, and the action in question would be considered the problem. In the case of Tim Hawkinson’s “Emotor” the hypotheses would be his mental conception of the piece, and his problem would be making motors move based on light from a television screen.
Next in the scientific method, a scientist’s materials would be similar to the artist’s medium. The materials and medium are the physical objects that are required for each project to work. However, in a write up of an experiment, every material or object used is usually all written out, while in art, sometimes the materials are not so clear. In a final interactive sculpture piece, all the materials may not be evident, and some will be purposefully hidden in order to create a longer read.
Process is exactly the same in both cases, although the requirements placed upone process are more stringent in the scientific community. It is the course of action taken to produce the finished product. To produce results, scientists must have a series of controlled variables, and only one independent variable. The independent variable can change, but the controls are not allowed to. This may be how some artists operate, but it is not how I suspect most do. Process to artists is more their path to creation. It may be exhibited in sketches, exploration, experimentation, or models. It really just depends on the artist.
Results are exactly that, the final product of the actions taken in the process. In science, the results in relation to the process are the most important pieces of information that can be gleaned. They study what happened, and whether it answered the initial question, in an effort to find how to apply this new knowledge. If not, they will tend to go back and start the whole experiment over. In interactive art, the results are usually the most important aspect of the piece, as they speak to more than the artist’s technique; I believe a non-interactive piece would usually be more of a dialogue between the technique and the process. In “Emotor” the whole physical piece is the result. It could be argued that process is constantly occurring in this piece in the diodes reading the TV’s signals, and the results are the various expressions made by the face, but I see the infinite range of expressions as the results and thusly the dialogue between the light source and the face to be included in this.
Interactive art is kind of a vague term, but so are most categories of art. There are blurred boundaries in what defines different forms of art. At one point art could only be done by those with intensive training, and went hand in hand with the sciences. But then new paints were discovered, making it easier and cheaper for the common person to create. Certain sciences became art then like other sciences may be becoming art now. The fact that artists are able to use motors, computers and forces of nature to produce works, says a lot about the ease of acquiring technology and its role in this day and age.