The term spectacle is more than the term viewer. The term spectacle refers to how economy has changed from production, and how education is following that pattern – economy based on spectacle – looking. All visual action (painting etc) and interaction is based on looking & viewing. Participating is subset of the spectacle in the visual domain – surly?

I think it’s very important to begin to understand ‘type’ in space (as you suggest), and semiotic values within those spaces, this is important to learning and teaching especially in the digital domain, in the light of education as a commercial open space (#edcmooc).

For some reason I’m not comfortable with interaction on screen – it feels clumsy (other than sound?). Maybe it’s because I’ve done a lot of interaction stuff in the last 15 years or more, maybe when augmented comes around for real – or when interaction can leave the screen?

A project that did interest me 6 or 7 years ago was a Texting poetry collaboration – how would that work with image?

for my dissertation it is my intention to look at contexts, more specifically the digital art spaces in which artworks are presented. The invitation from a material to an immaterial context is fascinating (to link with your other post). I (would like to) think we are developing new visual literacies. Where the viewer (visitor) is allowed a level of interaction with the artworks (away from the image you posted above, but which may be an entry point) is a consideration.
Even the language, ‘viewer’ to ‘visitor’ is for instance a more active association, viewing being quite passive. I think there may also be a shift from ‘spectacle’ to ‘participant’…. losts to look into, and exciting.