Unfortunately, while i like the works idea, i have little but critsisum for the work itself. Upon viewing it, it was instantly recognisable as trying to show some measure of reader interpretation with the ‘story’ you ‘create’, but also turned out to be a programmer/psychologist equivalent of colouring with big red crayons (as opposed to a masterpiece in oils).
The work is comprised of a slightly warped matrix in which each section contains a relatively meaningless phrase which when combined with the other phrases make you own personal story. The phrases however, are very much akin to the epistemic phrases used in personality tests and cold reading ‘psychics’. For example, you are told “you worry sometimes, but have untapped potential” . the truth is, most people will agree with that statement, so that in the end, like the epistemic phrases and the work itself, you end up with something that is seemingly complex but is actually meaningless.
I propose a better way to make the same user orientated point would be to truly randomise the phrases in the matrix (in fact there already exists programs that will take random verbs, adjectives and nouns to form a sentence...and eventually paragraphs) as well as randomise the pictures in the background or better yet; actually map a picture to be derived from the users mouse path.
To offer a counterbalance to my criticisms, epistemic phrases are in essence what reader response theory is all about (as i understand it at least). The user is allowed to read into it as much or as little as they see fit. In the context of (ironicly bringing my personal knowledge into play) psychics and social experimentation, it is easy to brush epistemic phrases off as generic and ultimately meaningless, but in the context of art, epistemic phrases allow for nothing more than to let the viewers mind wander where it may.