For the first reading, I think it is very interesting and resonates with another talk I watched for another class. In the talk, the speaker talks about that everything is a remix. He believes that there are hardly completely original works in creativity; they are somewhat based on previous works. The creativity in these works is the way different elements are interpreted, arranged, and connected. I think Tigoe refers to something similar in the field of physical computation. All the examples Tigoe gives are common things with some computational (unusual) features. Indeed, it will be perfect if we all can developed something brand-new. However, it is a more common case that we are unable to do so. So, I think Tigoe is right in pointing out that the challenge of physical computation (or the most innovative, fun part of this field) is how we can turn old, common, or non-interactive things into interactive ones, with the features that are meaningful and intuitive for users. Therefore, I think Tigoe’s writing has two takeaways for me: 1. Creativity is not equal to complete novelty. Interesting arrangements or adds-ons of old things can spark great fun and creativity; 2. These new features added to common things should have meaningful and intuitive interactions.
For the second reading, I generally with Tigoe. For interactive media work, as we discussed in previous weeks about what interaction means, the entire artwork or performance should not only include the artist, but also the audience. The audience input (interaction with the work) is what makes each interactive work interesting and unique to each experiencer. In other words, a good interactive experience should be distinct to each individual as a result of their different behavioral and emotional inputs and experiences. The openness is a significant defining feature of interactive artwork. However, I think Tigoe only touches a bit on the issue of the extent of this kind of openness. He only mentions that ” If they’re not supposed to touch something, don’t make it approachable.” But essentially, where should the expression of the artist stand? Is it always a good practice to make audience explore on their own and make their own sense of the artwork? Maybe, reflecting on my own experiences of visiting interactive exhibition/experiences, for some of the works, which are particularly difficult to comprehend on my own, I would prefer to have the artist’s narration beforehand so that at least I would get lost and think “this doesn’t make sense at all!” Therefore, I think it’s also a good question to ask: in what kind of projects should the artist reveal their own expression before the audience experiences it.