Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen
I agree that art should be open to interpretation. I think interactive art requires time from the artist and is open to change and manipulation in response to the user’s experience. The first time an artist does an interactive art it might not go as planned especially if he/she does not add instructions, but that is ok because they would learn and start up conversations with the viewers and redefine it to make it work better. I believe a good interactive piece is self-explanatory and does what the artist expects at least 50/60% of the time. However, some interactive art pieces are made to be experienced differently.
I liked the part about listening to the audience while they are experiencing the piece because this starts interesting conversations and may inspire new ideas. I agree that an interactive artist is like a director. He/she proposes materials and interactions to the audience and then they can interpret it in ways that express themselves and the artist too.
Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and Misses)
I agree that recreating things can lead to further developments. There is a book I once read called “Steal Like an Artist” and it talks about how everything we do is inspired by things that already exist. A lot of technological advances came to exist because they were recreating something but found a new thing on the way. If we think of coding, for example, we would have not been so advanced and creative if we kept figuring out the logic that is already there. Instead, we take the pre-existing logic and then add to it and develop it to be better.
I enjoyed the piece on Floor Pads because it seems simple and fun. I also think that the meditation helper is cool. As a person who dies yoga I think is a really good way to focus and try to maintain your inner balance at home. However, I am not sure how it “reacts to your state of mind” because it might not be accurate. Thus, it’s pretty cool if it can be accurate.