Reflecting on the themes presented in Tom Igoe’s blog post “Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)”, I couldn’t help but notice the recurrence of certain project themes within physical computing classes. The observation that certain ideas, while not novel, provide a canvas for originality resonates with the principle that innovation often comes from iteration rather than from invention. This challenges the notion that only entirely new concepts are worthy of pursuit. The notion that projects like musical instruments or interactive gloves are perennial favorites because they engage with deeply human and culturally ingrained activities like music and gesture underpins this idea.
The insight that the value of such projects lies not in their novelty but in the personal touch and the learning process they encapsulate raises questions about the true nature of creativity. Is it the creation of something completely new, or the personal interpretation and adaptation of existing themes? This view aligns with Igoe’s critique of over-simplifying interactions, such as the hand-waving in video mirrors, which, while aesthetically pleasing, offer limited structured interaction.
In his other post, “Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen”, Igoe urges interactive artists to refrain from over-explaining their work, allowing the audience to engage and interpret the art independently. This guidance counters the traditional artistic impulse to control the narrative and suggests a bias towards creating an open-ended dialogue with the audience. It is a call for humility from the artist, to step back and appreciate the autonomy of the audience’s experience. This approach aligns with contemporary participatory art practices, emphasizing the importance of the viewer’s role in creating the artwork’s meaning. It raises the question of how much guidance is optimal in interactive art to provoke engagement without prescribing it.
Additionally, comparing the planning of interactive artwork to directing actors highlights the collaborative nature of interactive experiences. Here, the audience’s role parallels that of an actor bringing their interpretation to a performance, completing the artwork through interaction. This analogy inspires one to think about the balance between the artist’s intention and the participant’s contribution. How does one design interactive systems that are flexible enough to accommodate diverse interactions while still conveying a cohesive theme or message? This perspective can shift one’s belief about the ownership of meaning in art, recognizing the shared creation between artist and audience.