Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and Misses)
This article by Igoe was pretty easy to read with lots of examples that are very important for the students like us. I believe that I benefited from reading the text because it provides an overview of common themes in physical computing and offers inspiration for individuals interested in exploring this field. It encouraged me as a reader to think creatively about my own works. I especially liked how the author encourages his readers to have originality within common and recurring themes within the field of physical computing.
I think that there is no apparent bias in the article. The author presents the themes and examples objectively, providing a balanced view of each. It also makes me think about the origin of creativity, and how this concept should not be viewed as something that originates from a novel idea. In fact, even in sciences, it is common to have background literature for the “original” study, meaning that every idea is built upon preexisting ideas. Such an approach with a strong foundation is the best place for the development of new ideas.
Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen
I believe that the best thing about this article is that it encourages artists to think beyond traditional art forms and embrace interactive experiences. I really like how the author understands the importance of the spectatorship notion. The emphasis on audience engagement and the value of the interpretations from the side of the spectator is definitely something that has been pursued in the field of contemporary performative art. I believe the very core of the spectatorship is the perception of the art piece by the viewer. It is not just about presence, but also it is about active recognition, understanding, and interpretation of the artwork. It of course doesn’t have to be verbalized in any way, it may even not make sense to the viewer, but the feeling that she/he/they would have was what matters.
From the perspective of students and designers, this article provides valuable insights into the approach and mindset required for designing interactive artwork, highlighting the importance of listening to feedback and adapting the artwork based on audience reaction. However, I believe that the author’s bias is towards creating interactive artwork that encourages audience participation and interpretation all the time, which is not an ideal thing to do because in that way such a working process may downplay the role of the artist’s intention. It may even create the potential for misinterpretation or lack of understanding from the audience, which is definitely not the intention of the artist.