Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen
While reading the article, I resonated a lot with the author. I do believe that artists should create a space where the mind of a person experiencing the artwork can feel free to explore. By doing so, the artist can not only analyze how interactive and understandable the artwork is, but also take a look at their own work from different perspectives.
The other great point was about not making people adopt the author’s interpretation of the work. I do believe that every artwork should find its own unique place in a person’s mind. And that’s why the idea of artwork having only one interpretation doesn’t make any sense to me.
On the other hand, I do believe that for complex projects, guidance for the user is necessary, even though it can be interpreted as “giving a user a way of doing things”. But otherwise, the initial idea of creating a free space doesn’t see the light because the user may not be able to enter that space.
Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)
I really enjoyed the idea described in the first paragraph that it’s worth doing something that has already been done because there’s always room for originality. But I also believe that humans should be inventors, and before pursuing any type of work, think if there’s something more that can be done.
The article gave me ideas that can be used in the projects. I saw most of the ideas mentioned in the article being implemented in real life. Particularly, I see a lot of room for originality in the project involving gloves.