“Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits and Misses”
In this article, the author talks about things that often show up in projects using physical computing. They say we should see these things as a kind of creative playground, not as limits. It’s like having a favorite game on the playground – it’s familiar, but the real fun starts when you add your special twist. The article mentions the Mattel/Nintendo Power Glove from 1989, adding a bit of nostalgia. Despite being old, it shows how simple ideas, like tapping, can become exciting. This glove, though basic, laid the foundation for the fun interactions we see in drum gloves today. The Power Glove reminds us that even simple ideas can turn into cool and unique things with time.
The article rightly says that gloves, especially drum gloves, are almost as popular as theremin instruments. Drum gloves are fun because they connect to something everyone understands – tapping to make a rhythm. Unlike the abstract theremin, drum gloves have a familiar way of making sounds. Tapping gives a structured way to create notes, making it easy for people to use. This fits well with the idea in the article that common themes in physical computing can be a starting point for creative expression, not a block.
The Power Glove from 1989 is a great example. It’s simple but directly connects with gestures, like tapping, which laid the groundwork for the engaging drum gloves we have today. The Power Glove and drum gloves show a balance between what’s familiar and what’s new, making physical computing a creative playground where each new version adds to the story of interactive art.
“Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen”
In “Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen,” the writer offers valuable insights into interactive art, likening it to a performance rather than a finished painting or sculpture. This perspective aligns seamlessly with the encouragement from the first reading to see physical computing as a creative playground, where established themes act as a starting point rather than a constraint.
The advice that the author suggests to the audience what their course of action could be resonates deeply. It encourages artists to think beyond creating a static piece and consider how they can guide the audience to uncover their own stories and emotional interpretations. This aligns with the idea that the stage is set not just by the artist but evolves with the contributions of the audience. It’s a beautiful way of framing interactive art as a collaborative journey where the artist provides the stage, and the audience brings the performance to life.
In my opinion, this approach to interactive art introduces a refreshing shift from the traditional view of art as a one-way communication. It empowers the audience to be co-creators, transforming the artistic experience into a shared exploration. The emphasis on suggesting rather than dictating allows for a more organic and diverse range of interpretations, enriching the overall impact of the artwork. It reinforces the notion that true interactivity lies not just in the technology but in the dialogue between the artist, the work, and the audience.