Month: November 2023

week 9: analog/digital

My project this week is fairly simple, and my goal was to just get more comfortable using the components with the Arduino (in preparation for following weeks!). I used an RGB LED controlled by a potentiometer, and a regular LED controlled by a momentary switch to do a little light show.

The RGB LED shines red, green, and blue continuously, but the speed is controlled by the voltage at the potentiometer. The mapping is done as such:

delayTime = map(analogRead(potentiometerPin), 0, 1023, 1, 10);
The other LED is always on. When the switch is pressed, it just turns off.
Here’s a little video demo:

One of the challenges was working with the delay() function for the RGB led, while asking the code to do other things, such as reading the potentiometer value. I was going to use the trick for calculating time, so the delay() function wouldn’t block the rest of the program, or even use a library I found for creating a non blocking timer. But I figured that wasn’t the point of this assignment, so I stuck with delay(). This led to some repetition in my code, and I would definitely not do it this way if I wanted cleaner, more robust code.

Week 9- Reading Response

This week’s reading from Tigoe was all about Physical Computing and interactive media art, and it was super enlightening. One part that really caught my attention was the reading on Making Interactive Art. It talked about three key things to keep in mind when creating interactive artwork: setting the stage, shutting up, and listening.

The idea that your artwork should speak for itself really stuck with me. Many times, we create art and start questioning ourselves – is it good enough? How do I explain my thoughts behind it? This reading basically said, you don’t have to explain anything. Your artwork can stand on its own.

This got me thinking about the interactive showcase we saw at the beginning of the semester. We were given the freedom to explore, touch, sit, stand, and feel. It was about being alone together. The artist didn’t have to explain anything; the experience spoke for itself. It made me aspire to create art that lets people think what they want.

Connecting this to another reading, Physical Computing hits and misses, I realized that the sense of freedom in interactive art extends to the technical side too. Even if something similar has been done before, you have the liberty to make changes and adjustments. Set the stage, make it your own, and then, shut up and listen. This means letting your work be interpreted by others who might have seen something similar but are experiencing a different variation through your lens.

These readings teach us crucial lessons for dealing with interactive art. Don’t let external opinions affect your work. Do what you need to do and let the art speak for itself. It’s about giving your audience the freedom to perceive and connect with your work on their terms.

Reading Reflection – Week 9

“Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)” was a fun and inspiring read about physical computing and some examples of projects that were done throughout the years. Although this is my first time using hardware to create interactive projects, I have had a lot of enjoyment so far, and reading about these projects motivates me to learn more about Arduino and hopefully come up with my own takes on them. By far the projects that most caught my attention were the theremin-like instruments, the dolls and pets, and the remote hugs. 

First, when it comes to hardware, I believe that instruments are one of the most effective and fun tools to exercise creativity. For instance, the drum glove turns a mundane activity into something that people could actually use to learn drumming and spend their free time with. Not only is it entertaining, but it is also convenient, and I believe that people of all ages would find joy in such a technology. The dolls and pets one is also interesting, and it is something that I see many kids or even adults enjoying depending on the context of the product, such as a physical version of Tamagotchi which could captivate both Millennials and Gen Z. Finally, the remote hugs intrigued me. I do not think such a tool would be convenient as a commercialized product, but I do think it opens doors to a set of captivating technologies that could be used in virtual reality games or even in long-distance relationships.

Meanwhile, “Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen” made me reflect on the purpose of interactive art and how it should be conducted to the public. I strongly agree with the author when it comes to how people should approach interactive art. To me, it is intuitive that too much information can ruin an interactive experience. If the author is micromanaging the user and explaining every single detail based on his perspective, then there is no mystery in the project, no room for interpretation, and no way of knowing how people truly approach your work, leaving a diminished experience and a lack of observations.

Reading reflection – Week #9

In his exploration of interactive art “Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen”, Tigoe suggests that meaningful interactive experiences emerge from a delicate combination of guidance and freedom of the participant. He offers an analogy of a director working with actors to illustrate the importance of subtly suggesting intentions without imposing rigid interpretations. Such comparison sparks a reflection about the setting and design of interactive artworks, which drives a question as to how much guidance is sufficient to provide a context without overshadowing individual interpretation? What is the role of physical space and how can an artist set up a design that encourages curiosity and discovery without the need of dictating the narrative? Furthermore, does the setup of the artwork influence the participant’s emotional connection as well as one’s interpretation of the artwork?

This nicely ties in with the “Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)” reading. The part about Theremin-like instruments caught my attention, where the author mentions the importance of gestures being meaningful when a participant interacts with the artwork (gesture of moving your hand over a sensor vs a glove where one taps his fingers to make a rhythm). It makes complete sense that less guidance is required when a setup matches with some kind of pre-existing mental model. It highlights the interconnected nature of physical computing and interactive art, emphasizing the importance of aligning design choices with participants’ intuitive understanding for a more seamless and engaging interactive experience.

Week 9 Reading

Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits

In this article what I really like is the floor pads. I think it’s one of the interactive art that’s most used in real-life scenarios and I really enjoy it. It’s set up in most of the arcades in China and I find it fun. I also like the concept of video mirrors. I once read that people tend to think of humanoid shapes as human figures even if they might be very different. Video mirrors are like the reverse of this concept, changing images of people into humanoid shapes. Therefore when people see these humanoid shapes as themselves, more value is added through the composition or the material of these humanoid shapes.

Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen

I can really relate to this. In my high school, we have literature classes where we are supposed to learn to appreciate, analyze, and interpret literature pieces. At first, when we interpreted it by ourselves we had many different ideas and conclusions. However, when the teacher told us how she analyzed and interpreted it, our own thoughts about the work disappeared and only one interpretation remained. But the thing with art I believe is that it should not have only one “correct answer”. It should be allowed to be openly interpreted by the public, and interpreting your own work kills that possibility. Even if there really is something you want to show to the viewers, it should not be shown through killing the other possibilities of interpretation. I think it is okay to lead viewers to think in a certain way, but it’s completely different than telling the viewers what they should think.

Week 9 Reading Reflection

“Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits(and Misses)” Reading:

To be able to mimic and replicate nature and our overall surroundings within the digital medium is a great feat that is achieved through Digital Computing. This means that we can react with these elements that will stimulate our senses and produce a certain feeling/reaction within us all from the comfort of our homes. As time passes, Physical Computing gets better after each iteration and ultimately builds upon one another to come up with a much better prototype that can effectively stimulate our senses and give us the feeling of joy or pleasure. In the article,“ Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits(and Misses)”, the author discusses various projects that are created through Physical Computing which has a much deeper, more real stimulation produced from the outcome.

A common example of an outcome of Physical Computing that the author discusses repeatedly is how music is produced. Most of them incorporate various elements, like hand movements to simulate different sounds, floor pads that produce different sounds, etc. This then gives us humans the power to create music and aesthetically pleasing pictures and portraits merely through simple code and common devices that incorporate sensors. One thing I noticed within these projects is the notion of “randomness”. No matter what the outcome of that specific project is, it always is created through human senses and human movements, and these movements are, more often than not, random. Ultimately, randomness plays a crucial role in producing music and art pieces that are not always thought of or aligned but still don’t fail to make us amazed, pleased emotionally, and maybe even relieved in some cases.

There’s a specific line within the text that caught my attention, “The most common mistake made by designers of this type of project is to confuse presence with attention. Presence is easy to sense, as described above. It’s harder to tell whether someone’s paying attention, though.” It’s important to keep in mind that no matter how hard these projects incorporate various sensors to stimulate our emotions and overall senses if the individual is not trying to emotionally connect with the piece, then it would come out as random rather than having a meaning. I discussed how randomness in pieces can have its beauty, but that beauty will only be able to be seen and heard if the individual is actually attempting to engage with the pieces instead of just playing around with them. instead of just randomly clicking every button on a canvas to produce sound, you can for instance think of creative ways to create pleasing music by clicking specific buttons in a sequence- that;s is what engaging means. In the instance of physical computing, human interaction is important, but human engagement and the notion of “attention” are also vital to reaching the ultimate goal of stimulating the senses.

“Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen” Reading:

In Tigoe’s article “Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen”, Tigoe discusses the difference between conventional artwork and contemporary artwork such as interactive artwork. In artworks like Mona Lisa for instance, individuals have an impression of the artwork and look at some elements within it like the color, opacity, story, etc. These elements are all static- as in they never change over time or at least their interpretation doesn’t have a vast difference. Whereas, in interactive artworks, individuals are fully immersed in the art piece and each can have their own whole different interpretation and emotional attachment to it. Interactive artworks can work negatively or very positively in spreading their message to individuals depending on their emotional level and relevancy to their experiences.

Tigoe shed light on the important aspect of having a conversation with the artwork, if users were given the entire script and what to do or what to think, then that interactive art piece would be more of a conventional art piece instead of one in which novel emotions and ideas are produced. In other words. We have physical computing that presents those art pieces, and then we have the element of “attention” that was mentioned in the previous text- which is the engagement of individuals with the art piece. While one may want to spread an important message to the community through their interactive artwork, doing so while giving very clear instructions on how to think and what to think will only ruin the entire experience and the entire element of interactivity. There’s a famous quote out there, “To each their own”, as in each person will have their unique interpretation even if it doesn’t reach the ultimate conclusion you want them to, and there’s nothing wrong with it since it is also an interpretation of the many interpretations of an art piece.

Week 9: Physical Computing Reading Assignment

I’m really into a band called Arcade Fire. They have a lyric that goes: “My body is a cage that keeps me from dancing with the one I love, but my mind holds the key…” This is how I view Interactive Media. Humans have always felt stunted by the limitations of themselves and their realities. I hold the metaphor of the Garden of Eden very closely. Adam and Eve were forced out of their original home and they have been lost ever since, wandering back. I believe we all have the Garden of Eden in our hearts, and everything we do is an attempt at finding home, at freeing the Garden of Eden within us. Our bodies house souls that are profoundly larger than our bodies themselves. So we all struggle with the cognitive dissonance of having a body. We want our spirits to be free. Interactive Media artists do this by creating different experiences and worlds with the technology at their disposal.

That’s why I wholeheartedly agree with Tigoe’s assertion that Interactive Media artists should allow their audiences to interact with their installations freely, without being bounded by rules and guidelines. Or else you risk negating the entire point of the practice–to help people confront and explore their hidden internal realities. That’s why I also agree with the Tigoe’s comment: “I think physical computing should ideally foreground the person’s input.”

Take, for example, the “Fields of Grass” archetype Tigoe mentioned. I thought it was funny when Tigoe said, “Why would you want to make a field of grass that you run your hand over? Because the idea of responsive texture is magical, I guess.” And it is. I think again of the movie Avatar, where, when Jake Sully entered the new world, the first thing he did was touch the glowing trees and grass in awe. I also recalled The Gladiator, where Maximus let his hand flow through the silver grass of the Fields of Elysium. One of my favorite Rumi quotes goes, “There is a field between right and wrong. I’ll meet you there.” Fields are windy and otherworldly and beautiful. If I were to start on a project, out of everything Tigoe said, I would start with this one, because it’s through creating magical fields that I feel like I’m closer to the Garden of Eden. It boggles me that I could make something that allows me to actually stand in something close to what the Garden of Eden looks like in my head.

But that’s my world and my interpretation. It would all be ruined if the I instructed other people on how to walk through the grass, or what to think when they did. Because then I’m imposing my internal world on them rather than allowing them to explore their own.

I also really liked Tigoe’s comment: “The limitation of this is that the gesture of moving your hand over a sensor has little meaning by itself. The challenge here is to come up with a physical form and context for the sensors that afford a meaningful gesture.” With every form of art, there comes a necessary suspension of disbelief. So naturally, when we’re interacting with an installation that allows us to leave our reality behind, we want to interact with it the way we can in the real world. That way, we can truly forget about reality for the one that is in front of us, and really believe it. That’s an obstacle that continues to stump Interactive Media artists to this day.

But I really loved Tigoe’s “heart beats faster when your loved one’s cell phone is detected in a cell that’s closer to you” example as well. Once, a visiting author named Fransisco Goldman said the point of art is to leave you saying, “And isn’t life just like that.” And that’s what I thought reading about that particular example–”isn’t life just like that.” That’s good interactive art.

Week 9- Reading Reflection

Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen

This article really struck a chord with me The title alone “Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen,” immediately caught my attention. Even before reading the rest of the article. It got me thinking about interactive art as an ongoing conversation rather than a scripted statement. I completely agree that we should set the stage, provide some hints, and then let the audience take the lead. It’s like directing a play where the audience becomes part of the performance. I’ve always believed that art is a shared experience, and this article reinforced that. Letting the audience guide the narrative and listening to their reactions. Interactive art isn’t a finished product; it’s a collaborative, evolving performance. This perspective inspires me to create art that’s not just seen but experienced and shaped by those who engage with it.

As for Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)

I would say The Multitouch Interfaces project was my favorite because of the cool variety in sensing touch points, whether through infrared light, distance sensors, or capacitive touch. The challenges, like maintaining sensors and the lack of tactile feedback, felt real and relatable. It wasn’t just about tech; it was about blending human touch with digital finesse. Addie Wagenknecht and Stefan Hechenberger’s CUBIT using infrared light and cameras showcased this fusion perfectly, making Multitouch Interfaces my top pick.

Week 9 | Analog_Digital_I/O

The concept
For this assignment, I wanted to make use of one of the sensors to automate a process. The first sensor I thought of was Grove Light Sensor, which is a module that is used to measure light intensity. The idea is simply controlling the speed of LED blinking based on the ambient brightness of the room. The system monitors brightness through the light sensor and intensifies the LED blinking speed in low-light or dark conditions, serving as a visual cue for urgent notifications.

Process
I started the assignment by creating a schematic diagram for my circuit, illustrated in Figure 1. The pivotal components include a light sensor, responsible for monitoring the ambient brightness of the room, and dynamically adjusting the blinking speed of the LEDs accordingly. Additionally, a toggle switch has been integrated into the circuit, allowing users to seamlessly switch between the two LEDs based on their preferences.
Figure 2 delves into the software aspect of the assignment. The software reads the digital input generated by the switch, ensuring a smooth and controlled transition between the two LEDs.

Figure 1
Figure 2

Video of implementation

Reflections
In this task, it was really interesting that I got to combine physical parts like circuits with software to create interactive and automated product. However, I faced some issues while designing the circuit. It was a bit confusing at the beginning to add these different components together, but I eventually figured it out by going step by step from using just a simple led to using a sensor for controlling other components.

Week 8 Assignment

 

Magic Mouse

Concept:

For my “Magic Mouse” assignment, the aim is to create a capacitive touch sensing system using my Arduino board. The core idea revolves around a touch-sensitive surface, represented by a simple foil, that triggers an LED to illuminate each time the surface is touched by the mouse.

How It Works:
The foil functions as a capacitive touch sensor. When I touch the foil with the mouse, it induces a change in capacitance, which the Arduino detects through the connected digital pin. The Arduino then activates the LED.

Completed project:

IMG_0974

Areas for Improvement:

Looking at the project, I feel like I could’ve dialed up the complexity a bit. It’s good as it is, but adding some extra layers could take it to the next level. Maybe weave in more interactive elements or toss in some sensors. Just a touch more sophistication to keep things interesting and elevate the challenge.