As a creative, I often see art as a form of self expression, a statement made by an artist to convey a message to an audience. Providing detailed interpretations of specific works, you could describe what each element, color, composition of the work means and how the audience should interpret it. That was the way I was taught to go about my practice, which I was also going to bring in when creating interactive projects for this class. However after reading Tigoe’s post about physical computing, I saw my perspective shift. Tigoe makes the point that interactive art is actually not about making a statement but about how the project is able to serve as an instrument or environment that invites the audience to engage , interact, and interpret it. This forced me to see art as a point of communication and not simply a form of expression. It opened my eyes to the reality that my role as a designer, creative or artist is to simply set the stage, provide the context, and then take a step back. It is only when this is done will the true beauty of art, but more specifically, interactive art, lie. Therefore, when creating one should try to prioritize setting the stage for dialogue, creating an environment that invites the audience to interpret and interact with the art as they wish.
Reading Tigoe’s second blog post about physical computing’s greatest hits and misses allowed me to see my new found understanding in action. Tigoe showcased different projects from faculty and students alike that showcase the essence of interactive art that he preached about in the first blog I mentioned. What I found really interesting is that all of these projects, although they have instructions, give freedom for the user to engage with the project in the way they seem fit. For example, the Gloves project allows for users to make a rhythm by moving your hands or fingers in a particular way. Even if everyone engages with it, the rhythms they create and the way they decide to go about using the project varies greatly based on individual movements, interpretations, and interaction. To me, this reaffirms the idea that interactive art is never the same for everyone and that it thrives on two things: collaboration and personal interpretation. If these foundational principles are not at the forefront during ideation and creation stages of interactive projects, we are left questioning: is it truly interactive, or is it merely a static piece of art masquerading as interactive?