I found the readings for today quite engaging in the sense that the first reading “Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen” offers vision for how interactivity should be executed by artists, and the second reading gives us widespread examples of such interactivity in the world of physical computing.
Firstly, I would like to address the points that resonated with me. I agree that exploring the interactive artwork by yourself is a better experience than being guided and directed along the way of that exploration. That could give audience a sense of emotional connection to the work, as the more modes and options of interaction there are, the more the artwork could “feel like home” for the individuals in the audience, hence leaving the audience and the artwork face-to-face is a great way of fostering emotional connection.
However, I do not agree with the distinction that the author makes between interactive artwork and other artwork. Many books, paintings are left for interpretation, which, I would argue, carries a sense of interactivity with the artwork, with the ideas, the perception of those ideas between audience members. So, I would not rush to call traditionally non-interactive artwork a “statement” or just an “expression”, as the author mentions. Vice versa, what we call interactive artwork can be understood solely as an expression in some cases, therefore the definition of “interactive artwork” is blurry and needs refinement in order to be categorized as needed to be left interpretation.
As a tangent to the last point, I, personally, do not appreciate the firm stances of guarding the intention of the author from audiences’ interpretation. I understand the value it can provide, as outlined in the beginning of this reflection, but I appreciate getting a chance for a glimpse of what was going on in the author’s mind while creating the artwork, as the process of creation could be as valuable as the creation itself, if not more.