This idea of not over-explaining your interactive artworks really struck a chord with me. I’ve definitely been guilty of that in the past – spelling out too many specifics about what different elements “mean” and how people are “supposed” to interact with them. But as the author points out, doing that pretty much defeats the whole purpose. You’re just dictating how the audience should think and experience the piece, instead of leaving room for them to explore and interpret it themselves.
I can vividly remember one interactive installation I saw that fell into this trap. It looked really cool – these conductive surfaces that would trigger light patterns when you touched them. But then the description plaque gave you this long, explicit walkthrough of the precise sequence you “should” follow when engaging with it. It ended up feeling really prescriptive and took away from the sense of curiosity and spontaneous discovery that initially drew me to the work.
The author’s point about interactive art being the “start of a conversation” between the artist and viewer resonated so much. Rather than a static, finished product, it’s meant to be this open-ended exchange where the audience’s live participation and personal perspectives complete the experience. Kind of like a director setting up a premise and suggestions for the actors, but then letting them organically find their own emotional truths within that framework.
Moving forward, I really want to embrace that spirit of intentional ambiguity in my own interactive work. Instead of strictly defining roles and meanings, I should focus on crafting intriguing environments, suggestive arrangements of elements, and potential pathways to explore – but then step back and allow diverse interpretations to emerge organically through self-directed engagement. Creating prompts for personal dialogue rather than dictating conclusions. It’s a shift in mindset, but one I think will lead to much richer, more interactive experiences.