Reading Response 7

The article “Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)” offers an exploration of various classes of physical computing projects and the dynamics between implementation and engagement. The concept of “Meditation Helpers” caught my attention as someone interested in cognitive psychology and mindfulness. While these devices aim to guide users into a meditative state by measuring physiological indicators like heart rate and breath rate or stress through measuring sweat gland activity, I wonder about their effectiveness. Can technology truly facilitate mindfulness, or does it risk reducing meditation to a quantifiable metric? The reading prompted me to consider the role of technology in spiritual practices and whether it enhances or detracts from the essence of meditation. Another example that I found to be very innovative was Younghyun Chung’s “Digital Wheel Art”. I have always raised the question of accessibility in interactive installations. However, his project demonstrates that by utilizing technology to track and interpret bodily movements, individuals who may have limited mobility or dexterity can also engage in interactive experiences with greater ease and independence. Thus, physical computing can be leveraged to create inclusive and accessible solutions for individuals with disabilities. Another example of this is Sign Language gloves, which attempt to convert the motions of sign language into written or spoken words, which can help people who are deaf or hard of hearing to communicate easier with a hearing person.

Furthermore, the article prompted me to reconsider the essence of interactive art and its intrinsic connection to human emotions and experiences. The idea that interactive art should evoke feelings and thoughts rather than merely showcase technological prowess struck a chord with me. It reminded me that the true essence of art lies in its ability to stir emotions and provoke introspection, fostering a collaborative relationship between the artist and the audience. Overall, the article sparked a renewed curiosity in exploring the delicate balance between technical innovation and human connection in interactive art.


The article “Making Interactive Art” resonated with me deeply, particularly its emphasis on allowing the audience to interpret and engage with the work independently. It reminded me of my own experiences with interactive art installations, where the most impactful moments occurred when I was given the freedom to explore and interact without being told what to think or do. Like I mentioned earlier, art is truly interactive when there is open conversation between the artist and the viewer. In simple terms: show, don’t tell.

I appreciated the comparison the author drew between designing interactive art and directing actors in a performance. It highlighted the importance of providing the audience with tools and cues to guide their interaction while allowing room for individual interpretation and discovery. However, I found myself questioning whether there might be instances where some level of guidance or interpretation could enhance the audience’s experience without detracting from their autonomy. For example, some modern artworks look like random nonsense to me before I’m told the hidden meaning. 

Leave a Reply