Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen
This was a pretty interesting look into interactive media as a participatory media. Often artists tend to be afraid of their art being assigned a wrong meaning, and artistic clarifications usually keep popping up well after a work is created (JK Rowling is a particularly glaring example). It stems from a fear that our own beliefs, our own creation, will be inevitably challenged by the audience. This is even more true for something that involves even more two-way communication, like an interactive art showcase. Even in our own documentation, it is tempting to include an exact user guide of how to “use” our art. And while user guides are helpful for products, they might not have the same effect in art.
That is not to say however, that all interactive art has to be fully participatory and unscripted. This again goes back to the debate we had when discussing Chris Crawford’s The Art of Interactive Design. Once again, the question pops up of whether interactive is participatory, or whether it has to be organic. For example, a lot of games are deeply scripted, and while it may be argued that playing the game is an organic experience of its own, it doesn’t change the fact that in a lot of games, you will be seeing most, if not all, the events that are meant to happen. Visual novels are another example. By most definitions of interactivity, they are not interactive, being no better than picture books. Yet, they do feel interactive in their own way.
At the end of the day, it is up to the artist and what compromise they make between interactivity and meaning.
Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)
This was a nice look at different classes of physical computing projects and the benefits and challenges of each. Usually, there seems to be a common theme where there is a compromise between implementation and engagement. Relatively simpler projects like the theremin, floor pad, video mirrors, and Scooby Doo paintings may be easier to implement and more common, but they also lose engagement quickly. On the other hand, more complex mechanical pixels, body/hand cursors, multi-touch interfaces and fields of grass may be more engaging but often run into implementation or maintenance issues that take away some of the charm. In a way, my main takeaway from the article was that rather than your physical computing mechanism, what is more important is the story and how the mechanisms tie in to the story being told.