Month: April 2024

Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)

As I read about the common themes in physical computing, I was amazed by the variety of projects possible in this field. Each idea seemed to offer its own unique possibilities for creativity and learning.

One theme that particularly caught my attention was the concept of theremin-like instruments. As a musician myself, the idea of creating music through physical gestures rather than traditional methods intrigued me, especially considering the simplicity of the setup. However, I couldn’t help but wonder about the potential for incorporating more complex gestures or interactions to enhance the musical experience further. Another interesting theme was using video mirrors to reflect movements. While this sounded cool, I wondered if there were ways to make these projects more engaging beyond just reflecting movements. I was also intrigued by the idea of mechanical pixels, where small parts move to create artwork. It sounded challenging but exciting. I wondered how artists could use this technique to tell stories or convey emotions.

Overall, I was struck by the balance between simple and complex projects in physical computing. Some ideas were easy to understand, while others seemed more intricate. I’m excited to explore these concepts further and see what new ideas I can come up with!

Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen

Reading this article about making interactive art really changed how I see my role as an artist. Instead of just expressing myself, I now understand that my art can be a conversation with the people who experience it. I learned that I should set the stage for interaction without telling people what to think or do. It’s like creating a performance where the audience completes the work through their actions.

I realized that I tend to explain my art too much, which can limit how people engage with it. Now, I want to give the audience space to form their own interpretations. I’m curious about how I can use performance and interactivity to make my art more engaging. I think it’s important to listen to the audience’s reactions and learn from them to improve my future projects.

This article inspired me to take a more collaborative approach to my art. I want to create pieces that encourage people to participate and explore, while still conveying my message. I’m excited to experiment with new ideas and see how they resonate with viewers.

Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)

It became clear to me after reading “Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)” that old concepts in physical computing may be updated to create something fresh and innovative. The piece goes through a number of projects, such as interactive pads and musical instruments, to demonstrate how amazing inventions can result from reimagining old concepts in fresh ways. It’s a fun reminder that often the most innovative ideas are simply the greatest old ones with a little tweaking.

I was particularly drawn to three items, which caused me to reconsider my previous thoughts. I was first shown that you are not limited to traditional methods of creating music by experimenting with making music with movements, such as with theremin-like devices. This helped me to see how our creative expression can be altered by actual computers. Second, the combination of digital technology with real-world artifacts to create images made “Mechanical Pixels” quite fascinating. This innovative approach to digital pictures gives it a more vibrant, more engaging feeling. Last but not least, the section on “Multitouch Interfaces” got me to reflect on how we utilize technology. It brought to light that, despite its coolness, touchscreens fail to provide us with tactile feedback—a crucial feature. This got me thinking about how gadgets could be more user-friendly.

I have to reconsider my definition of innovation in physical computing after reading this paper. It demonstrated to me the value of updating classic concepts and the necessity of maintaining an open mind regarding our interactions with technology.

 

“Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen”

The book “Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen” changed my understanding of interactive art, highlighting the crucial function viewers play in deciphering and finally finishing the piece. The idea that interactive art should be a dialogue between the creator and the viewer, where the latter’s interaction brings the piece to fruition, is something this article helped me completely understand. This method suggested a more freeing perspective where art is accessible to individual interpretation and discovery, which contradicted my preconceived assumptions about the artist’s responsibility in influencing the audience’s interpretation.

The painting made me think about the fine line that artists have to walk when it comes to giving their work just the right amount of context. This thought piqued my interest in the ways in which artists might create experiences that are both approachable and captivating without being unduly prescriptive in how they direct audience participation. The essay made a significant point regarding the need for artists to carefully analyze their approach to audience engagement, even though it didn’t go into great detail about how to achieve this balance.

After thinking back on my own experiences as a participant and creator of interactive art, I realized that the article’s observations aligned with the more fruitful elements of previous endeavors. In many cases, giving the audience the latitude to explore and participate with the work at their own pace resulted in more significant and profound audience participation. This insight encourages a move toward more open-ended interaction that welcomes individual investigation and interpretation. It also challenges me to reevaluate how I communicate my work. All things considered, this discovery validates the article’s thesis.

The author’s perspective is objective and encourages a wide range of interpretations, even though it presents a definite opinion on the significance of audience participation in interactive art. The essay gives artists the freedom to explore different approaches to inviting audience interaction and response, without taking a prescriptive stand on what interactive art has to be.

“Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen” questioned my preconceptions about the directive role of the artist and provided me with a fresh perspective on interactive art, which will help me in my future endeavors. It brought to light the dynamic and cooperative relationship that exists between the artist, the piece of art, and the audience. This has inspired artists to create art that genuinely involves viewers as active participants in the creative process.

 

 

BrightSafe: The Dual-Mode Lighting Guardian

Concept:

My idea, which focuses on house safety and comfort. My code cleverly models a dual lighting system that mimics real-life conditions. The green LED functions as a depiction of “normal life” lighting, changing its brightness dependent on ambient light and producing illumination that closely resembles natural light conditions throughout the day. As the sun goes down the house will receive less light. Conversely, the red LED functions as an emergency light and is managed by a straightforward switch. It is not dependent on the level of ambient light. This arrangement guarantees that residents will have a dependable source of manually activated light providing a safety and convenient light in unforeseen circumstances.

 

Code:

const int ledPinRed = 9;      // Digital LED pin
const int ledPinGreen = 10;   // Analog LED pin 
const int buttonPin = 2;      // Pushbutton pin
const int ldrPin = A0;        // Photoresistor pin

void setup() {
  pinMode(ledPinRed, OUTPUT);
  pinMode(ledPinGreen, OUTPUT);
  pinMode(buttonPin, INPUT_PULLUP); // Enable internal pull-up
  Serial.begin(9600); 
}

void loop() {
  int ldrValue = analogRead(ldrPin); // Read the light level
  int brightness = map(ldrValue, 0, 1023, 0, 255); // Map to PWM range
  analogWrite(ledPinGreen, brightness); // Set brightness of green LED

  // Check if button is pressed (LOW when pressed due to pull-up resistor)
  if (digitalRead(buttonPin) == LOW) {
    digitalWrite(ledPinRed, HIGH); // Turn on red LED
  } else {
    digitalWrite(ledPinRed, LOW); // Turn off red LED
  }


}

Project: 

https://youtube.com/shorts/w3vne8FGQ2k?feature=share

Difficulties: 

I had a hard time connecting the wires to the Arduino as the holes were very small. Also having to write down the code was the most challenging as I’m still not comfortable with this language

Improvements:

My idea is to improve the system by using a separate battery to power the red light. With this improvement, safety lighting is guaranteed to continue even in the event of a power outage, replacing traditional power sources.

Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen

I agree with the author that artists should not ‘pre-script’ what will happen and offer interpretations in the notes beside their interactive artwork. I believe that the beauty of interactive artwork lies in the freedom for the audience to contemplate, suggest the artists’ intentions beyond the project, and formulate their own interpretations of the artwork. Honestly, I think that the interactive artwork is not truly ‘interactive’ anymore if the audience must follow and do whatever is pre-scripted by the artist, as it is no longer a ‘conversation’ with the project. As how the author of today’s reading and Crawford in our previous reading (‘The Art of Interactive Design’) mention, interactivity is like a two-way conversation in which two actors alternately listen, think, and speak. I believe that if the audience has to follow what the artists have pre-scripted, then the ‘think’ process of interactivity is gone, and it would no longer be interactive. As the author of today’s reading suggests, it is fine to lead the audience to do certain things using the interactive artwork by making some aspects not approachable and giving hints through the artwork itself; however, we should not remove the freedom of the audience to take the form of actions they want to interact through the interactive artwork. Also, upon reading the article, I thought that well-made interactive artwork is like a well-made movie. A well-made movie makes the audience eager to share their feelings after watching it and the intentions of the director they perceived. This sharing of different perspectives on one movie is what lots of movie lovers love to do after watching the movie. I believe that well-made interactive artwork also enables such joy of sharing. And this is the beauty of interactive artwork as well.

Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)

Among the reviews of the project themes that the author frequently sees, I found ‘Things You Yell At’ very familiar. The project with this theme involves reacting to a yell. This reminded me of ‘Space Navigator,’ my midterm project for Introduction to Interactive Media. My midterm project involved a voice mode, which enabled the player to control his or her rocket using his or her voice volume. I agree with the author that the interaction in this kind of project is very simple but very satisfying. My project just involved moving the rocket up and down with the voice volume, which is quite straightforward, but that was the main point of my game. Many who played my midterm project found the voice mode fun and satisfying as it allowed them to ‘yell’. I think that the act of yelling as a method of interaction gives people pleasure because it is intuitive, physically engaging, and offers an immediate effect on the game. Also, from my midterm project and part of today’s reading talking about this project theme, I realized that complexity in the project or game does not always equate to deeper or more satisfying player engagement. Sometimes, it’s the straightforwardness, such as yelling to control a game, that enables an enjoyable and satisfying experience for the audience.

Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)

Among the physical computing projects, Fields of Grass piqued my interest the most. Thinking about it, I believe that the sensors could be arranged in various ways so that the output changes based on not only the position of the hand, but also the pressure applied. Imagine creating a virtual landscape where the terrain shifts depending on how firmly you press your hand! Delicate touches could reveal hidden paths or trigger calming sounds, while heavier presses might activate bolder visuals or more dramatic effects. This additional layer of interaction would add a whole new dimension to the experience. Beyond pressure, the sensor arrangement could be tweaked to respond to other hand interactions. For instance waving your hand across the field to control the movement of virtual birds, or gently cupping your hand to scoop up shimmering virtual butterflies. Moreover, Fields of Grass could be adapted to respond to footsteps, creating a truly immersive experience where walking through the installation ripples the virtual landscape. In a museum setting, the project could be transformed into an educational tool. Visitors could “grow” different virtual plants by placing their hands in designated areas and manipulating pressure or movement to influence factors like sunlight or water. The applications could even reach the field of physical therapy, with the virtual world responding to specific hand motions or muscle control, providing a visually engaging way to track progress.

Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen

Integrating this reading’s notion into the Fields of Grass projects, the users will be free to interact with the grass, but the output will be in the prescribed yet non-deterministic way. If we assume each user’s interaction to be a performance, we can also assume collaborative performances between 2 users generating new form of performance between multiple users and the project. Their combined hand movements and pressure could trigger entirely new visual and audio responses, fostering a collaborative performance unlike anything seen before. The project becomes a bridge, translating individual actions into a shared, ever-evolving experience. This opens doors for fascinating possibilities. Friends could create synchronized “dances” with the field, therapists could use it for collaborative movement exercises, or even strangers could stumble upon unexpected moments of artistic synergy.

Concept – PCGuard

Nowadays people spend a lot of time on their computers. I wanted to create a switch that rewarded users for closing their laptops. The name of my project clearly reflects its use. PC = computer and Guard = police/close it

Process 

I used: a green LED, 330 resistor, wires, blue-tack, and my computer.

Project

Reflection

I am excited to have created this switch. In the beginning, I was a bit stuck as I did not know where to attach my switch to. Now I have gone through all the class slides and done all the exercises and I am feeling more comfortable as I understand a bit better how this system works. 😉

Improvements

I would like when the computer closed the light turned on and a sound (victory music) turned on. It would add interaction and an increased feel of reward.

Concept

The concept of this assignment is traffic light. In the circuit, I used red, yellow, and green LEDs to mimic the traffic light. The red and yellow LED turns on when the button is pressed and off when the button is not pressed. The green light changes its dimness according to the potentiometer. Many drivers often wish the green light to be on for a long time so that they can drive continuously through the traffic lights. So I used the potentiometer to let the green LED stay on with full dimness when all of 5V is supplied.

Code & Sketch

When creating the circuit, I focused on building the digital circuit first and then the analog circuit. In this way, I did not confuse myself and was able to make sure each component worked.

I referenced the design of the circuit for the potentiometer that I learned in class (the sketch is displayed below). Along with the design of the circuit for the potentiometer or the analog sensor, I used a very simple design for the button or the digital sensor. For both designs, I used a 330 ohm resistor because using a 10K ohm resistor was unnecessary.

Below is the code for the entire circuit. I only coded for the potentiometer because Arduino code was not needed to activate the button. The code for running the potentiometer is very simple. I initially defined a variable ‘led’ and used sensorValue to determine the brightness of the LED. I used PWM pin 11 to activate the brightness effect and delay to make the dimness effect visible.

int led = 11;

void setup() {

  Serial.begin(9600);

  //pin 11 output
  pinMode(led, OUTPUT);

}

void loop() {

  int sensorValue = analogRead(A2);
  Serial.println(sensorValue);

  // set the brightness of pin 11 according to the sensorValue and divided by 4
  analogWrite(led, sensorValue/4);

  // delay effect for 30 milliseconds to see the change in dimness
  delay(30);

}

Reflection

Creating the circuit was not difficult because most of it was materials covered in class. However, if I had to mention one slightly challenging thing, I would say it is working with tiny materials. My hand was comparatively larger than all the elements and trying to place them on the breadboard, I had to be careful to not misplace or interrupt the other elements already positioned on the breadboard.

To add on, when I first thought of this assignment, I wanted to have separate buttons for the red and yellow LEDs. However, due to the limited space on the breadboard, I was not able to do so. Therefore, for improvement, I would like to readjust the position of the elements on the breadboard so that I can fit one more button for the LED and be able to control the red and yellow LED separately.

Outcome

How the circuit works

 

 

I liked how Tigoe described interactive art as conversation. Before I took this class, I wasn’t familiar with artworks that require the audience to interact with. Therefore, when it comes to art, I thought of paintings that simply express a thought/idea; in other words, artworks that state what the artist thinks. However, now that I have taken this class, I learned that art isn’t just about expressing the artist’s thoughts. It could be a conversation that the audience shares with the art itself. For that reason, for some artworks, the audience may not understand what the artwork is trying to deliver at first glance. Through interaction and conversation, the audience will gain an understanding of the artwork’s meaning.

Tigoe spoke to artists and asked them to shut up once they had set the initial statement so that the audience could interact through their senses. A good thing about interactive art, I believe, is that it is open to interpretation and gives the audience the freedom to expand on the meaning of the artwork. In this way, the artwork could reach a wider range of audience and be more entertaining.

An example of interactive art that caught my attention was “Tilty Stands and Tables”. This artwork required the audience to physically tilt the flat surfaces and experience the artwork’s response to the changes. Other than this, many other interactive artworks appealed to our senses. By calling the audience to physically interact with the artwork, the audience can freely interpret the meaning behind the work and add to their experiences. Now, with an understanding of what interactive art is, I am looking forward to sharing conversations with artworks and coming up with my interpretations.