Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and Misses)
This reading was very insightful and interesting! I really enjoyed learning about all the different kinds of physical computing and how it has developed. I love the reference to the Scooby-doo painting, I never thought it could be a type of physical computing.
There’s this idea of physical computing being used as a horror factor. In the idea of ‘interactive dolls’, to me, if they move on their own or make a sound of their own, it is slightly disturbing and unsettling to think about. Imagine seeing one move in a dark room and then it making a sound; I’d be very freaked out. But I guess my freaked out reaction is what makes ‘interactive dolls’ thrive in the market; the fact that they can incite such a strong reaction out of someone (though it’s not a positive reaction).
Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen
Tom Igoe highlights the importance of not interfering with the audience’s experience to an interactive piece. I think that this is a crucial note to consider for artists because the main idea behind an interactive art is to let the audience interact with the piece; it’s part of the art experience. Their confusion, excitement, all these reactions (or the lack thereof) is what makes a piece interactive.
In his words, artists are supposed to ‘listen’ to the audience. This reminds me of the three components to interactivity (according to Chris Crawford): listening, thinking and speaking. In the same way an interactive piece is supposed to listen to the audience’s actions, an artist should listen to the audience’s reaction to their piece; only then will the artist truly see the effect their piece has on the public.