Month: November 2024

Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)

This reading was insightful as it helped me to demystify some of my own misconceptions regarding making works that have already been done before. He tells us that it is okay to make something which has already been made before, as long as we apply our own ideas into it – add that unique touch. For example, he discusses a work made in the theme of music instruments. . The examples he shared with us, tells us that while recreating existing projects is a common starting point, it’s crucial for designers to innovate by incorporating their unique perspectives. Key elements for creating meaningful interactions include considering the context and purpose of the interaction, designing physical structures that complement intended use, and developing natural gestures that feel significant to users. Analyzing both successful and unsuccessful projects reveals important lessons: simplicity can be powerful, user experience is paramount, and innovation often arises through iteration. By understanding these principles, creators can develop more impactful physical computing projects, pushing the boundaries of interactive technology while learning from the successes and failures of their predecessors.

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

When I read this, I came to understand that an interactive project is a performance. When it comes to the works I make, especially the ones I have made for this class. I often find myself explaining a lot before the person gets to interact with it. But now I came to understand why that can be harmful for the user. Our work itself should be intuitive to the extent where we don’t have to explain anything — if a button is supposed to be pressed, make it approachable. Essentially, the essence of interactive art lies in its ability to engage users without extensive explanation. Just as a well-designed stage set can convey the mood and context of a play before a single word is spoken, an interactive piece should invite engagement through its visual cues, layout, and interface design By minimizing verbal instructions and allowing users to approach the work with fresh eyes, we empower them to become active participants rather than passive observers. This approach not only enhances the sense of discovery and exploration but also opens the door to unexpected and delightful interactions. The joy of interactive art often resides in the process of figuring out how to engage with it, much like solving a puzzle or exploring a new environment. As artists, our role shifts from being explainers to becoming facilitators of experiences. We set the stage, carefully crafting the environment to encourage exploration and interaction. Then, we step back, observe, and listen. This process of watching users interact with our work without intervention provides valuable insights for refining and improving the intuitive aspects of our designs.

Articles:

• Physical Computing’s Greatest hits and misses
• Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen

In Tigoe’s two articles, he explores the ways in which artists can find inspiration from the work of others, offering both insights and reassurance about the process of building on existing ideas. A particularly compelling aspect of these articles is how Tigoe illustrates the concept of ‘copying’ among artists—not as mere replication but as transformation. He shows that while artists may draw from each other’s work, they often create something entirely new and unique, reshaping the borrowed elements into original expressions. This idea aligns with the well-known notion that artists often remix various sources, juxtaposing them to create fresh, unique works. In interactive art, this approach can ease the burden of starting from scratch, which can be overwhelming and anxiety-inducing. Without inspiration from existing works, artists may struggle to bring their ideas to life fully—unless they are among the rare few who don’t rely on external inspiration at all.

Tigoe discusses various interactive pieces that appear to share certain traits but yield vastly different experiences for the audience, such as ‘Video Mirrors’ and ‘Body and Hand Cursors’. One of my favorite examples is the gloves that produce music when tapped on a surface. This design is not only interactive but fun and highly engaging, embodying the playful spirit of interactive art.

One critical reflection I have is about Tigoe’s reference to the “Scooby Doo painting” example, where he highlights a common mistake among designers: confusing presence with attention. He states, “Presence is easy to sense… but it’s harder to tell whether someone’s paying attention.” I think that in cases where artwork detects a person’s presence and responds by moving, it naturally draws the viewer’s attention, fostering interaction. For instance, in a crowded space, artwork that moves autonomously could spark collective interest, showing how even unintended effects can enhance user experience.

This concept connects with Tigoe’s advice in the second article about avoiding interference with a finished product while users engage with it. I wholeheartedly agree with this perspective, and I believe it’s an essential practice to adopt in designing interactive experiences. Even if I don’t incorporate this approach all the time, it’s a valuable insight I’ll certainly keep in mind.

Physical Computing’s Greatest hits and misses

Here the article describes the various projects seen from interactive media design ranging from instruments design with gloves or pads to reactive art with various sensors or computer vision. Although the author describes these project as common themes amongst physical computing courses, they do not disregard or look down upon the repetitive theme because to them each project brings with a unique idea and innovated process. For me, reading his opinion on this issue brings me comfort because I have been trying to brainstorm ideas for the final project for IM and with each idea, I fear it isn’t original or creative enough. Of course, I would not copy another’s work, however I feel the art I have seen and interacted with has shaped my ideas and influenced my creative thinking process. I believe everyone is shaped by the world around them, so I think it is cool to see how people can reimagine a concept and build upon past works.

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

The following articles writes about how interactive artist should design their works a degree of intention that allows the users to explore their art, but also leaving room for the user to decide on the art’s interpretation. The author mentions how interactive artist should avoid bluntly telling the user what to do and how to interpret their art. Although I do see the point the author is trying to make, I think there are exceptions where the artist should have the freedom to express themselves the way they want the user to appreciate and experience their art. For example, in activist artworks, oftentimes they shed light to forgotten/ overlooked history, and I believe in these cases, it is critical for the user to understand the concept behind the art to fully be immersed with the artwork. I don’t think the idea of simply setting up the stage and observing user is enough and there needs to be balance of artist intervenes and user appreciation. As such, I feel it okay if an artist feels the need to describe their works. I rather much learn the passion behind the work, than be completely open to interpretation.