Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)
One idea that really resonated with me is the reminder not to give up on a project just because it’s been done before. I’ve done it myself in the past when i would get excited about an idea for an IM project, only to do my research and see that someone else had already made something similar. That would make me feel like it wasn’t “original enough,” so I’d opt out to do something different.
The reading made me realize that two people can execute the exact same concept in totally different ways. The author mentions how even common topics in physical computing can still offer surprises through personal variation. I especially liked the example of using your body or hand as a cursor as no two drawings will ever be the same, and that kind of interactivity can’t be duplicated.
I also really agree with his implication that what’s important is not what the computer can do, but what the person can do. It is more about how people respond, interact, and express themselves through interacting with technology.
Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen
The main idea that the artist shouldn’t interpret their own work reminded me of how some painters intentionally choose not to add descriptions to their works – they leave it up to the viewer to decide on their own meaning. In terms of Interactive Media, this made me think about how the project has to be self-explanatory, as all elements should guide the user without any extra instructions.
Another idea that creators should listen to how people respond to their work is something I don’t think I’ve ever done intentionally. I’ve tested projects to see if they work, but I haven’t truly observed how people feel or what unexpected things they do with it. It also reminded me of another reading we had earlier about interaction being a conversation, not just a monologue from the author. I think I would like to try building projects that leave room for interpretation and do unexpected things.