Reflection on “Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and Misses)”
What really stood out to me in this reading was how the author said that even if an idea has been done before, you can still make it your own. I really liked that because it’s true that’s what innovation is about. You don’t have to come up with something completely out of nowhere; you can take inspiration from something that already exists and build on it in a new, creative way. I think that’s how creativity actually grows. You start with something familiar, but through your own thinking and style, it becomes something unique. This really reminded me of when I used to take AP Art. At first, I had no idea what I wanted to do for my project. Then I saw one of my sister’s artworks that explored the theme of identity, and it completely inspired me. I didn’t copy her work, but that idea sparked something in me. From that one starting point, I was able to create five very different artworks that still connected to the same concept but were completely my own. That’s why I loved how the author talked about using old ideas as a base because it’s not about repeating; it’s about reimagining.
I also liked what he said about human interaction versus machine automation. Physical computing isn’t just about building a machine that runs on its own; it’s about creating something that responds to people that comes to life when you interact with it. It makes technology feel more alive, more connected to us as humans. It’s the same reason interactive things have always felt more exciting to me. Even when I was a kid, I loved books that had textures you could feel or pop-up pages that moved when you turned them. They were so much more fun and engaging than flat, ordinary books. It’s the same in learning, too when a class is just lecture-based, it’s hard to stay focused. But when you get to dosomething, to interact with it, you remember it better. It becomes real. So, I think that’s what makes physical computing so special it brings art, design, and technology together in a way that feels alive. It reminds us that interaction, whether through touch, movement, or emotion, is what truly connects us to what we create.
Reflection On “Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen”
I really liked how this reading talks about giving people the space to experience and interpret art on their own. It makes the artwork feel alive because the audience becomes part of it they create their own meaning instead of just being told what to think. That’s what makes interactive art special; it’s an experience, not just something to look at. It also reminds me of modern art, where there isn’t always one fixed meaning. Everyone can see it differently, and that’s what keeps it interesting. When you explain everything, it becomes dull and predictable, but when you leave room for imagination, it feels more human and engaging.
I’ve been taking this in my first-year writing seminar, where we’ve been learning about how different people view art and meaning. Anish Kapoor, who is a really famous and worldwide-known artist, once said, “The work itself has a complete circle of meaning and counterpoint. And without your involvement as a viewer, there is no story.” I think that perfectly connects to what this reading talks about the idea that art isn’t something that should explain itself to you, but something you experience and find meaning in yourself. Kapoor’s artworks don’t have one fixed meaning; instead, they give space for the viewer to create it. That’s what makes his art so powerful and interactive. Homi Bhabha also says, “It is the in-between space that carries the burden of the meaning of culture,” which I think means that real meaning is found in that space between the artwork and the person experiencing it. So the beauty of Kapoor’s work and interactive art in general is that it doesn’t just lack meaning; it creates room for meaning.