Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)
This was an interesting read, especially looking through all of the different projects. What stood out to me was the author’s point that many physical computing projects repeat the same themes every year. At first, this surprised me because I usually think that in creative fields, you are supposed to come up with something new and original. But reading this made me realize that originality does not always mean starting from scratch. It could be taking a familiar idea and just approaching it in a different way, which can still lead to something unique. I think this perspective makes me feel a bit better about the physical computing projects, because I was always afraid that my idea would have already been created or would be too similar to someone else’s concept. I also thought that these projects were too complex, but they actually come from simple concepts, some of which we even covered in class.
I also really liked the discussion about thescooby doo painting and the video mirror, where it was visually impressive but sometimes limited because people mostly just stand there and wave their hands. I thought this was interesting because it points out that something can look cool, but still does not create a very deep, meaningful interaction. Overall, I think this reading helped me think more about the relationship between creativity and physical interactions. It made me realize that the most interesting projects come from designing meaningful ways for people to interact with it. I think this reading also helped me get some inspiration from others for this week’s assignment.
Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen
This reading definitely made me think differently about what interactive art actually is. I loved how the author argued that artists should not interpret their own interactive work, it something I never thought about. I always assumed that explaining your concept was needed so the audience would understand what you mean, but it is the opposite. The artwork should allow people to form their own interpretations through their experience with the work. I found this idea interesting because it shifts the focus away from the artist and instead lets the audience become part of the creative process.
I also liked the way the author described interactive art as a conversation between the artwork and the participant. It reminds me of the constant point in my understanding IM class, where the artwork is not the finished piece, but it is only complete through the audience’s interaction. The end result of the artwork could be different for some people, even all of the small design choices, like whether something looks touchable or has indicators, can guide how people interact with the piece, and can influence the end result. So sometimes we should limit the guidance, if the goal is to make the experience full and meaningful for each person.