Month: April 2026

I definitely agree with this, and I think it applies to art as a whole to some extent as well. I believe that artist interpretation matters less than the viewer’s, because one of the greatest things about art is the creativity and inspiration it can spark in people. Some of my favorite movies (listed below) are ones that are so confusing and surreal to the point where I have to construct my own narrative afterwards to put the pieces together. Like waking up and trying to recall a dream.

• Possession (1891) (Also indirectly introduced me to Sonic Youth, my favorite band of all time, via a youtube edit)
• Stay (2005)
• I Saw the TV Glow (2024)
• Climax (2018) (this one has a more defined plot, but it’s such a dizzying movie I had to include it)
• Enter the Void (2009) (VERY mixed feelings abt this one..)

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.

int brightness = 0;
int buttonState = 0;


void setup()
{
  
  pinMode(13, OUTPUT);
  pinMode(11, OUTPUT);
  pinMode(2, INPUT_PULLUP);
}

void loop()
{
  
  buttonState = digitalRead(2);
  if (buttonState == LOW) {
  digitalWrite(13, LOW);
} else {
  digitalWrite(13, HIGH);
}
 
int sensorValue = analogRead(A1);
brightness = map(sensorValue, 0, 1023, 0, 255);
analogWrite(11, brightness);

  delay(10); 
}

I don’t have my arduino yet, so i had to do this on tinkeCcad.

One led is triggered by a button, which acts as a digital sensor, and the other is controlled by a photoresistor, and increases in brightness the more light in the environment is detected. Not really creative, but I’m crunched on time.

UPDATE

That was TERRIBLE, I didn’t know what I was doing. Anyways, I finally got my Arduino kit, so I made a quick alternative version:

I completely forgot there had to be two sensors, but I hope that the previous iteration can make up for that. Please have mercy.

Here’s a video of the circuit in action, and below is the schematic.

Here’s the GitHub link.

int brightness = 0;
int buttonState = 0;


void setup()
{
  pinMode(12, OUTPUT);
  pinMode(11, OUTPUT);
  pinMode(2, INPUT);
}

void loop()
{
  // timing yellow lED
  for (brightness = 0; brightness <= 255; brightness += 5) {
    analogWrite(11, brightness);
    delay(30);
  }

  // triggering red LED if button is pressed
   buttonState = digitalRead(2);
  if (buttonState == HIGH) {
    digitalWrite(12, HIGH);
  } else {
    digitalWrite(12, LOW);
  }
  delay(10);
}

One idea that stood out to me in Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits and misses is the author’s challenge to the assumption that how commonly used project ideas lack originality. Before reading, I often felt that repeating familiar interaction concepts such as sensors, mirrors, or gesture-based inputs was somehow “less creative.” However, the text argues the opposite that recurring themes actually provide a foundation for innovation, since variation and context are what make a project meaningful. This really shifted my perspective on creativity. Instead of just focusing on being completely original, I now see value in how a project frames interaction and meaning. For instance, the discussion of theremin-like instruments highlights how simple gestures (like waving a hand) can feel empty unless they are placed within a meaningful context. This made me reflect on my own projects, where I sometimes prioritize technical implementation over the meaning of interaction. The reading makes me think, am I designing interactions that actually “mean” something to the user, or just demonstrating functionality?

Another idea that I found particularly interesting is the critique of “low-structure interaction,” especially in examples like video mirrors or body-as-cursor systems. The author points out that while these projects are visually appealing, they often lack depth because they only mirror user input without really encouraging intentional or meaningful engagement. This made me rethink what really makes an interactive system successful. I used to assume that responsiveness alone such as tracking movement or generating visuals was enough. But now I realize that interaction design also requires structure, constraints, or a clear “language” of interaction, This connects to the guideline of reflecting critically rather than just describing, because it really challenges my assumption that having more technology = better interaction. But instead, the reading suggests that simplicity with intentional design can be more powerful. It leaves me with an important question: how can I design interactions that guide users toward meaningful experiences, rather than just reacting to their presence?

One idea that strongly challenged my assumptions in Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen is the argument that artists shouldn’t interpret their own work for the audience. The statement “don’t interpret your own work” (page 1) directly confronts how I usually approach creative projects, where I often need to explain my intentions to make sure people get it. This reading made me realize that over-explaining actually limits the audience’s freedom to engage with the work. If I pre-script how users should think or act, I am essentially controlling their experience rather than designing for interaction. This connects to my own experience in IMA projects, where I sometimes prioritize clarity over openness. The reading pushes me to rethink this balance instead of ensuring understanding through explanation, I should design interactions that naturally guide interpretation. But this leaves me with how much ambiguity is productive before the interaction becomes confusing rather than meaningful?

Another idea that stood out to me is the concept of interactive art as a “conversation” rather than a finished statement in pages 1-2. The author emphasizes that once the work is built, the creator should “shut up” and listen to how users respond through their actions, interpretations, and even misunderstandings  . I found this particularly interesting because it reframes user interaction as something dynamic and evolving rather than something to be controlled. The comparison to directing actors in pages 2-3 helped me understand this more deeply just like actors must find their own emotional meaning whereas users must discover their own way of engaging with the work. This idea challenges my tendency to design interactions that are a bit too rigid.

Physical Computing’s Greatest hits and misses

This was definitely an interesting read. I was surprised at how many of the experiences we have, such as the dancing game at the arcade, incorporate the concepts we learned in class. This definitely made me think of just how simple some of these experiences really are built when I actually once thought they were extremely complex to build. Especially since we touched over some of the concepts in class such as the hand cursor. It helped me gain some inspiration of what I may want to include in this week’s assignment. I was confused by the title of the text after I finished reading it, because of all the examples mentioned in the text, I didn’t find an example or theme mentioned that would be considered a “miss.”

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

This reading made me reflect back on the text we read in the first half of the semester about giving users indicators of how to use certain systems. I remember when I read that specific reading, I fully agreed with the author that indicators should definitely be included in designs, but after reading this text, my opinion has changed.

I think the idea of just giving hints to the users of what to do, instead of fully spoon-feeding it to them, makes an experience much more entertaining and fulfilling.

I think what fully changed my opinion is when I thought of my previous experiences in an interactive space, which was TeamLab, in order to fully decide whether I would have enjoyed explicit indicators or not. I remember in one the zones, you had the opportunity to write your name on a lizard or drawing of your choice, and it would be scanned and projected on the ground. Naturally, I followed my lizard, and was completely surprised when my lizard was “killed” when I stepped on it. I definitely think my discovering of this on my own made it much more entertaining experience than it would have if someone had told me that this is possible. It made it feel more fun as I felt that I “discovered” or “achieved” something new.