This week’s reading has given me a lot to think about regarding the position of interactive artwork. In a way, I agree with Tigoe that interactive artworks are more like performances. The artist sets up a stage for the interactors, who essentially become the performers in this theater. This reminds me of another class I am taking on installation art, where most successful interactive pieces do not explicitly explain what the piece is about. Instead, they focus on evoking sensory reactions and exploring them in depth, aiming to elicit an emotional response from the performer or “viewers” that prompts further contemplation of the interaction and its significance. Even Andrew Schnieder’s piece, though it may seem like a fixed narrative from a distance, offers different interactions in each group setting, which I find more rewarding than a singular interpretation of paintings in a museum.
The reading on the greatest hits and misses adds another layer to this. Even a seemingly simple and commonly used interaction, such as an LED lighting up when approached, has the potential for further development. It is not an unoriginal idea if the context in which this system is set up provides a feeling that is more contextualized and open to interpretation, which I find appealing. I kinda wanna make a more contextualized theremin now if that’s possible.