In this post, you will find each individual reading reflection assigned for week 10. These reflections will be mostly based on my experiences, so actual discussion on the contents of the writing will be somewhat limited since I feel that it would be redundant to summarize what is there.
Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen
Generally, I associate the term Interactive Art with video games. According to the article, we are not supposed to readily give interpretation of our own works due to possibly adding bias and making boring the interactive experience for others. For example, in mysterious abstract video games, I have seen authors avoid giving full explanations to seemingly inconclusive questions in order to keep conversations, theories, and engagement alive. In a confusing title such as OFF (Mortis Ghost, 2008) the world that it presented is full of mysterious elements. At first sight is difficult to give an explanation to, nevertheless it invites the player to give its own reasoning to this interactive art.
As for other interactive art mediums, I often found myself walking on the corridors of the Arts Center building to see some interesting digital arts, such as a screen that portrays me in symbols. There are many other examples, but what they have in common is that they apply the concept of “show, don’t tell” that I really love about video games, since it leaves the spectator/player alone with the interactive art. In other words, it is a personalized experience: I will find an interactive digitalized portrait of myself super thought-provoking, while a friend could just find it funny. Different experiences, but there is not a fixated idea due to not having the author directly explain it to us as to why the existence of the created interactive art.
Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)
During my time as a child, I have seen a correlation between success and devices that challenge pre-established formulas. For example, in today’s world (today as at the time I am writing this) computer mouses are generally used due to facilitating the computer experience, it facilitated it so much that the entire computer GUI landscape adapted to it. It acts as a “third hand” that gets materialized into the digital world, where if you want to “grab a file”, you just have to hold the mouse with one of your fingers in order to simulate the action of grabbing. It was a great hit, but what about other technologies that try to revolutionize or seek general fun?
I would like to imagine a James Bond like hand watch as a replacement for the watches we have now, such as the Apple Watch. One finds (small) pleasure in using the watch to quickly watch the time and timely arrange the next activities to do, as well as it also looks and feels nice to have due to the possible elegance it possesses. But what about making it a very curious device, such as the one that James Bond has? Imagine this: you have a clock that looks impressive, thus it is pleasurable to wear, but also has a laser, camera, and magnetism included on it. Yes, one can easily argue that this idea is already done to death in many series and movies as an inspiration, but still, one can find other workarounds to this theoretical watch; a remix act. So, instead of creating an actual James Bond like that shoots lasers, what about throwing confetti in miniature? One could find pleasure in annoying friends and family with the functionality.
In conclusion, I found this article curious as I noticed some patterns in successful products, such as the indirectly mentioned Dance Dance Revolution Dance Pads in the writing. The world of physically interactive art has its market, because it is pleasurable and fun to experiment with items one might never be seen before.